Loading...
CCPC Agenda 01/07/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 7, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,THURSDAY,JANUARY 7,2016,IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—December 3,2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: This item has been continued from the December 3, 2015 CCPC and aj'ain from the December 17, 2015 CCPC meeting and further continued to the January 21, 2016 CCPC meeting: A. DOA-PL20140002309: A Resolution amending Resolution Number 95-71 (Development Order no. 95-01), as amended, for the Pelican Marsh Development of Regional Impact("DRI") located in Sections 25, 27, 34, 35 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East and Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida by providing for: Section One, Amendments to Development Order by adding 32 acres to the DRI;by revising Exhibit"D"and Map"H3"contained in the DRI Development Order to add 32 acres to the DRI and an access point on Livingston Road; and by reducing the reserve by 2 acres;Section Two,Findings of Fact;Section Three,Conclusions of Law; and Section Four,Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders, Transmittal to Department 1 of Economic Opportunity and Effective Date. [Companion item to Pelican Marsh PUDR- PL20140002211] [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the December 3,2015 CCPC meeting and again from the December 17, 2015 CCPC meeting and further continued to the January 21, 2016 CCPC meeting: B. PUDR-PL20140002211: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2002-71, the Pelican Marsh Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 32+ acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural(A)to the Pelican Marsh PUD;by amending the Planned Unit Development document and the Master Plan to add R1 district parcels for 75 single family dwelling units;by correcting a scrivener's error in the PUD Master Development Plan to Ordinance No.2002- 71 which omitted 141.6 acres east of Livingston Road;by adding an access point to Livingston Road; by providing development standards for the R1 district; by reducing the reserve by 2 acres; and by providing an effective date. The property to be added to the PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida consisting of 2,245+acres for the entire Pelican Marsh PUD. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner] C. PUDZ-PL20150000660: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No.2004-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district to allow up to 100,000 square feet of commercial uses for a project to be known as Westclox 29 CPUD on property located at the southwest quadrant of SR-29 and Westclox Street in Section 29,Township 46 South,Range 29 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 9.5±acres;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner] D. PUDZ-PL20150000204: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Abaco Club RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 104 residential dwelling units on property located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida, consisting of 15.9 +/-acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Daniel J. Smith,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 December 3, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,December 3,2015 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: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Waafa Assaad Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis Absent: Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 29 December 3, 2015 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday December 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Ms.Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr.Eastman did contact me by email indicating he wouldn't be here today,so that's an excused absence. We'll move into addenda to the agenda. And we do have some interesting changes to the agenda today. We have two consent items. The first one is 8A,and it's East Gateway,and that's been continued multiple times,and it is actually going to be heard today. The second consent item is 8B,and it's the Briarwood PUD for the man-caves. And is a representative from that project here today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. There was a request last night to continue it to the 17th;however,the request was a conditional request,and this isn't a negotiated situation. They either want it continued or they don't want it continued. With their lack of attendance here,I can only assume that they want it continued,but there will be no conditions. That's not how we continue things. It's either it works or it doesn't work. So from that perspective,I would need a motion to continue the Briarwood PUD,Item 8B, PUDA-PL20150000178. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 2 of 29 December 3, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. The next item for a request to continue is both 9B and 9C. 9B is the Pelican Marsh DRI portion of that project,and 9C is the Pelican Marsh PUDA portion of that request. The applicant has wanted some more time to take a look at some other additional issues that I believe have come up,and typically we have no problem with that. I think it will probably come back with some better information than not,so anybody-- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have a conflict,so I'm not going to vote either way even on that,I don't think. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to continue both items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen, seconded by Waafa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Let the record show there's six in favor,no opposed,and one abstention. And that--now, if anybody is here for either the Briarwood or the Pelican Marsh projects today,they have both been continued until the next meeting of the Planning Commission,which is December 17th. If anybody's here to talk on those and they will not be able to attend the 17th meeting,we have an opportunity later this afternoon for public comment,and we certainly would entertain your comments at that time. So,thank you. And with that we'll move into Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is December 17th, and does anybody know if they cannot be here on that date? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it looks like we'll have a quorum. On that date we've got the two items we just continued. And,Ray,is there going to be anything else on that day that you can think of? MR. BELLOWS: On the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 17th. MR.BELLOWS: -- 17th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have--I mean,I know we've got the architectural standards,and they'll take all day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They'll take all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm waiting for Andy to react. But we have the LDC architectural standards. They'll be last in line on that meeting,and the first two cases-- MR.BELLOWS: These will be the only two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Briarwood would be first up on the 17th,followed by Pelican Marsh.Briarwood consent hearing shouldn't take more than the first 30 minutes to an hour,and then we'll move right into Pelican Marsh on the 17th,and after that we'll follow through with the architectural standards changes that are being put forth. Page 3 of 29 December 3, 2015 Okay. The approval of minutes. The November 5th minutes were distributed electronically. If anybody has any changes recommended--if not, is there a recommendation-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made Charlette,seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. And,Ray,do we have any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: There was no Board of County Commissioner meeting since our last Planning Commission meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have nothing new to report under chairman's report. ***We will go right in,then,to the first consent item. The first item is consent 8A. It's for the PUDA-PL20140000548. It's the East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. Now,this is a consent,so it doesn't have testimony other than any questions we may ask of the applicant. On that basis,the applicant may want--we may want to swear in the applicant should they need to be addressing us in any manner. So those members of the applicant's team who might be speaking today,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,the Planning Commission received a recent packet,and in the packet there were two documents, one following the other. The first one was an attempt by staff--and I appreciate the effort that Fred Reischl went to to show what would need to be done to try to meet the Planning Commission's intentions if it were to go forward that way. The applicant also submitted their changes.That second document is the one we'll work off of today. It's the applicant's re-submittal and response to our last hearing. And you'll notice that in that submittal not everything we had asked was included or changed as we had asked to be changed. So with that,I think we need to walk through it and see where the Planning Commission may have problems with it in regards to how it's voted on. And one housekeeping matter before we start.Andy,I think this is one of the projects you refrained from voting on. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll still--you won't be participating. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I won't participate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there were only four members of this commission at the time this was heard: Myself,Ms.Ebert,Charlette,and were you here,Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the four of us will be the only ones that would really be able to render any kind of discussion on this particular consent item. Everybody else would not be involved at this point. And,Heidi,is that consistent? Is there any issue there? Page 4 of 29 December 3, 2015 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Mr. Chair,I have a question before we begin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: This is the second time this packet has come before the commission on consent,meaning the first time it came it wasn't quite prepared for us,or there were some questions that we still had based upon what our hearing proposed in terms of our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and what the actual document said. This is the second time we're getting a consent packet,so I have a question regarding how consent is handled,because this one seems a little different than those that we've done in the past.And maybe that's just my anecdotal evidence,but my thought is, is when the commission makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners,our consent packet goes forward with our recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --there's a couple ways that--first of all,you're right. This is unique. We have not had an applicant refuse to modify their document to the request from the Planning Commission. And they're willing to take the risk of a denial on consent,which would be an overall denial,then,going forward to the Board of County Commissioners. And that's the second document that's in the packet you just recently received from the staff. Normally on consent it's not a matter of revoting on the issues. It's simply an acknowledgment that the document in front of us reflects the changes we requested. And all these years we've been doing consent, this is the first time that hasn't happened, so we are going into a bit new territory. I have found a few errors in the document,two major errors that,to me,are substantial stumbling blocks,and some smaller cleanup issues that might be warranted. And I intended today to have us review that second document that the applicant produced and either acknowledge it meets the intent of this Planning Commission and,where it doesn't, suggest changes--and if they refuse the changes,then we could vote to deny,and that's the recommendation that I believe will go to the Board of County Commissioners as denial,unless the County Attorney's Office tells me anything differently. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Because--see,that's the confusion that I had because if our recommendations were not going to be forward in a consent document,then I know in my case my vote would have been no to the overall petition at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine,too. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I thought that's what we had as our discussion,and then the consent document has come back different from what the hearing produced in terms of our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And so is this really a consent hearing,or is this pulling it off of consent and having a re-discussion of it as a petition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't--this is not a rehearing. We've already heard--we closed that public hearing. This would have to be a consent hearing only to acknowledge whether or not--at least that's my opinion,and I'm going to turn to the County Attorney's Office to either acknowledge the change or a different position that I may have on it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. The resolution that you adopted on the procedures for the consent agenda limits your review to confirm that the changes and conditions that you requested were made. There's no public hearing for consent agenda. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So in this case the recommendations that we made were not incorporated into the consent document that we want to recommend goes forward to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So our position,if we all feel that it is not consistent with what we requested,we just recommend denial on consent,and that would end it. Page 5 of 29 December 3, 2015 MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So,procedurally-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah,procedurally. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: -- if the applicant chooses not to accept your conditions,when it goes to the Board,the staff report will be clear;the executive summary will state that you made your motion for approval on the conditions to remove those two deviations and to have the preserve area depicted on the master plan. And so I think the way this is going to play out, if they don't make those changes, is that the vote on the consent agenda will be a denial,and that will reflect that it's a denial because they didn't make the changes that you asked for. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I think where I was confused,Mr.Chair,was the fact that during our hearing when we discussed,you know,those changes, it didn't seem at that time that the petitioner had any objections to making those changes on the packet that would come before us on consent,and that's why I'm a little confused,because I voted yes because I thought we had reached common ground,and maybe my vote should have been no if I knew it would have come to this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but,Charlene, if they had provided the information and been consistent with our stipulations,your vote was yes. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I thought that's what we reached at the end of that hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we did,so that vote is still valid in the sense that if they had done that, it would have been a positive vote. The fact that they didn't do it is the problem,and that's what we're crossing--that bridge is what we're going to cross today. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that changed after the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. And-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Mr.Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So if it's a consent-agenda-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull a little closer to your mike. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: If we have a consent-agenda item,we're not allowing input from the public? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's not a rehearing,that's right. It's strictly to see if the instructions that we worked out in our stipulations had been properly articulated in this document. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I understand that,but we're not taking input or any-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Questions and clarifications from the applicant,yes,because as you'll see when we go through this--and I know you weren't here for this one. I did go through it. There are some corrections needed,and I want to verify the applicant's intent in crossing those out today,and after that we'll vote on whether or not this meets our intentions or not. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Heidi,I have a question for you. And I just really want to know--because,yes, I did call. I called you. I called all staff on this because,again,this is unprecedented, and why should we even be looking at what they sent us? That's something new again or trying to reintroduce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not new,and that's what--when we go through this,they made most--almost all the changes,except for a couple. I walked through the stipulations. I compared them to what they wrote. Some of the writing could be a little cleaned up. And our purpose is to send the Board of County Commissioners the best possible package we possibly can. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By just ignoring it and saying,well,you didn't meet it,we're going to say no,gives them nothing to work with. At least we ought to acknowledge that the ones that were changed were changed effectively,and there's remaining items that were not changed and did not follow our lead,and that is why we're voting, if we vote,denial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: May I ask you a question? Page 6 of 29 December 3, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You'll wait till we finish first,and then you'll have a turn. I know you want to talk. MR.YOVANOVICH: Just a question;that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me ask,make sure the Planning Commission has asked all theirs. Any other members of the Planning Commission? Okay. Rich,what did you-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I just had a--Mr. Strain,if I remember correctly--and the reason it got continued is I was out of town and there was going to be a dispute over--or a question over which version the Planning Commission could consider. And,basically,our position is,as the owner of the property,we make a petition to the government and we say,this is what we would like you to approve on the property. What happened was, is you-all made suggested changes to the petition that we requested. We objected on the record to those changes. You-all voted to recommend those changes anyway;however,only the applicant's petition could move forward because the applicant--the government can't impose on the applicant zoning on its property. My understanding is the thing that we're only--had a real disagreement on was the size of the preserve and the location of the preserve on the property. We had asked basically to go off site with--depending on how you want to calculate it--all or a portion of the on-site preserve. I think Mr. Strain's recommendation that you-all voted on was to give us credit for what we were replacing with wetland vegetation and then,perhaps,have us go off site for all or close to all of the remaining difference,which was roughly a little over five acres. Do I have it about right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,you don't. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I don't remember that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see. On-site preserves,no to Deviation No.4 but supporting counting the South Florida Water Management District area as part of the on-site preservation requirement. MR.YOVANOVICH: Which was roughly 2.6 acres that we were recreating. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And we allowed you to include that in the-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: --total count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In everything else that was supposed to be there. So what you got out of that was you could--instead of having the 2.5 for South Florida and 7.72 more,you could include the 2.5 as part of the 7.7. MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the crux of where we were. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: And that is--that is what we said we could not agree to have to go get five plus-or-minus acres off site. That's--do I have it right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's--I mean,that's what you're saying by the way you rewrote--the way you gave us the consent. MR.YOVANOVICH: And what I understood it to be is the commission directed staff to now somehow come up with a master plan that would,in fact,total roughly 7.7 acres of on-site, inclusive of the 2.6 acres off-site. I didn't see that in the package. Maybe it's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Staff produced a draft of a plan to try to show the concept that the Planning Commission wanted in case we want to utilize that as something to present to the Board,but then we've still got a problem that staff doesn't agree with you or us. So now the Board would get three different ideas and it would only make it more confusing. So the simplest solution is strictly to address this case on the basis of your consent submittal,recommend either acceptance or denial,and then send it forward to the Board,and they'll have to deal with how to handle it if they want to,or whatever comes out of that meeting is the way the Board will want it to be done. MR.YOVANOVICH: And that's where we thought we were. We wanted to make sure that,you know,our position was,we couldn't agree to a full 7.7 acres on site,and that's why you have in front of Page 7 of 29 December 3, 2015 you--basically we agreed to--I think we agreed to basically everything but that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR.YOVANOVICH: --and the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also the sidewalk issue. MR.YOVANOVICH: And the two sidewalks. Those were the two that we-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: --said no,we couldn't agree to and--but other than that,we agreed basically to everything else,and that's what our document was intended to show,that we agreed to everything but the sidewalk deviation and the native vegetation deviation. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that was my point that I made,Mr. Chairman,was the fact that if we left off at that point at the hearing,my vote would have been no. It was the understanding that our document that was going forward was the one with our recommendations in it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that was all of ours. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,your thought process is no different than the rest of us,but we don't know that-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --until it got to this point and we saw this document didn't reflect our changes. Now we simply have to vote the way we feel we should have voted based on the lack of those changes being made. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something in this process here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And it's--we rarely run into an instance where there's not a compromise or a stipulation to work out. I mean,that's the balance that we constantly seek. And there's a lot of times where we could go no denials,but if you have--if you have a denial,then the Board's got a harder process to deliberate. So stipulating it,finding a compromise,has always been a better way to send things to the Board. In this particular case,nothing of substance to a point that we could consider it was put on the table at our meeting,and now we're stuck with this document today. Had they provided some more flexibility at the meeting--I would have liked to have found a compromise at that meeting,but there wasn't any opportunity there to do it. So it will be one of the rare instances in which we can't find a compromise. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I'd like to do for the Planning--did you have anything you wanted to add, Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,I don't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I want to do is just walk through the document. I've found some--I just want to articulate where the conflicts are so that when we do vote, if we want to utilize those references as a reason for denial,we certainly can then. In the applicant's version of the submittal, Section 2.11,it says,native vegetation retention requirements,and there's where one of the changes should have occurred. It's still requesting the deviation and the 100 percent removal off site. So from that perspective, Section 2.11 does not work.That's on Page 13 of the applicant's--actually,Roman Numeral 2-15 is 2.11;yeah,2.11. I'm going to move through this document. If anybody sees things as we move through the pages besides what I'm bringing up, or if you want to bring it up,you're more than welcome to. On the following page,under 2.13,the deviations,included in those deviations are still Nos.3 and 4, both of which we recommended to be removed. So it's inconsistent for 2.13,3 and 4. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Was that 4 or the new 5,Mr. Chair,on that one? Three address-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'm using--let me see. I'm using their-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And that's 2-6,right? Page 8 of 29 December 3, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 2-6,but their version of the deviations,2.13,which is the second document you have,the numbers-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: The one that's highlighted in yellow or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,not the one that's highlighted in yellow. That's the staff version.Well, that's the staff version that Fred tried to show what we were looking for. So that's the right one you're on. Are you there? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'm with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 2.13,3 and 4 are inconsistent with our recommendation. And then if you go to the next page under 3.4,maximum intensity,in talking with the County Attorney's Office,Heidi had suggested a better way of rewording the last part of the highlighted yellow,and that may be something that should be changed. It simply--instead of saying"with a maximum of 250 dwelling units permitted within the PUD," simply to say"no more than 250 dwelling units shall be permitted in the entire PUD." Just a little bit of clarification. Is there any objection to that one from the applicant? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item,we have the changes made on Page 3-4,and that is Section 3.3.B. They're highlighted in yellow. I found those to be consistent. On 3-5,the highlights on that page appeared to be consistent. When we move down to the table on 3-7,I didn't see any issues there. On 3 --on 4-1, Section 4.4, the suggestion there would be that,in front of the acronym PUD,to put the word"entire" so it's,again,clear that this 250 is for the entire PUD,not just the section under which it's written. Is there any objection from the applicant on that? MR.YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4-3,there's a change that was made that is consistent. Page 4-4, same way,a small change,consistent. The table on 4-5 has got a change. That was consistent. Then we have a change that is our new standard language that the County Attorney's Office has asked us to insert on 5-4. Those are all consistent. And we get to the master plan,and that is not consistent. There are a couple of things on there that are not consistent. One is the reference to the preserves being off site,and the other point is the 25-foot-wide landscape buffer per the LDC. I just want to make sure,Ray,when staff reviews this for that landscape buffer, if you go to the LDC it says a wall will be provided. Is it enough to have that there,or should it be added--that reference be added to the LD--to the PUD? MR. BELLOWS: The LDC has that requirement,but I think,to ensure that it's clear,I wouldn't mind seeing it in the PUD either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we--to be consistent with the way we've done some of these things before,where it says 25-foot-wide landscape buffer per LDC section--just list the section,because this is under an interchange activity center No. 9 section. You don't find it anywhere else in the code,and a lot of our review staff may look at your standards and not go to that odd section of the code to find this specialty. MR.BELLOWS: That would be a better way of referencing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is there any problem with that from the applicant? MR.YOVANOVICH: As long as it has the"as may be amended"tag on,because things move around in your LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. Okay. So those couple of clarifications need to be made. I also--we get to the Exhibit B,which is Deviation 2 and 3,private road cross-section. The sidewalk is not shown on the--I think it's the page Sheet 1 of 1. So that cross-section would be inconsistent with our recommendations. Okay. So with that-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I just need to make a note for the record, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: There are about three or four pages of strikethroughs that are omitted in this Page 9 of 29 December 3, 2015 version. They were included in the version of the one that you had in your packet during the public hearing. So ask applicant to amend their document to reflect those strikethroughs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'll need to include those strikethrough pages. Pardon me? MR.YOVANOVICH: We've provided to the county the complete document. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,you haven't. MR.YOVANOVICH: We haven't? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. There are about three or four pages of strikethroughs. I mean, if you want to leave them in,that's fine with me. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't--you know,I just printed out or brought with me whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the packet was that was sent out. The packet comes from the applicant,so-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. So if we can coordinate with Sharon as to what may be missing,I'll be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I don't think it's anything you need to object to. So I just think it's a matter of,yeah, getting it as complete as Heidi's looking for. MR.YOVANOVICH: I didn't know if it was just a copying error on whose side. I don't know. I don't know what's missing. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,yours says 1 of so many pages, so obviously the pages aren't omitted from what you have in the package,but it got dropped off from your prior version. MR.YOVANOVICH: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with the few changes that we've discussed right now that you've agreed to and the addition that Heidi's talking about--Fred,did you make adequate notes so you know the pieces that need to be reworded? MR.REISCHL: Fred Reischl. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I didn't know if any other member of the Planning Commission who was here had any comments on this one at this point beyond what was already discussed. Well,then-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a native preservation question? I don't think it changes what you can do,but just a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR.YOVANOVICH: I think there have been other off-site preservation requests before,and I think the maximum was--the biggest one approved so far was around 1.36 acres;does that sound about right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About one and a third. And I see Summer nodding her head yes. MR.YOVANOVICH: That was about right. So I'm just asking for guidance,because I know you can't change anything. Had we come in with 1.36 acres off site,would that have been something that may have been influential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With or without the South Florida preserve? MR.YOVANOVICH: Without any South Florida preservation scraping. In other words-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead of 7.72,you're suggesting you--if you had utilized 7.72 less 1.36 and done all the rest on site-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --then your off-site would be no more than what we've previously allowed other projects to do. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depending on the facts,it would have certainly--maybe have a different outcome,but that's nothing we can rehear. MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you want a rehearing,we'd be glad to oblige. MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm not asking for that. I'm just asking,you know,future, is 1.36 the measuring stick at this point for consideration? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it was done once for another project,and to be consistent, it's Page 10 of 29 December 3,2015 something we'd have to look at on a case-by-case basis-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --but it's a good starting point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is always case by case,correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer,did you have something you wanted to add? Now,I guess it's relevant to the questions,right? MS.ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ARAQUE: Yeah. Summer Araque,principal environmental specialist. So just a reminder,the starting point is what is your minimum preserve requirement. And I think--even as staff we have to remind ourselves that sometimes,when looking at the code, is,do you qualify for this section of the code? The first question is,if you're residential,if your preserve is one acre or less,then you start looking at the section of the code to go off site. Their starting point for the requirement is 7.72,I recall. So that's where it's just so far of a difference with that starting point. So just a reminder on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MS.ARAQUE: All I had to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. And congratulations on your new baby,and it's good to see you back. MS.ARAQUE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,I think with the changes the applicant did accept,there are still three that aren't being accepted. One is the rewording of Paragraph 2.11;the second one is the Deviations 3 and 4 are still there, and they shouldn't be if they're to be consistent with our previous stipulation;and the last would be the--or the last two would be the exhibits for the master plan changes needed,and Exhibit B,the cross-section of the road. With that in mind,does anybody have a motion who was here at the time in regards to this consent request? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I'm going to make the motion to deny the whole petition. I'll be honest with you,Mark,you were so kind on this,because this was a PUDA,and you let them grandfather the industrial in,which is no longer allowed in the activity centers. As far as preserve area, if you went by the 37 acres,the county already credited them for 1.62 acres and--which should have come close to almost 12 acres of preserve on the property. They lowered it to 25 percent of 30 acres,which came to 7.72,plus the 2.25 should have been 9.97. Mark was kind enough to give you credit for that,bringing your total down to 5.47. If you take the original 9.97,bring the 5.47,you have already been credited 4.5 plus the county's. You were credited with 6.12 acres that you do not have to have on there. And,to me,that is a huge amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we'll just--we'll call this a discussion,not a motion at this point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can continue with the discussion,then we'll ask--I'll ask for a motion when you finish your discussion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I think what has kind of bothered me on this one--and I normally don't say stuff like this. But as a former county attorney and knowing the Land Development Code, you kind of thumbed your noses at the Planning Commission when you were here last time and you said,we don't care if you deny it. We're going to go to the Board of County Commissioners with your denial. Maybe you want to tell us,Rich,which four commissioners are going to vote for this. I mean,I could not believe what you were doing to this Planning Commission. MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I respond? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Anyway,that was mine.That was mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to be able to respond. Page 11 of 29 December 3, 2015 MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And your actions were unprecedented when you're--I mean,you didn't do one thing--we only asked for two things,and you didn't want to do either one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's stick to the facts of what we're here to do today. And we know the language. We've already walked through it. We know there's differences between what we stipulated and to what's been put forth. We need to stick to either voting yea or nay on that. Because of the discussion you just had,it's only fair that Rich has--Rich have a short rebuttal. Keep it concise,please. MR.YOVANOVICH: I want to address that comment because I think that wasn't appropriate. What we did is we came to you with a project.You wanted to change the project. We didn't agree to the changes,and we respectfully said,no,we don't agree with it. We will take our chances. I don't--I haven't talked to any of the commissioners. I don't know what their response may be,but at the end of the day we brought you a project that we thought met several goals,which was including essential service personnel housing.And in order to make that pencil out and make sense,we needed more land than we were being--you guys were willing to give us as far as the preserve going off site. There was--what Mr. Strain said to us in an offer of compromise was,I'll give you credit for roughly 2.6,2.7 acres,but you had to go off site for the full five. Staff said we'll give you credit for zero. The Conservancy said we'll give you credit for zero. There was no offer to compromise from anybody other than the Planning Commission by giving us credit for 2.7. The numbers didn't work with having to go off site for 5.5. We disagreed with you. So we said we will take our chances. That is--that was not thumbing our nose at you. We were simply saying we can't reach an agreement. And that may happen in the future. It's not intended to thumb our nose at anybody. It's simply to say,we just,respectfully,disagree with the Planning Commission knowing that the yes vote was really a no vote because we couldn't live with the yes vote,and that's okay. That may happen in the future,and we're not thumbing our nose at anybody. We're not trying to be disrespectful. We're just simply saying it didn't work out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you made your point. Now,both those discussions are nothing that I will utilize to weigh in on my determination of a vote on this. I don't agree with the facts stated in either one of them. So from that perspective, let's just move forward on what we're here for today,and that's to vote on this consent. We've articulated the differences. We've looked at the issues. Is there a motion on the consent item in front of us? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're denying based on those differences that we walked through? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Based on--that is correct,plus the fact that this is also an EAC,and so that should be marked down also. We sat as the Board of the EAC on this and--with the preserve,and that should also be a separate denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We don't have a consent agenda for the EAC,so their vote would stand from prior. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the vote from the EAC perspective of the Planning Commission was with the stipulations. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Board in the staff report would know that the stipulations were not done;therefore,that vote with the EAC would only be valid if the stipulations were part of it,and it's not. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The consent is for the Planning Commission to see if the language is consistent due to problems we had years and years ago. And I think we've come to the determination it may not be as consistent as we expected it to be. We have a motion in that regard. Is there a second to the motion? Page 12 of 29 December 3, 2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now,further discussion. And just so we're clear,my--and I think the rest of us are voting for denial because of the inconsistency in Paragraph 2.11,the Deviations 3 and 4 still remain,and the changes were not made on the master plan,or the Exhibit B cross-section. So unless there's--any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind,all in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nobody--motion passes 4-0. There have been one,two,three abstentions. We'll move on to the next one,and I'll announce it in just a minute. ***The remaining advertised public hearing is PUDR-PL20150002246. It's known as the Rockedge RPUD at the northwest corner of Sabal Palm Road and Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If anybody in the audience intends to address this issue to us today and you're here to speak on this,please rise to be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start down with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I talked with Mr.Yovanovich and I--no,that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Andy? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had meetings with staff and the applicant's various representatives,and I think one member of the applicant's team,and the County Attorney's Office where this all happened,I think, a couple days ago,and that's all. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Waafa? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: No communications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll move directly into the hearing. It's all yours, Patrick. Do you have any handouts? I saw you come in with a box of something. If you want to get those out early,that would probably help us walk through them. Is that convenient for you? MR.VANASSE: Yes. Ashley will hand those out. Good morning. My name is Patrick Vanasse.I'm a certified planner with RWA. It's a pleasure to be here today to talk about the Rockedge PUD petition. Joining me here I've got representatives from the Rockedge,LLC. Waterman is the development entity. I've got Shawn Martin with me and Eddie Garcia;the attorney,Rich Yovanovich, is with us;we also have Ron Talone with Plummer&Associates,who's our transportation expert;and we have Ariel Poulos with the environmental consultant with us; and Ashley Caserta with RWA. Page 13 of 29 December 3, 2015 My understanding from our meetings with staff and some of the commissioners is that we have a few edits and some cleanup in the document throughout the entire document. So I'm not going to do an exhaustive presentation. I'll give you a brief summary with the understanding that we can go through those edits and,you know,look at whatever pages you'd like to look at. Just to give you an overview,the original PUD was approved in 2006. The project is located at the intersection of Sabal Palm Road and 951,north of Winding Cypress, south of the regional hospital and Hacienda PUDs. The project was originally 74 acres,and it was approved for 400 multifamily units. Since then the property went into receivership. The bank owned it for a while. Our client bought the property and acquired a few parcels abutting that property. So we're coming back in to bring in that land to the PUD. So we are rezoning all the land. So the existing PUD is being rezoned to PUD,and the ag lands, the extra 32 acres that we're bringing in,is getting rezoned to PUD also. The overall project is roughly 106 acres now. As part of our request also,a significant issue is that we're reducing the overall density from 400 dwelling units to 266. The 400 dwelling units was previously achieved through base density in the rural fringe designation plus an affordable housing density bonus. We are asking to repeal the affordable housing density bonus. And the 266,the way we derive our density, is the base density in the URF of 1.5,and we're getting an additional one unit per acre through TDRs,which brings us to a density of 2.5 units per acre or 266 units. Also,we are asking to relocate the project's access point from 951 to Sabal Palm Road. We are increasing our preserve,and we are exceeding the minimum requirement. And as I mentioned,there's a companion petition to get rid of the affordable housing density bonus. We have several changes associated with the master plan,just the overall configuration. And we have, obviously,development standards associated with that. One thing important to mention,we were only approved previously for multifamily. We are asking for a mix of uses which would allow single-family, townhomes, single-family attached,and multifamily. Obviously,we have new development standards associated with that,which are pretty consistent with a lot of the PUDs you see. So we've reviewed staffs report. Dan did a great job going through all the items. We concur with his findings that consistent/compliant with the Land Development Code and the Comp Plan,and we fully support his recommendation for approval with one little caveat. He's got two recommendations. Recommendation No.2 we'd just like to discuss and clarify as we go through this. So with that said,we're happy to address any of your issues or concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that you have something indicating the changes that were made previous--or that you have responded to after discussions? MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to get those in front of us so we might walk through those to save time. MR.VANASSE: Okay. What Ashley is going to be handing out is,I believe,a clean copy of the PUD exhibits and also a copy of--a strikethrough copy that identifies the changes that occurred this week just from our most recent meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the first copy you included in the packet to us is the strikethrough copy. If the Board has no objections,I'd like to work through that one and compare it to any notes that I or others of us have made to the changes that they made. Maybe it will clear some of the issues up. So if there's no objection,with that in mind,why don't we move to Exhibit A,Page 1 of 18,and we'll walk through the PUD a page or two at a time.And anybody that has any questions from either their notes or what's been presented,put them on the table. MR.VANASSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the first page of Exhibit A is your permitted uses and density page.Does anybody have any questions there? Under your general permitted uses,Patrick,the fourth line down,you have--it says"private roadways,"but I did notice on the master plan you didn't have private roadways,the words noted on the master plan. Has that been changed on the master plan? Page 14 of 29 December 3,2015 MR.VANASSE: We've revised the master plan. We show private right-of-way,I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can tie where private roadways are to that paragraph then? MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second page,under accessory uses to residential,they've taken out No. 7 and 8; 7 was storage areas for the exclusive use of residences,and 8 was the--or,yeah, 8 at the time was community maintenance areas and maintenance structures,neither of which are true accessory to a residential lot. I think that's a good move. Does anybody have any issues with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the--Page 3,we're now going into the recreation area accessory uses.The removal from the residential lots has now been added to the accessory use for the recreation, meaning that the--if there's a community maintenance area,it would be around the recreation area and the community storage areas. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So--okay. It seems to fit better than it did before. Under the next page,which is 4 of 18, it's just one paragraph. If anybody has anything as we move through this,holler. Under Page 5,we have their Development Standards Table. And the--there's a red 8 by the word "townhouse"up on top. Does that mean it's been deleted or added? MR.VANASSE: Being stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.VANASSE: And the discussion with staff was 8 is associated with the one tree per lot that is required by code,and it clarifies that a little bit,to provide that tree completely within a lot.One of the issues is the townhomes. We can go with a width of minimum 16 feet,which we're looking at 20-foot canopies. So,obviously,you'd be overlapping lots, so it didn't apply. So we struck that from the townhouse category, but it still applies to the other categories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and I guess,Dan,this is a question for you. If--does the townhouse--and it would probably be a fee-simple basis,meaning it would be sold as a lot even though it's a townhouse with a common wall. Would that configuration still require a canopy tree on the lot? MR. SMITH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then how do we get there if it's--if that language is not applicable or struck that was found as a solution for some of the others? MR. SMITH: Well,that's why I had them--that's why I agree with the"applies to all residential lots." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you bring the mike closer to you,Dan? MR. SMITH: Yeah. Daniel Smith,principal planner. All residential lots--and I assume that the townhome is a residential dwelling,so I did not want that stricken. If anything,there were some issues regarding,I think,between buildings. I think there were setback issues. But I did not want--I wanted all residential lots to have that 20-foot area for the required canopy trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know that Patrick had discussed this in front of staff. Did you object at the time? MR. SMITH: When we talked about it,I thought we were talking about between buildings. I thought that was in--that was what the issue was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,how would you--and I don't mean to be putting you on the spot. I'm trying to figure out the thought process. How would you apply that Footnote 8 that requires a 20-foot canopy to a 16-foot-wide lot? And the reason I'm asking is because that gets to the crux of how it can or cannot apply,and I'm trying to understand where you're-- MR. SMITH: Well,I think the issue is going to be the size of the footprint of the building that's going to be attached, is they're going to have to make those determinations based on the structure. Page 15 of 29 December 3, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. If they had a 16-foot-wide lot-- MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and they put a canopy tree in the center and it had to be 20 feet,how do they fit it? MR. SMITH: Well,we were talking about the front and the depth,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But say they had a 25-foot setback and the--say they held the building back 20 feet-- MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and they put a canopy tree in dead center of the 25-and the 16-foot.You still wouldn't get a 20-foot canopy tree because you'd be over on the 16. MR. SMITH: Well,in a lot of cases there is going to be some overlap with--there's some language with overlap with utilities,with sidewalks. This is kind of new language. I did not want the canopy trees--I want room for canopy trees. And like I said is,until--at the site plan approval process,I'm really not sure exactly how this is going to apply until I--at the SDP level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan,I've worked with you a lot lately,and you're a very smart individual, and if you have a 20-foot-wide width,how do you fit it on 16 feet? That's the--and knowing that,why would this have gotten to this level without that issue being resolved? And I guess that's kind of what I'm worried about. If you can't--by that footnote if you believe you've got to have a 20-foot crown spread on a canopy tree,and a canopy tree like that is required by the code-- MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --then how does this width of this lot accommodate that requirement? Well,no--what you just--okay. Tell me how you put that in the center of a 16-foot-wide lot that's got eight feet from the dead center point-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're taking-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --when you need 10 on each side. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,it's not--and it's funny that you should mention this,because I circled it because--let me tell you. Who's going to go out and check from the county to make sure they have a canopy tree on each lot? It doesn't happen. MR.VANASSE: We do show it on the building permits. But just--if I might just offer something. The code requires the one tree,and we're fully willing to comply with that. This is new language. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just a smaller one. MR.VANASSE: And we wanted to accommodate the request. It just creates a conflict. I think we can still provide one tree per lot. There's different species with smaller canopies. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep. MR.YOVANOVICH: No,you can't. Excuse me. This is essentially a multifamily structure. They're row houses, if you will. And instead of it being by a condominium--if it was a condominium,everybody understands those as multifamily. You don't put a tree on each condominium unit. But for row houses,you're buying the dirt below the row house. We have never ever put trees on each townhome lot. The change we made dealt with single-family homes or duplexes where you basically have two separate lots that you provide the house. The townhomes are six,eight,however many homes in a row together. And Mr. Strain is absolutely correct,we've never done that because you've got a driveway to get in, which there's no way to fit it on the individual townhome lot. That's why the eight came out because it shouldn't be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I understand that,but Dan offered testimony in the beginning that said that paragraph is consistent as a requirement from the LDC,which kind of threw me. And if it is,now we've got to look at a deviation to get this lot into existence. And,Dan? MR. SMITH: Yeah. The issue with multiple family-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. MR. SMITH: It actually changes for multiple family for foundation plannings,which does--now you have a group of homes which would give,through the foundation plannings areas for your required Page 16 of 29 December 3, 2015 canopy trees. So it's a different way of--I guess it's a different way of understanding the foundation planning portion of it,which is different than the one canopy tree per lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's go back to where we started. We have this paragraph. We have this example. You had said you didn't--if you had seen this,you wouldn't have gone along with it because it's inconsistent with the LDC. Are you telling us now that it is consistent with the LDC,with that 8 taken out as a footnote? MR. SMITH: Absolutely. Yes,correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you--when someone reviews this,whatever landscaping is required will be able to fit on that lot pursuant to the LDC? MR. SMITH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that's not where we started,and I just want to make sure you're-- MR. SMITH: I understand. I understand,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I think there was some confusion between fee-simple townhomes versus the condominium townhomes,as Mr.Yovanovich had indicated. It's really a multifamily-type product. It goes through an SDP process,as well as the platting process and so,therefore,there's no tree-per-lot requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a tree per lot doesn't apply to all fee-simple lots? MR.BELLOWS: No. I said those that are part of a townhome development where the buildings are attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a duplex,a tree per lot doesn't apply? MR.BELLOWS: That's the townhome concept.It's the townhome concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not if they're attached. It's a matter of a certain amount of them are attached? MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. Basically you have a condominium-type multifamily where there's platted lots through the middle of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is not a condominium. It's an HOA-- MR.BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --with fee-simple lots. MR. BELLOWS: And that's why the fee-simple lot comes in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And--okay. MR.BELLOWS: And that's why they're 16 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you've said. I necessarily will reserve the right to do my own review of that,but I understand. MR.BELLOWS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same table,now that we understand what the significance of the red 8 is up on top,towards the bottom there has been a clarification for the 20 percent that applies to the pie-shaped lots,and on No.3 on the bottom,the yard--they're talking about a corner lot and how that applies,and they went to a 12-foot instead of a 10-foot setback. And on the next page,under the continuation of the footnotes,No.4,which is a footnote from the sixth line of the Development Standards Table,applies to accessory buildings,not principals. And the last,No. 8,which is the one we just got discussion,they modified to clarify that it doesn't reply--apply to all residential lots,just those that apparently have the 8 in front of them. Is that an interpretation,Patrick; is that correct? MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the PUD master plan,which brings up a question in regard--you didn't make any changes to that-- MR.VANASSE: Actually,Mark, if I could interject here. I just realized that one of the changes we made,the 12-foot was incorrect. It was meant to be for Footnote No.2 associated with side-loaded garages, Page 17 of 29 December 3, 2015 side-entry garages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But on a corner lot,the purpose of the additional two feet is to cover roof overhangs. MR.VANASSE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On a corner lot,your utilities will follow the road. So if you have two frontages,generally your utilities are going to be in that same location as they would if they were in front of the house. So wouldn't your need to provide that overhang clarification apply there as well? MR.VANASSE: It would apply there also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you really want that 10 foot in No.2 to be 12 feet. MR.VANASSE: Yeah. And that's what we discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave the one in--leave the one that you've already got for the side yard, right? MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Dan,as we go through these kind of grammatical changes,I'm assuming you're keeping track of them. I'll make notes,but-- MR. SMITH: What was the last one again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Footnote No.2,the 10 foot that's there-- MR. SMITH: Yeah. That's supposed to be 12,right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should be 12. And the 12-foot that's on No.3 should remain. Okay. If we move on to the master plan,does anybody have any questions about the master plan? This one--you didn't make any changes on this compared to the one that's in our packet,I take it? MR.VANASSE: Just--I'm not--can't exactly recall if it's in your packet or not. One of the requests that we've had within about the last week or so was a little grammatical change to the potential future interconnection. We had interconnect before,so we just made that grammatical change,and we've added the label for private right-of-way for the roadways. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. One of the labels just needs a little arrow because you have it in the residential tract on the bottom left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,yeah. See where you have the circled 7? That's a good point. MR.VANASSE: Okay,yep. We just need-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move the 7 down and put the private right-of-way between the 7 and the 2. MR.VANASSE: We'll make that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Heidi. On that same page,I need to discuss what the RA projects need for a buffer and,with a wall, is on its southern property line where it faces existing residential. We typically have looked at where these kinds of intensities that are up against outside--areas outside the project. In this case your residential--your recreation area will be up against existing residential that could be modified to more future residential even to the--kind of like you've just done. So like we have on other projects,that may not be developed on the outside. Wherever these facilities go,we've requested a 6-foot wall. And I haven't seen that language in here yet,so maybe you could help me understand. MR.VANASSE: If you look at the illustrator here,we have an aerial depicting the RA tract that's hatched. I'll just grab a mike here. Is it working? Okay. The RA tract is over here. And we've identified the closest home to the RA tract,and it's over 162 feet away. So right now we have a 15-foot buffer already,and I think the request is,is there a need for a wall? And at least the projects that I've worked on where we did put a wall was when we had some residential abutting,like being,you know, less than 50 feet away from our recreational tract. So in this case we felt it may not be needed because of the distance. We're already going to have a vegetated buffer there. So we obviously are open to discussion on this issue,but we felt that the distance mitigated for any concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we have had other projects where this issue's come up,and we've realized,especially at the time--what's that project next to--on Immokalee Road. It's--boy. It's that Page 18 of 29 December 3, 2015 expensive--Grey--not Grey Oaks. You might-- MR.BELLOWS: Hacienda? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,no. North,on Immokalee Road just across from Autumn Oaks Lane. I can't remember the name of it now. I can't believe it. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Quail Creek? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It is Quail Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quail Creek,yes. We had that front triangular parcel in Quail Creek come forward,and we realized that--when they moved their RA section close to the homes,the problems that causes both from light,from noise,from pools,from accessory uses. It's not the buildings as much as it is the rest of it. And we provided a wall there;a wall was provided. We've done that on other projects too more recently because the intensity of these residential projects is greater with the recreation areas than it is in basically almost any other part of the project. I'm not sure why a south property line wall in such a small section of this project is a deal breaker for you guys,but it's one that I'm very concerned about,and we've been consistently looking at these this way. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain,you're right.And--clarification,though. We'll do the wall. That's not a problem. But as you know,I think that direction's east. You've got an FP&L easement. So I can't put the wall along the entirety of the RA tract, but I can certainly do it along the portion that's not within the FP&L easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You're not-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I mean,FP&L-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --developing on an FP&L--okay. I'd have to--now I have to acknowledge-- MR.YOVANOVICH: So if we could just do it along the portion of the RA that's,you know,not within the FP&L easement,that would be okay. And maybe we just depict it on the master plan so everybody's clear where the 6-foot wall would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I was--that's where I was looking for it. That would be great. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We'll-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the same time,you're not going to be putting much else than probably parking in the FP&L easement, so-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. So I can't imagine that's going to be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 15-foot--you're going to put the buffer there,though. MR.YOVANOVICH: You know,that's interesting.I don't know. Do we--are we allowed to put buffers? MR.VANASSE: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: We wouldn't be able to do that anyway because that interferes with their access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're now telling us you're going to put the RA parking into the FP&L easement with no buffer,no wall,no anything? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,because to the south of us is more FP&L easement. There's not even any development south of us--or north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The vegetation buffer,I mean,FP&L's--Manchester Square is a good example,right up there on Livingston Road. They've got a buffer on both sides of their entryway right through the FP&L easement with a road access. Would you be willing to at least include the vegetation buffer from where the wall would end at the west side of the easement to where the pavement ends for the parking area? That way the headlights and everything showing to the south won't be so obtrusive. MR.YOVANOVICH: How about we commit that we will request FP&L to let us do that within their easement. And if they give us permission,we'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Page 19 of 29 December 3, 2015 There's a second page to the master plan,Exhibit C,Page 8. Then we get into a legal description that goes on through Page 12,and the next textual section is a list of deviations on Page--Page 12,actually. And that,I guess, is where we might have some clarifications needed. In the deviations I notice you struck the four or five words on the top. I think that works better that way. I don't know why it was written the way it was to begin with. MR.VANASSE: We actually struck a little too much. Streets should be included,internal streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That should be the last four words, "that include public utilities." MR.VANASSE: Yeah. We were working a little faster than the speed of thought, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation No.9,we get into the preserve setback for principal structures. I know that you had some additional information on that because I had asked that question of you. MR.VANASSE: Yes. We--the question was related to the language that talks about"in combination with a structural buffer as allowed by the district." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.VANASSE: Let me pull this,and I'll put it on the illustrator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can,but I want to--I've got the Section 3.05.07 of our code,which is one of the sections you referenced. And in it, it says under--the preserved wetlands shall be buffered from other land uses as follows: F, little three,a structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50 percent.A structural buffer shall be required adjacent to wetlands where the direct impacts are allowed. A structural buffer may consist of a stem wall, berm,or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. Now,the word"structural"to me doesn't--I'm not sure how all those other definitions of what a structural buffer is got in there. Stem wall certainly would be. MR.VANASSE: Just to clarify,we don't need--we don't intend on putting a structural buffer as in a stem wall. Vegetation is what we were considering. And I think the clarification was--and this section only applies--in the code only applies to the fringe. And it was more from a definition standpoint of what a structural buffer can be,and a structural buffer can be a vegetated,can be--and the same thing with the district. I provided a PowerPoint from the district that defines what--a structural,and it could be vegetation. So the idea was just we were using the term that's been used by the district and is also used in the Collier County code. We don't have to use the word"structural." We can just simply say a hedge or just vegetative buffer. We're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,under the South Florida PowerPoint under buffers,it says,wetland preserve areas typically have a dedicated upland buffer between the development and the wetland.Number 1, district criteria requires an average of 25 feet,minimum 15-foot-wide upland buffer.You're asking for a 12-and-a-half-foot-wide. MR.VANASSE: We do already provide the upland buffer,so this is a--it's a setback from the preserve. So the buffers--we already have that upland buffer provided,but it does vary along our preserve. It's not always the 25,and in some instances it goes down to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So part of your preserve is uplands,so that's your upland buffer portion,which will be at least 3,2-and-a-half feet then. MR.VANASSE: Yeah. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's how you meet your South Florida criteria. Interesting. Okay. As far as whether--what kind of buffer it is--I don't know if Charlette or anybody on this panel had any preferences as to how that buffer was created. I just wanted to point out the word"structural." My reading of that is something different than what I've come to learn,and I wanted to make sure it was on the table in case anybody had any preferences as to how that buffer was created. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Did staff take a look at this? Maybe we could ask staff. MR.VANASSE: We've had discussion with staff on the issue, so I'd be happy for them to comment on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,here's Steve. Good. I saw Summer not moving, so I figured she didn't want to comment. I didn't see Steve over there on the left. MR.YOVANOVICH: He doesn't want to comment either. Page 20 of 29 December 3, 2015 MR.LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger,planning services. I was looking at the exhibits. There are--these are for side yard setbacks,and then in the exhibits of the environmental data that were provided to you,there is one identifying preserve,upland preserves and wetland preserves. So the side yard setbacks that I see are mostly against the wetlands, so it seems like it would be appropriate that the--that there would be a structural buffer,but as far as a,you know,wetland within the preserve, it doesn't look like there is on some of these side yard setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from Charlette's question,though,staff has reviewed the 12-and-a-half,and you don't have any objection to it, is what you're-- MR.LENBERGER: We don't have any objection to it. We feel it would be an adequate distance for separation for maintenance of buildings and for access to the preserve,and the vegetated structural buffer should prevent encroachment into the preserve. So staffs comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the type of structural buffer,do you have any--am I right there's three kinds mentioned,or four;a hedge,a fence,and--I mean, it doesn't talk about height or anything like that,and it says a berm. A berm could be six inches,and then a structural--and then it also says stem walls. Stem walls are usually concrete or tie back, something like that. Do you have any preference as to how that should occur in a project such as this? MR.LENBERGER: We've had all different types--excuse me. They're all acceptable. We've had berms--as long as there's a delineation of where the preserve begins and the lot is. And usually the berms Swale,because they have to have a swale to direct the storm water from the lot away from the preserve, so the berm is satisfactory.Usually what we'll see is a hedge by the district.That's usually what they permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Did I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Charlette? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Did I see in this document--and I know we just had these handed to us. Did I see that the word"wetland"was removed from this document? It might have been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on Deviation No.9 on the bottom. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just said preserves,because not all the preserves,I believe,are wetlands. I think that's what they're saying. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I understand,but I just heard Steve say that they were where this area was on the site map,that they there are adjacent to some wetlands. MR.LENBERGER: They're both, so I asked the applicant to remove the word"wetland." COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next page is only three lines on the top under Deviation 10,a continuance. Then we get into Page 12,developer commitments. There's no changes there. Page 14,I'm sorry, developer commitments. Then Page 15 is a continuation of that. And then we get into Phase 1 assessment language that has been modified. Where is Phase 3? I didn't see that on any of the maps. What map is that on? MR.VANASSE: Just--we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says site labeled designated for Phase 3 mitigation. What does that mean? MR.VANASSE: If you look at the copy I provided today--and I think the original copy that you obtained had two exhibits missing. Exhibit G in your packet. We have an exhibit identifying archaeological sites. Dr.Carr,who's our archaeological expert whose worked on this property for years,did an initial assessment,and there was some followup.And as part of this followup,we identified archaeological sites that we have to preserve,and we incorporated those into our county preserve,and those will remain intact. And what this exhibit depicts is the ones that are going to be preserve. And then we had three that Page 21 of 29 December 3,2015 were not eligible to be preserve,and Dr.Can in the process he's going through,everybody's agreed that--no need to preserve these. And then there was one that had to be addressed a little further and had to be mitigated. Dr.Carr,my understanding is he's currently working on that,and the process is almost over,meaning that through this mitigation process we're going to get the okay that there's no need to preserve that site. So that's what the exhibit depicts is which ones will be preserve and the ones that will not be preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the reference to the A designated as Phase 3 mitigation is only for CR 1371? MR.VANASSE: Yes,correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The CR 726, 873,and 1372 are not eligible for what reason? MR.VANASSE: I'm not an expert. My understanding is they just didn't meet the requirements for archaeological sites that need to be preserve. I think it's more from--my understanding is you start off with a probability map of where there might be some issues,and through the process you demonstrate that they're--we haven't found anything,that there's no issue here. We don't need to preserve those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when you get into the Phase 3 review of 1371,there's a possibility that you cannot remove it and that you cannot build homes in that location, is that what you're saying,or whatever else is there? MR.VANASSE: My understanding is--like I said,we're going through the mitigation. I think we're almost done there,and we should be fine. MR.HALL: Hi,Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I'm used to seeing you for marine stuff. What are you doing with-- MR.HALL: For the record,Tim Hall with Turrell,Hall&Associates. The Phase 3 refers to the type of archaeological survey that's done on that site.And what a Phase 3 is is basically an excavation of the site where they do the fieldwork,and they systematically excavated any materials that they discover are preserved and--if needed. So what the Phase 3 is is actually the removal of that site through the physical fieldwork. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps. MR.HALL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.VANASSE: I'm glad he was here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me,too. We weren't getting too far with your explanation,Pat,but thanks for trying. MR.VANASSE: I am no an archaeological expert,that's for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's--the remainder of Page 12 has one more note on B,and then Page--I'm sorry. I keep saying 12 because it's in the center. Page 15 and 16. Fifteen and 16 wraps up that section. We have a new map on Page 17. And then on Page 18 is the cross-section of the streets,and they do show sidewalks on both sides,which is a welcomed relief that we haven't got to fight that battle today. So with that,I don't know if there's any other questions from the Planning Commission members on what we've got in front of us here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have one question about where do you plan on locating the multifamily 55-foot-high buildings? MR.VANASSE: At this time we don't have a specific location or a specific intent to develop multifamily. We're--we're going through a site planning process,and the applicant hasn't decided exactly what product's going to be there. But it's tending towards single-family at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick,thank you.We'll go to staff report,and after staff report we'll go to public speakers. We are going to take a break at 10:30 for 15 minutes for the court reporter. Dan? MR. SMITH: Planning and zoning staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission Page 22 of 29 December 3,2015 forward Petition PUDR-PL20140002246,Rockedge PUD,to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the following stipulations: First off,that the changes be made according to information brought forward to the Planning Commission today that we've gone over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the comments that we made? MR. SMITH: And the comments,yeah,that's correct;that we revise the master plan Exhibit C to read"potential future interconnection" instead of"potential future interconnect."That was just more of a word change more than anything else. And then we add language regarding the development commitment to read,at the time of the first Site Development Plan involving interconnectivity at locations where future vehicle and non-vehicle interconnection points are indicated on the PUD master plan provide,to the maximum extent feasible,vehicle and/or non-vehicle interconnectivity with abutting roadways in between adjoining sites. If interconnection effort are unsuccessful,the developer shall provide all correspondence between the parties involved to sufficient document efforts. I know that language has been discussed,and I think there's--comp planning is here to answer any questions regarding that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and,Dan,your conclusion is--I had a question about that. For example,Exhibit F,developer commitments. And it isn't of the applicant. It's of staff. It says,add language at the time of the first Site Development Plan involving interconnectivity at locations where potential future vehicular or non-vehicular interconnection points are indicated in the RPUD for providing to the maximum extent feasible." Can you show me where--and I didn't get time to look at it myself--where the words "to the maximum extent feasible"are found in our code? MR. SMITH: Is there someone from comp planning that can answer that question? MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,director of planning and zoning. I don't believe that's straight from the Land Development Code. I believe that's from the Comprehensive Planning section regarding interconnectivity where we want to promote interconnectivity,but we do not require interconnectivity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the language there that I believe is included in the report from staff says,all the new and existing--Policy 7.3.An existing development shall be encouraged to connect. It doesn't say to the maximum extent possible. And I'm worried about that legal threshold to overcome. If it ever got to a battle,how does someone not do something if they have to do it to the maximum extent possible? They may be forced to buy out a high-rise next door just to get the interconnection you want. I know that's impractical,but the maximum extent feasible is,I think,a stronger threshold than what's indicated by the code. MR.BOSI: And we recognize--and maybe we hadn't contemplated it in that regard,that language and the impact that language would have.I think we were only trying to enforce that they do pursue and they make an earnest effort to pursue that interconnectivity. So whatever language that would make the Planning Commission--and I agree that it's more practical and more appropriate and would obviously be agreed upon by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just like you to reconsider your conclusion based on the terminology used in the code or the Growth Management Plan,specifically,use those words, "encouraged," and--I think you had two different things. "Encouraged"was one and"wherever feasible"another. It doesn't say"to the greatest extent feasible." That,to me,is a different level of demand,and I'd rather we didn't go outside the code. Does that work for you guys? MR.BOSI: Absolutely,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll appropriately,then,revise your conclusions. MR.BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you. Dan,did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. SMITH: No,I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions of staff? Page 23 of 29 December 3, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure I've got the last one. MR.VANASSE: Mr. Strain-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. MR.VANASSE: --a question, if I may. With regards to the recommendation from staff,I'm just wondering when we get to see the language. And,again,consistent with your previous hearing of going to consent,we're going to be going to consent,I would assume,and when are we going to find out what that proposed language is? Because we had a concern because it was ambiguous. It's not the interconnection that we have a problem with. We just don't know what that entails,what we're supposed to do,and what we're supposed to demonstrate. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think the demonstration is showing that you've provided your--that you document your efforts to interconnect. We've done that on projects before.I don't think there's anything there that is onerous,because documenting could be done in any number of ways. It provides,actually, flexibility. I mean,it could be just a certified letter to the property owner next door requesting that interconnect to be placed in and then having no response after an ample amount of time might be all it takes. MR.YOVANOVICH: And just how it's been working in practice for the Planning Commission, obviously,we have property owners that own a significant amount of acreage next to us. We reach out to them and say,we're getting ready to move forward. If you want to come through our property,that's fine,but we need to work out sharing the expenses of the gatehouse and things like that.Just so you know,those are the types of letters we send out. Most of the times we don't get a response.But I don't want anybody to--we don't automatically say, come through. We ask for a sharing of the expenses for private roads and things like that. So those are what you'll see in the letters we send out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--and I think--to answer the question that you asked,though,I think the language would either work towards using the word"encouraged"as the code requires,or the words "wherever feasible"as the code requires. So--and I don't think we can go to a higher threshold than that without a demand,and that might be something we'd have another issue with, so... MR.VANASSE: Okay. That makes sense. If it's "encouraged"or"where feasible,"I think that works fine with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,I'm just sticking to the code one way or another. That's the way it's written, so... Is there any other questions of staff from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will--why don't we take our break now,and as soon as we get back,we'll hear the public speakers. We'll take a break until 10:40 and return and finish up. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray,thank you. Okay. Everybody,please take your seats.We'll resume the meeting. We left off with moving into the public discussion. Do we have any registered public speakers,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: We have one speaker. James Square,or Jim Square. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Square,come on up,use the microphone. Please identify yourself for the record,and we're glad to hear what you've got to say. MR. SQUARE: Good morning. Jim Square,former owner of Square's Landscaping that used to be on the corner of Sabal Palm and 951. My only concern here,gentlemen, is we've still got four major businesses on the corner here,and now we're going to be dumping a minimum of 250,300 automobiles a day onto Sabal Palm,which is a secondary road at best. And we're going to have a real problem down there. It's already a nightmare at 951 and Sabal Palm since they changed that intersection. I'm just wondering if there's any provisions where they can open that intersection up again or a traffic Page 24 of 29 December 3,2015 light possibly going in because,I mean,it is going to be an absolute nightmare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a good question. We do have standards in which those things are triggered. And I'll ask our transportation individual to come up and address that question. It's Mike Sawyer. He's in charge of transportation planning. MR. SAWYER: For the record,Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. As far as that particular intersection goes,there are--you know,when we reach the level of needing to have that signal,there will be--you know,basically this development will have a fair share of that signal as soon as we get to the warrants. We haven't gotten there. Certainly at this point--we don't see this development triggering that requirement at this point,but when it does,that's when--you know,as soon as we get to the warrants as far as needing that signal,that's when the signal will be provided. MR. SQUARE: What's the criteria that you're looking at in order for a light to go in? MR. SAWYER: It's based on the amount of traffic that we've got,you know,both coming to that intersection and going out of the intersection. It's a fine line as far as increasing the number of signaled intersections on a roadway. Particularly on 951 what we want to encourage is a free flow of traffic whenever possible. So it's--there's a number of criteria that actually have to get met in order to get to the warrants on that. MR. SQUARE: Well,what about even opening up that intersection to where you could make a left turn there again like it used to be? I mean,you've created a real problem the way you have that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we need to--sir,this meeting's got to stay focused on the aspects of the PUD. I know you may have traffic problems,but that's not what this issue's about. MR. SQUARE: No,I understand that, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SQUARE: But I'm saying,you put another 3-or 400 cars in the morning out there,I don't know how it's going to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. The project that was--that this one is supposedly replacing had almost double the number of units,which would have been almost double the traffic that is being proposed by it today. They were having 400 units with less acreage. They've expanded the acreage and reduced the units to 266 from 400 where they would have naturally increased them if they were going to increase the acreage. I'm not saying that helps your matter any,but the impact of this project is less,which means there's--your intersection's not--how the improvements are there are not really dependent on only this particular project. The warrants are things like accidents. There's several different levels of warrants.Accidents,I know,was one,because I had to wait for people to have accidents in order to have a light put in in a project I was involved with. What are the other warrant needs? MR. SAWYER: Correct. There's a number of different warrant needs. Certainly accidents,the actual traffic,the actual capacity of the roadways themselves over time,which do change depending on,you know,how many access points you actually have. Again,there's a whole study that goes into those warrants for the signals themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a predicted feasibility for that interchange--intersection to be improved? MR. SAWYER: At this time we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: LRTP plan or anything like that? MR. SAWYER: It is not currently on any of our plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's something that is outside the realm of what we're doing today. MR. SQUARE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it isn't outside of something you may want to have discussions with your elected officials with as far as moving that forward if there's justification for it. Page 25 of 29 December 3, 2015 MR. SQUARE: Well,the only reason I brought up opening up that intersection again,I just thought it would alleviate the traffic faster on Sabal Palm Road exiting,because people could be going left rather than everybody going right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're right.Ironically,we have a lot of areas where left turns are currently in place,including one near my home.And our road department is shutting it off so my wife and I can't use it anymore. I'm probably just as upset with that as you are, so... MR. SQUARE: Well,that's all I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Is there any other speakers registered,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,we'll turn to the Planning Commission. Is there any last comments of the applicant, staff,or anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do have one or two, Patrick. And I had mentioned this,but I don't think I mentioned it on the record. I think I mentioned it to you as a concern. In the handout you provided under general permitted uses--under permitted uses,general permitted uses you talked about-- I'm trying to get to the right one. Hang on a second. I'm sorry. It's up on top. The very first paragraph. It says you're going to have--you're going to be consistent with the LDC and the GMP in effect at the time of issuance of Site Development Plan or subdivision plat. That is not what we typically do,and the reason for that is you can get an SDP and keep it alive for a long period of time,and you can also do the same with a subdivision plat. Typically we have language--and I'll try to pull a draft up and tell you. This is--it's like the East Gateway typical language. It says,regulations for development shall be in accordance with the contents of this document,the Planned Unit Development,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 development standards,and the provisions of the most similar district in the county Land Development Code shall apply. I'm suggesting you utilize that kind of language instead of the Site Development Plan and subdivision plat language. MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain,my concern about that--and maybe I need to fix it in other projects--is that if I get a plat approved and I get a Site Development Plan approved and I've done everything that I'm supposed to do to get those accepted and there's a change in the LDC before I pull a building permit for a house within a plat,there may be different requirements for the plat itself,and do I have to come in and amend all of my engineering drawings? Because I'm now down to the last house within a plat,and there's been a change. I think we've always measured it that whatever the development order is,we meet the requirements of the Land Development Code at the time for platting and site development plans, likewise with building permits. I don't think we've ever interpreted that if you have already platted a piece of property and now you are pulling a building permit on that last house five years later,I now have got to bring the entire subdivision up to standards on the date of the last building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I don't think we've ever had that discussion before,Richard. I think what's come through is language like I've just read that seemed to be typical. The change that I noted was like other small changes in some parts of this document. There's been a few words here and there modified. Well,this modifies a time stamp compared to what we've previously looked at. I don't know if Dan caught that in comparison to other projects. I don't know if he's reviewed for it. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I'm just saying what I understand the practical application of the language that has been typically brought forward.I mean,this seems to be--I don't think we've ever--like Page 26 of 29 December 3,2015 you said,we've never had this conversation before to focus on what does it really mean in the real-world application. I just don't know of a circumstance where if a building permit is pulled five years later,we're going to apply whatever subdivision changes occurred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Ray,from staffs perspective,I mean,this is different language than I've just shown as an example. Is that something staff took a close look at and understood the ramifications of,or do you see anything that we need to be concerned about,or would you have a preference as the zoning director? MR. BELLOWS: Well,I don't believe we really analyzed this particular issue,and I'd like to take a little more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we do that by consent? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so by consent you'll come back and let us know what is your recommended language,and that's what this Planning Commission at that point will be able to see on the consent document. Does that work for you? MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain--yeah,what page was that,again, in the PUD,under Exhibit A, very beginning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's the top of the page of Exhibit A,top paragraph. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to take a minute to make sure I've asked all the questions I have. Yep,that's it. Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to ask of anybody at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Richard,I didn't go to rebuttal because I'm assuming you don't need one. MR.YOVANOVICH: Other than I think Michelle Arnold's a little nervous I'm trying to get rid of something,so I just want to put on the record I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's nice. That works. With that,we'll close the public hearing.And I've only--besides the new handout-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I wouldn't let him anyway,Michelle. MS.ARNOLD: What? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I wouldn't let him anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Besides the new handout and the verbal discussions we've had on various corrections needed,there were a couple of points that were added. One is that there will be a 6-foot wall on the south boundary line of the residential,the RA tract,up to the point of the FP&L easement. From there,a hedge will be continued to at least pass the paved area for the parking lot,assuming FP&L allows that to occur. MR.BELLOWS: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Can I ask for a clarification?Is that hedge to be four feet or three feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest four feet at least. At least it's not a wall, so a hedge at the highest of that magnitude will at least keep the traffic--it's a 15-foot buffer. So what's our typical hedge size in that buffer? MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith,principal planner. The B buffer is required,and it's going to be trees every 25 feet and a 5-foot single-row hedge.What FP&L usually does is they require smaller canopy trees that don't get over 20 feet tall,and that's usually the smaller. But as far as the hedge is concerned,a hedge and a row of trees are required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMITH: And FP&L usually allows that.They have certain--their own certain requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you said the hedge should be five feet. Ray said three or four. MR. SMITH: Five feet tall;five foot. Page 27 of 29 December 3, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five foot. But whatever the hedge code requirement is,that's all we're looking for. MR.YOVANOVICH: Whatever FP&L consents to,we'll do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will work. And then the second thing I made note of,accepted changes distributed as we discussed and the conclusions by staff modified as discussed. MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are the only notes I have. Does anybody else have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Move for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Assaad? And it would be subject to the-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Move for approval subject to those conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr.Assaad, seconded by Ms.Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you-all. Richard, I do have one last question about-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the consent, it will have to come back on consent. Does anybody want to make a motion to come back--well,I don't think we need a motion,just a consensus. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It has to come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's coming back on consent. Does anybody have an objection to that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It was pointed out to me,and I'm--I think it's the first time I've seen this. Gray pants,gray sports jacket,gray shirt,and gray hair. You are really gray today. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Impeccable coordination today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the tie. MR.YOVANOVICH: I appreciate you calling it gray instead of white hair,but I'll take gray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,when you wear all white we'll call it white hair. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, is there anybody else that has any other items for today's--let me make sure--new business or old business? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know,we may be the cause of some of that gray hair. MR.YOVANOVICH: All the white is you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is no old business listed. I don't think anybody has any new business. Is there any public comment? (No response.) Page 28 of 29 December 3, 2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None heard. With that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen seconded--I mean by Diane. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:53 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E.BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 29 of 29 AGENDA ITEM 9-C Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 7,2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20150000660: WESTCLOX 29 CPUD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT: Property Owner& Applicant: Agents: Barron Collier Partnership,LLLP D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. c/o David Genson Q. Grady Minor&Assoc. P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich, &Koester,P.A. 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy, #200 3800 Via Del Rey Northern Trust Bank Bldg Naples,FL 34105 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from the Agricultural(A)zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay(A- MHO)to a Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD)zoning district to allow up to 100,000 square feet of commercial uses for a project to be known as Westclox 29 CPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 9.5± acres, is located at the southwest quadrant of State Road 29 and Westclox Street in Section 29,Township 46 South,Range 29 East,Collier County,Florida. (See location map on the following page.) PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 1 of 20 December 18,2015 N A A W r. `1 N W j w N J WOi S°Q n �O 0 D ` Z i p m . o D 5 Q O OD O V {!N co W Z O S.R. 29 w 6 _� r m w N m N N c N N O w A V n 1:1 yA M �y N ci fT T w �'' O Z TI C 0 NOi 70 SOME 11 I- 1:4- \ I N \1 cn :ice 1- o> i-• Y I� ri o 0 .:o tiri ,• '� 1 1 X 3T' tivoi ( 3>[ g N eee. .�e. b 0 — z IT w x — Z w • 0 SC! _ `' -- DF STATE ROAD 29 il t3 0 r aim^",„, "D. lan.eac a> Y. t4 , _ , XI . ..-"-•■•"44 V •Ak A-fi 8 . S 44‘446\4W ...1:74r 2 a. .... a 1- a — . . t-. . ..— .1.• .,. I at — ... ,. iI. .1.. la.,.•,/.• g cq o. o n w Q ZY U S W C4 U In 11 J1 co LU CA OQ U <Q QW ' s Y 0 J d *(9IW-.zt 2 O a rn - - u7 l 01 E6 " P. w p � � C 2 woo 0 o j ES O 3Dcm f 0 111 Lil ill IA CU q Z g N0 W0O ° p 1dxU J U M CO W ce a wW CO rn � M 6 ZW 0 a N ,- a °O a s__ — — — — — U w o w N S.R.29 w a ,c U)i- 1--- 7 — — 1 0 E.3 IL/ o I U a u 4.0.....n 3 a ce m LIJ I—CO �pm Z d O 112 1 R O W w zdU Z a 3 s 8i E. CI. N zaz o N 11 it 0 CO ce a ~ IW- O U 0 a = 3 1 =d I c i I awcc E W `� R (.)C� I W - 0 W o ° 0u.1 I 1 re Y I Z_ Q E. a - 1-� LL Z 0 Z �� 1L W I t: o m Q co Z O 6 F F.5 oa o z ,,_ o 6 Li o of D 6 / I a}U) > d I re al 2 0 i 1i $ VW1 Z LLI ~Z ,3 m d co O -0 / / L ..f ' I ca m i- a ca el A EL.`z L�.-4 _ N 0 2 z 4 s 0a W I W yp¢ G� m U U a DOH CO U / W I Z Z(/j WZ WLL S (A¢ ogE W U Z �O I W � %..a. I-W d W <C7ZU� -.)74 aa- b I o�W�°doai in ui zcci3 I m ZZWRIn 8r 8 N zag ,_ / 0� OHW-tl a3NO2 mIZ¢iW / ZW CD li / o cV ri Z 1 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting a 9.5± acre rezone from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Mobile Home Overlay(A-MHO)to the Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD)Zoning District. This CPUD rezoning petition is proposing up to 100,000 square feet of commercial development of uses allowed in the C-1 (Commercial Professional and General Office District), C-2 (Commercial Convenience District), C-3 (Commercial Intermediate District) and C-4 (General Commercial) zoning districts. The Traffic Impact Statement analyzed a shopping center for transportation impacts. The Master Plan depicts one access point onto State Road (S.R.) 29 and two access points onto Westclox Street, along with areas depicting a 50-foot building setback from a RSF-3 zoning district, potential pedestrian interconnections, adjacent rights-of-way, and buffers. The majority of the site is labeled as "Development Area,"and no building details are shown. The petitioner is seeking approval of one deviation for this petition. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Westclox Street then undeveloped land with a zoning designation of SR 29 CPUD, approved for 162,000 square feet of commercial uses on a 24.99+acre site. East: S.R.29,then undeveloped land with a zoning designation of C-1-SR29COSD(Commercial Professional and General Office District - State Road 29A Commercial Overlay Subdistrict) South: a single-family home with a zoning designation of RSF-3 (Residential Single-family) West: undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A-MHO(Rural Agriculture with a Mobile Home Overlay) PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 4 of 20 December 18,2015 1 { I 1 t,3 (1'N'', 4-s - Subject Site x 4 Ai, b4 q . ii Jet .k {*; ItN‘ 4,04 1.,,,,t.,i,1 ,orty.r. 74 si it: ir u et �1 ` F a v LatIvresanie reltenp Myesew NWS4.FL : . a3 o.--(j(;�f AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject site is approximately+9.5 acres and is identified as Urban Designation, Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict in the Immokalee Area Master Plan(IAMP)Element of the Growth Management Plan. This CPUD rezoning petition is proposing up to 100,000 square feet of commercial development of uses allowed in the C-1 (Commercial Professional and General Office District), C-2 (Commercial Convenience District), and C-3 (Commercial Intermediate District) zoning districts as described in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). In evaluating this project for consistency, staff reviewed the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict(as outlined in the Immokalee Area Master Plan). The entire text is shown on the next page followed by [Staff comments in Bold]. PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 5 of 20 December 18,2015 "4.Neighborhood Center Subdistrict I ' The purpose of this land use classification is to provide for centers of activity that serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. The centers should contain a mix of neighborhood oriented 1 uses such as day care center, parks, schools, and governmental activities. Other development criteria that shall apply to all neighborhood centers includes the following: a. To achieve a neighborhood character, these centers are encouraged to be anchored by elementary schools,neighborhood scale parks,and/or churches. Not applicable for case by case petition review. b. A center should be limited to 80-120 acres in size, and will serve a population ranging between 5,000 to 7,500 people,or accommodate a service area of one (1)mile radius. Not applicable for case by case petition review. c. The Neighborhood Centers should be no closer than one(1)mile. Not applicable for case by case petition review. d. Non-residential uses shall be at least 20% of the size of the Neighborhood Center." [This subject site comprises the entirety of this Neighborhood Center. This petition is requesting all non-residential uses.] e. "Residential development within the designated Neighborhoods Centers shall permit a maximum density of twelve (12) units per gross acre. Residential dwelling units shall be limited to multi-family structures and less intensive units such as single-family and duplexes provided they are compatible with the district. Mobile home developments shall be permitted only in the form of mobile home subdivisions or parks as defined in the Land Development Code." [Residential uses are not proposed.] f. "Commercial development shall be permitted within a Neighborhood Center provided all of the following criteria are met;" 1. "Commercial uses shall be limited to barber and beauty shops; drug stores; deli; meat market; bicycle services; restaurant; dry cleaning; veterinary clinics; medical offices; laundry facilities;any other convenience commercial uses which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses. The Collier County School Board will be notified of any proposed use to avoid conflict with the nearby schools;and"[Allowable Neighborhood Center Subdistrict uses are limited to those specifically listed above as well as those in the C-2, commercial convenience zoning district. The basis for determining C- 2 uses in the Subdistrict is the term"convenience commercial uses" (similar to the title of the C-2 district),the specifically listed uses are all allowed in the C-2 zoning district in the zoning ordinance 82-2 which was in effect when the IAMP was adopted in 1991, and the intended population and service area of a Neighborhood Center. These are all C-1 or C-2 Zoning District uses either by right or by conditional use. The C-3 uses that are proposed in the petitioner's `Exhibit A for Westclox 29 CPUD' of the application are not consistent with the RAMP. Staff recommends that C-3 uses be removed from Exhibit A or,in some instances where listed in'C-2, add the omitted restrictions or limitations. Staff acknowledges the potential for square footage limits to be removed from the LDC via an LDC amendment;therefore,staff would not object to PUD language that allow the listed C-2 uses up to the square footage limits allowed by the LDC for C-2 uses in effect at time of SDP or SDPA approval. PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 6 of 20 December 18,2015 Uses in Exhibit A: "Permitted Uses—A" that need to be removed because the SIC codes appear only starting in the C3 zoning district: • #4 Animal Specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding outside kenneling). SIC Code is listed as#4 in C-3 • #8 Auto and home supply stores (5531) SIC Code is listed as #8 in C-3 with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure. • #48 Liquor stores (5921) SIC Code is listed as #80 in C-3 with 5,000 square feet cap. • #60 Physical fitness facilities(7911, 7991)—SIC Code 7991 is listed as#30 in C-1 and #53 in C-2, but with conditions not listed here and SIC code 7911 3 is listed as#68 in C-3 with discotheques excluded. • #61 Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511- 9532, 9611-9661) SIC Codes are listed as#71 in C-3. • #69 Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261) SIC Code is listed as#79 in C-3 with 5,000 square feet cap. • #70 Retail services — miscellaneous (5921-5963 except pawnshops and building materials, 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). SIC Codes 5942-5961 are listed as #61 C-2 with 1,800 square feet cap; This entire PUD entry is listed as #80 in C-3 with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure. 2. "No commercial use shall be permitted within a '/4 mile of an existing school property line within a Neighborhood Center; and" [There are no schools within this Neighborhood Center Subdistrict.] 3. "Access to the commercial development must in no way conflict with the school traffic in the area; and" [There are no schools within this Neighborhood Center Subdistrict.] 4. "The design of any proposed commercial development must take into consideration the safety of the school children; and" [There are no schools within this Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. Also, according to the US Census Quick Facts, Immokalee's (Census Designated Place)2010 population of children under the age of 18 is over 33%; therefore, a large number of school children could potentially live in the surrounding neighborhoods and potentially be visiting this commercial site. Staff encourages provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along roads onsite and abutting the site.] 5. "The projects within the Neighborhood Centers shall encourage provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining developments;and" [The CPUD Master Plan did not indicate any parking details, but this may be accomplished with an interconnection to the west. A potential vehicular/pedestrian interconnect is shown hi the CPUD Master Plan(Exhibit C).] 6. "Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments;and"[The CPUD Master Plan depicts one curb cut (access point) on SR 29, outside the 50' setback and buffer area, and two on Westclox Street,both of which align with the commercial PUD to the north. Staff does not believe it is feasible and/or possible PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 7 of 20 December 18,2015 to provide consolidated access points with existing or future adjoining development.] 7. "Projects directly abutting residentially zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 50 foot setback and landscape buffer; and" [The CPUD Master Plan shows a 50' building setback with a 15'buffer where the subject site is adjacent to a residential property. Also, a footnote on the Development Standards Table(Exhibit B) notes that the 50' setback area is available for parking, essential services, water management and non-vehicular connections.] 8. "Projects shall provide a 10 foot wide landscaped strip between the abutting right-of- way and the off-street parking area." [The CPUD Master Plan does not show any parking details, but shows 20' Type `D' landscape buffers along Westclox Street and SR 29,which is consistent with the IAMP.] "From time to time new Neighborhood Centers may be proposed. No two centers may be closer than one mile from each other.New Neighborhood Centers would require market justification and must meet size, spacing and use criteria expressed earlier." Staff has determined that a few of the proposed uses of Westclox 29 CPUD are not consistent with the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. The proposed C-3 zoning district uses for up to the 100,000 square feet of commercial development does not promote the intent of a Neighborhood Center that serves the surrounding neighborhoods with commercial convenience uses(C-1 and C-2 zoning districts). Staff acknowledges the applicant's 3" re-submittal cover letter dated October 28, 2015 in response to Comprehensive Planning's comments on the 2nd re-submittal that"they agree to disagree" with staff's assessment of the inconsistent uses listed above (#1) and that the applicant wishes to go forward to the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Staff also acknowledges that in the future there may be modifications to square footage restrictions in some of the commercial uses in C-1 through C-5 zoning in the Land Development Code, but the draft modifications are not approved at this time. In reviewing for compliance with Policy 5.4 (shown in italics) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) for the purpose of promoting sound planning,protecting environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensuring compatibility of land uses staff provides the following analysis in bold text. FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Although Comprehensive Planning staff generally leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of a petition, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities, development standards (building setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 8 of 20 December 18,2015 generation/attraction, as well as the information provided in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict section of this review.] In reviewing for compliance with Objective 7 and related Policies(shown in italics) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) regarding Smart Growth principles (interconnections, loop road, sidewalks/trails,etc.), staff provides the following analysis in bold text. FLUE 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 C, CPUD Master Plan, depicts access onto SR 29—a principal arterial(urban and rural)road as identified in the Transportation Element. According to Collier County Transportation Planning comments, the petitioner will need to obtain Florida Department of Transportation's approval for the access point on SR 29. The Master Plan also depicts two access points on Westclox Street, an urban major collector road as identified in the Transportation Element.] FLUE 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. [No loop road is depicted on the CPUD Master Plan. Exhibit C in the CPUD Master Plan identifies that the project will have a primary access on S.R. 29 and two additional access points on Westclox Road. Additionally, the project will have internal access via parking lot/drive aisles that will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.] FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The applicant modified Exhibit C, CPUD Master Plan, in response to staff comments on the original application submitted in June 2015. Exhibit C now shows a potential future vehicular/pedestrian interconnection on the western property boundary abutting the tract currently zoned Rural Agricultural (with Mobile Home Overlay). Staff stated in the June 2015 comments that because of the relatively small number of potential future dwelling units in the tract zoned Residential (RSF-3) that abuts the southern boundary of the CPUD making a future vehicular interconnection would not be considered feasible. Therefore, staff recommended a future pathway connection between the CPUD and the abutting southern residential tract to allow for pedestrian and bicycle use. The CPUD Master Plan now shows a potential future pathway connection with the RSF-3 tract. FLUE 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. [Open space will be provided as required by the LDC. One of the permitted C-2 zoning district uses is "civic, social, and fraternal associations (8641)" and therefore could accommodate civic facilities. Staff believes that it is important to recognize the PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 9 of 20 December 18,2015 significant pedestrian and bicycle population in Immokalee and to keep this in mind while developing the site development plans for this project.] Review of PUDZ Application dated 9-4-15(this has not been updated with a newer submittal) It is suggested that Exhibit 3 (Evaluation Criteria— "Narrative Statement Describing Request"), the last sentence, be modified as follows, "The CPUD will include uses generally consistent with the C 3 C-2 zoning district with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of building area." Review of CPUD Document and Master Plan • Exhibit A: Remove the remaining C-3 Zoning District Uses in Exhibit A or add the missing restrictions and limitations, as applicable. It is suggested that Exhibit 3 (Evaluation Criteria—"Narrative Statement Describing Request"), the last sentence, be modified as follows, "The CPUD will include uses generally consistent with the C 3 C-2 zoning district with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of building area." Transportation Element: In evaluating this project,staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP)using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current A UIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service [LOS] Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links(roadway segments)directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 10 of 20 December 18,2015 The proposed rezoning to allow a shopping center on the subject property will generate approximately 449 PM peak hour,net new trips on the adjacent roadway links,as follows: S.R.29 from 9th Street to C.R. 29A North, a two-lane undivided facility,with a current service volume of 900 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 352 trips, and currently operating at LOS "C" in the 2014 AUIR; S.R. 29 from CR 29A North to S.R. 82, a two-lane undivided facility, with a current service volume of 900 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 380 trips, and currently operating at LOS "C" in the 2014 AUIR; Westclox Road from Carson Road to S.R. 29, a two-lane undivided facility,with a current service volume of 800 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 590 trips, and currently operating at LOS "B" in the 2014 AUIR; and, New Market Road from Broward Street to S.R. 29,a two-lane undivided facility, with a current service volume of 900 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 418 trips, and currently operating at LOS "C" in the 2014 AUIR. Based on the 2014 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project within the 5-year planning period. Staff also reviewed the project using the 2015 AUIR and also determined there is adequate capacity on the road network to accommodate the project within the 5-year period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. A minimum of 1.2 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD,the entirety of which will be satisfied off site in accordance with the LDC. GMP Conclusion: This rezone petition may not be deemed consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan. 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 Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as "Rezone Findings"),which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its 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 and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. 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. PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 11 of 20 December 18,2015 gk Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass,building location and orientation,architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses to the north east and west. As previously stated,to the north is undeveloped commercial property across Westclox Street. Similarly the land directly across State Route 29 to the east is undeveloped along the road frontage. Directly to the west is undeveloped property with a zoning designation of Agricultural with a Mobile Home Overlay. However,to the south is a developed residential single-family property. To mitigate for this, the agent is required to and has provided a 50-foot building setback. Within the 50-foot setback is a 15-foot wide Type B landscape buffer. Staff offers the following analysis of this project. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following: STANDARDS COMMERCIAL t A `s'"�". �'' g4 ,l K ip2,.c, '^�rma ra 's a,ti,,. Mir-,,x""„- . ' dt 7 .,,. 3 �,�.-pr^*�, a .,•a - .. �".,r.,f.� ?rzx . r .n y � �m , .�.„.f .��,r.�', ..�-.r;.c'e�'�_._. .7,Y'r.^. '�s� : �., Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 100 feet Minimum Lot Depth N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback 50 feet Maximum Height Zoned 35 feet Actual 50 feet PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 12 of 20 December 18, 2015 Minimum Distance Between Structures One-half the sum of each building height but not less than twenty feet (20 feet) Minimum Floor Area 1000 SF ' ` Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback2 50 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 20 feet Actual 25 feet 1 Except project signage which shall be in compliance with signage provisions of the LDC. 2 2 Parking,essential services,water management and non-vehicular pathways shall be permitted within the 50- foot setback. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is listed in the PUD document in Exhibit E. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs, . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.E.l.B.ii (b), Site Design Standards, which requires for corner lots,no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or project shall be located between any primary façade of the commercial building or project and the abutting street,with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required parking, to permit 100% of the required parking to be permitted between the primary façade and the road frontage. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states the following in their justification for this deviation: PUDZ-PL20150000860,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 13 of 20 December 18,2015 The deviation is justified due to the narrow configuration of the subject parcel, it may not be possible to orient vehicular parking areas without a majority of the parking lot located between a primary façade and the road frontage. Other nearby properties are developed with parking areas located between the primary façade and road frontage. Landscape buffers will be provided between parking areas and the roadway. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: 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" (Staffs 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. The nearby area is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. In addition, the commitments included in PUD Exhibit F adequately address the impacts from the proposed development. 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 property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 14 of 20 December 18,2015 policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on staff analyses,staff is of the opinion that this petition may not be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. However, if the staff's condition of approval is adopted, then the proposed Planned Unit Development could be found to be consistent with 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. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. The applicant has committed to pay their proportionate share of intersection improvements to S.R. 29/Westclox Road/New Market Road, including signalization. If FDOT does not approve the proposed access point on S.R.29,then the project impacts to the intersection will be greater. Finally,the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project. Furthermore, 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. The petitioner is seeking one deviation to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts(LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 15 of 20 December 18,2015 most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes Deviation #1 can be supported, finding that,in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the 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): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff has found that the proposed change is not consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. As previously stated, this rezone petition may not be deemed consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element of the Growth Management Plan. However, if the staff recommended conditions of approval are adopted,then the proposed change could be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the abutting lands across Westclox Street are also zoned CPUD. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Item 3 above. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezone is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the PUDZ-PL20150000660,VVESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 16 of 20 December 18,2015 neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area because some of the adjacent lands are vacant and commercially zoned. Where the adjacent use is residential,a building setback of 50 feet and a Type B Landscape Buffer has been provided. 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 sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the CPUD ordinance,which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 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 value.There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Lands to the north, east and west (across S.R. 29 and Westclox Road) are mostly undeveloped. The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 17 of 20 December 18,2015 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; If the Staff condition of approval is followed, then the proposed development will comply with the Growth Management Plan(GMP). The GMP 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; The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously,the proposed C-3 land uses are not consistent with the prescribed land uses contained within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the Immokalee Area Master Plan(LAMP). Therefore,the proposed change is not 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 proposed C-3 land uses are 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 may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal,state,and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting 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 Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 18 of 20 December 18,2015 amended. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (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. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on Monday,August 3,2015. Please see attached"Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting." COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on December 16,2015. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Services staff is constrained from recommending approval as the proposed petition is not consistent with the GMP. However,staff could recommend that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20150000660, Westclox 29 CPUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulation: 1. Exhibit A: Remove the remaining C-3 Zoning District Uses in Exhibit A or add the missing restrictions and limitations,as applicable. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 19 of 20 December 18,2015 PREPARED BY: 112:112(,A6 PA/NANCY CH,AICP,PLA DAT PRINCIP P - ER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 7-�(> RAY MON V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DA"1'E ZONING DIVISION MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: MES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DAVID S. WILKISON,P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the March 8, 2016 Board of County Commissioners Meeting. PUDZ-PL20150000660,WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Page 20 of 20 December 18,2015 ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY(A-MHO)TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS WESTCLOX 29 CPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF SR-29 AND WESTCLOX STREET IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9.5± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ-PL20150000660) WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich& Koester, P.A. and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. } The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 29, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from an Agriculture (A) zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) for a 9.5± acre parcel to be known as Westclox 29 CPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. (1S-CPS-01445/1226117/1]41 Page 1 oft Westclox CPUD-PUDZ-PL20150000660 12101/15 Attachment A } SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2016. 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: Heidi Ashton-Cicko ti Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—Deviations Exhibit F—List of Developer Commitments [15-CPS-01445/1226117/1]41 Page 2 of 2 Westclox CPUD-PUDZ-PL20150000660 12/01/15 EXHIBIT A FOR WESTCLOX 29 CPUD Regulations for development of the WESTCLOX 29 CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this CPUD Document and applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of each development order to which said regulations relate. Where this CPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES:, A maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted within the CPUD. 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. Accounting(8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services(7322). 3. Advertising agencies(7311). 4. Animal specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding outside kenneling). 5. Apparel and accessory stores(5611-5699). 6. Architectural services(8712). 7. Auditing(8721). 8. Auto and home supply stores(5531). 9. Automobile Parking, automobile parking garages and parking structures (7521 -shall not be construed to permit the activity of"tow-in parking lots"). 10. Banks,credit unions and trusts(6011-6099). 11. Barber shops(7241,except for barber schools). 12. Beauty shops(7231,except for beauty schools). 13. Bookkeeping services(8721). 14. Business consulting services(8748). 15. Business credit institutions(6153-6159). 16.Child day care services(8351). 17. Churches. 18. Civic,social and fraternal associations(8641). 19.Commercial art and graphic design (7336). Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 1 of 10 12/03/2015 20. Commercial photography(7335). 21. Computer and computer software stores(5734) with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure. 22. Computer programming,data processing and other services(7371-7379). 23.Credit reporting services(7323). 24. Direct mail advertising services(7331). 25. Drug stores(5912). 26. Eating places(5812). 27. Educational plants. 28. Engineering services(8711). 29. Essential services,subject to section 2.01.03 30. Food stores(groups 5411-5499). 31. Funeral services(7261,except crematories). 32.Garment pressing,and agents for laundries and drycleaners(7212). 33.Gasoline service stations(5541,subject to section 5.05.05). 34.General merchandise stores(5331-5399). 35.Glass stores(5231). 36.Group care facilities (category I and II, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to F.S. §400.402 and ch.58A-5 F.A.C.;and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to F.S. §651 and ch. 4-193 F.A.C.; all subject to section 5.05.04 37. Hardware stores(5251). 38. Health services, offices and clinics(8011-8049), 39. Home furniture and furnishings stores(5712-5719). 40. Home health care services(8082). 41. Household appliance stores(5722). 42. Insurance carriers,agents and brokers(6311-6399,6411). 43. Labor unions(8631). 44. Landscape architects,consulting and planning(0781). 45, Laundries and drycleaning,coin operated -self-service(7215). 46. Legal services(8111). 47. Libraries(8231). 48. Liquor stores(5921) 49. Loan brokers(6163). 50. Management services(8741&8742). Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 2 of 10 12/03/2015 51. Membership organizations,miscellaneous(8699). 52. Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents(6162). 53. Musical instrument stores(5736). 54. Paint stores(5231). 55. Personal credit institutions(6141). 56. Personal services, miscellaneous (7299 - babysitting bureaus, clothing rental, costume rental, dating service, debt counseling, depilatory salons, diet workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis, genealogical investigation service, and hair removal only). 57. Photocopying and duplicating services(7334). 58. Photofinishing laboratories(7384). 59. Photographic studios, portrait(7221). 60. Physical fitness facilities(7991;7911,except discotheques). 61.71. Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511-9532,9611-9661). 62. Public relations services(8743). 63. Radio,television and consumer electronics stores(5731). 64. Radio,television and publishers advertising representatives(7313). 65. Real Estate (6531-6552). 66. Record and prerecorded tape stores(5735). 67. Religious organizations(8661). 68. Repair services - miscellaneous (7629-7631, 7699 - bicycle repair, binocular repair, camera repair, key duplicating, lawnmower repair, leather goods repair, locksmith shop, picture framing,and pocketbook repair only). 69. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores(5261). 70. Retail services - miscellaneous (5921-5963 except pawnshops and building materials, 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs,monuments,swimming pools,tombstones and whirlpool baths). 71.Secretarial and court reporting services(7338). 72.Security and commodity brokers,dealer,exchanges and services(6211-6289). 73.Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors(7251). 74.Social services, individual and family (8322 activity centers, elderly or handicapped only;day care centers,adult and handicapped only). 75.Surveying services(8713). 76.Tax return preparation services(7291). 77.Travel agencies(4724,no other transportation services). 78. United States Postal Service(4311,except major distribution center). Weatciox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 3 of 10 12/03/2015 79.Veterinary services(0742,excluding outdoor kenneling). 80.Videotape rental(7841),excluding adult oriented sales and rental. 81.Wallpaper stores(5231). 82.Any other commercial use or professional services, which are comparable in nature with the foregoing uses including those that exclusively serve the administrative as opposed to the operational functions of a business and are associated purely with activities conducted in an office. 83.Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or the Hearing Examiner. ) B. Accessory Uses/Structures: } Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures,including,but not limited to: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted principal uses. 2. Drinking places(Group 5813),only in conjunction with eating places. 3. Caretaker's residence. 4. Sidewalk sales: outdoor seasonal sales shall be permitted(except roadside sales). DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth in Exhibit B, shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcels or lot boundary lines. 1 { Westdox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 4 of 10 12/03/2015 EXHIBIT B FOR WESTCLOX 29 CPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS COMMERCIAL a1 Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 100 feet Minimum Lot Depth N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback 50 feet Maximum Height Zoned 35 feet Actual 50 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures One-half the sum of each building height but not less than twenty feet(20 feet) Minimum Floor Area 1000 SF Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet Minimum Southern PUD Boundary Setback 50 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 20 feet Actual 25 feet 1 Except project signage which shall be in compliance with signage provisions of the LDC. 2 Parking, essential services, water management and non-vehicular pathways shall be permitted within the 50-foot setback. Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 5 of 10 12/03/2015 1 Na Z:C;IDUr/Cl oev[rn-V}do-o u104X3\s wwwwtma ea ),s-Ix-anda e7rn ramd-,vxeV AV"rro‘\ 11 g z 1! Lii 6 CO W a. 1 CI 11 CO 4. a 1 o. dle z ' x N x x 1.- oi § �Z co mm y C7 p �� W AI O o 6 m h1 59 o LL W W 0 Cl W W cy F . ovW, u) 1- $ E N 1- ao S.R. 29 o cc isi bc I( ' 1--- 7 — ,... tril x.,_ ,.., olki ! .mx ig 8 8 s jp I 1 R Ng ` h WO �3 I MI I a9u0 ° 0-0 f j Q a Z i o E a 0< a I i =d , LL Z Z g Uo �l LL w I a ay m a CO uj ° t d' Jf ' jw j �j, � ZW )` b 0 m W� W O 'C itI O N � : � $ Oco E~„ cam, et I 1 1(4 Midi h 1 N n G W W LL le , g 4 L_______,...... , , i ,: ,--)/-/ X�° o g `yv . , /, 0 I LL w E ca ll D� i'ti,'/ 03dO13A30Nf 3S1 / OHW-tl a3NOZ o r f asnd V Wyui U 2 z¢z LU o ¢ • • • • • • 2 .z N ai EXHIBIT D FOR WESTCLOX 29 CPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2493, PAGE 2779, LYING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 29 AS SHOWN ON THE WESTCLOX STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 69022; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°15'42" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29,A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 89'15'42" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1001.87 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 00°38'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 556.47' TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE WESTCLOX STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 69022; THENCE SOUTH 70°13'29" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET, A DISTANCE OF 261.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 648.65 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1812.95 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 20°29'59", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 80°28'28" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 645.20 FEET)TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89°16131" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 121.98 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH 15TH STREET (STATE ROAD 29), THENCE RUN ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 00°38'24" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 349.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 9.50 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. Weatclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 7 of 10 12/03/2015 i R EXHIBIT E FOR WESTCLOX 29 CPUD I DEVIATIONS F 1. From LDC Section 5.05.08.E.1.b.ii(b),Site Design Standards, which requires for corner lots, t no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or f project shall be located between any primary facade of the commercial building or project and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required parking, to permit 100% of the required parking to be permitted between the primary facade and the road frontage. i 1 T i i 1 1 i 1 i I 1 i 3 1 a 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i J Z 1 1 i i gj� } 1 S 1i { 3 1 i i Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 8 of 10 12/03/2015 1 1 EXHIBIT F FOR WESTCLOX 29 CPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. TRANSPORTATION a. The owner or its successors or assigns,shall pay its proportionate share towards the costs of the traffic signal and other pedestrian features, including but not limited to sidewalks, cross walks, pedestrian signals and improvements for handicapped accessibility, to be constructed at the intersection of SR29 and Westclox/New Market Roads at the time the signal is installed. b. The owner or its successors or assigns, at time of project construction, shall construct all pedestrian facilities on the south and west sides of the intersection of SR29 and Westclox/New Market Roads that accommodate pedestrian generated trips associated with the project (excluding Pedestrian Signalized System), if such facilities do not exist at time of SDP. c. The owner at any time upon written request of FDOT shall provide up to 1.0' (ten) feet of additional road right-of-way along the SR-29 frontage. The additional road right-of-way shall be conveyed at no cost to the State or Collier County. Building setbacks and landscape buffers along S.R. 29 shall be reduced by the width of the right-of-way conveyed to the County or State per LDC Section 9.03.07 effective at time of approval of this PUD. This requirement terminates upon completion of FDOT's 90% construction plans for State Road 29 improvements, which is currently in the project development and environment(PD&E)study stage. d. The project shall be limited to a maximum of 599 two-way unadjusted PM peak hour trips. e. The Traffic Impact Statement submitted for the SDP shall include trip distribution assignments for each project entrance shown on the SDP. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL No native vegetation preserve shall be provided on-site. The developer shall meet native vegetation preservation requirements by providing for off-site vegetation retention pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. The off-site vegetation retention shall be a minimum of 1.2±acres(8.26±acres of native vegetation x 0.15=1.2±acres). 3. PUD MONITORING 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 Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP, 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 200, Naples, FL 34105. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 9 of 10 12/03/2015 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. 4. MISCELLANEOUS a. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. b. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibits Page 10 of 10 12/03/2015 1 1 2 3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 4 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 5 FOR WESTCLOX 29 CPUD 6 August 3, 2015 7 8 9 10 11 Appearances: 12 WAYNE ARNOLD 13 RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. 14 GARY WILLIAMS • 15 JAMES BANKS 16 NANCY GUNDLACH 17 SHARON UMPENHOUR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment B 2 1 MR. ARNOLD: We're going to go ahead and get 2 started. 3 This is the neighborhood information meeting 4 for the Westclox State Road 29 commercial planned 5 unit development, and I'm Wayne Arnold with 6 GradyMinor & Associates, the planner handling the 7 application. This is Gary Williams who's walking 8 in the room. 9 With me tonight I have Rich Yovanovich. He's 10 the land use attorney working on the project. We 11 have Jim Banks sitting next to him over here that 12 did the traffic analysis. 13 And each of you probably received a letter 14 from Sharon, who's sitting here recording the 15 meeting. The county requires us to record 16 neighborhood information meetings and provide them 17 with a transcript of the meeting so they can 18 understand what public comments were made and what 19 representations we made to make sure that 20 everything gets addressed appropriately as we move 21 along through the process. 22 This -- the subject property I have on the 23 aerial photograph up here, it's of the southwest 24 corner of State Road 29 and Westclox. It's about 25 ten acres. Immediately across the street was the 3 1 Walmart property, the State Road 29 commercial 2 planned development that you all followed very 3 closely. 4 This is a much more simple project. We don't 5 know the end user here and we've -- we're in a 6 neighborhood center under your Immokalee master 7 plan. So we've asked for a commercial rezoning to 8 establish uses that are generally neighborhood 9 oriented. Some of those we have, I think C3, there 10 may be a couple of C4-type uses, but primarily 11 they're Cl, 2 and 3 land uses that have been 12 proposed. 13 It's in for review right now with Collier 14 County. We've received one round of comments on 15 our zoning application. They've made comments. We 16 have not responded. We typically wait until after 17 we have the neighborhood information meeting to see 18 if any questions or issues come up that we need to 19 address through the process. 20 So what will happen next in the process is 21 Nancy Gundlach. I'm sorry. I didn't introduce 22 Nancy. Nancy Gundlach here on the corner is the 23 staff principal planner that's handling the project 24 management from the county's side for this. So if 25 anybody has any questions of Nancy, she's here to 4 1 answer questions about process, procedure, things 2 of that nature, too, so. 3 So we have one formal round of comments from 4 the county. We're in preparation of our responses 5 back to the county. They raised some questions 6 with some of the uses, whether or not we were 7 consistent with the language out of the 8 comprehensive plan about limited uses. We're in 9 the process of responding to those. 10 Sharon, do you want to move to the master plan 11 on that? It's the next slide. 12 It's -- on our master plan, we're showing two 13 access points on Westclox, approximately aligning 14 with those proposed for the State Road 29 planned 15 unit development across the street. 16 We're also depicting an access point on State 17 Road 29. The county transportation staff 18 questioned that access point and Jim Banks is 19 working with them to address whether or not we meet 20 the spacing criteria. So that is something that 21 may be changing. 22 They've asked us to provide a potential 23 vehicular interconnect to the west and they asked 24 us to provide a pedestrian interconnection to the 25 south. There's a single family home south of us. 5 1 I'm not sure it makes sense for a vehicular 2 interconnect, but we are willing to provide a 3 pedestrian interconnect. 4 And, of course, as you all know, there's 5 already a sidewalk in the State Road 29 6 right-of-way and along Westclox in that area. So I 7 think there will be good pedestrian access for the 8 community here. 9 This process is probably going to take us 10 several more months. We'll be responding back to 11 the county, we hope, in the next couple of months. 12 And after that, you're going to see a big billboard 13 sign like there was for the proposed Walmart store 14 go up on the property that will announce the 15 Planning Commission and the Board of County 16 Commissioner hearing dates for the property. 17 And we'll continue to work with staff to iron 18 out any -- any issues that we have and we'll be 19 holding a Planning Commission hearing in that -- 20 I'm guessing it will probably be in Naples. I 21 don't think this is going to have the attention 22 that it had for the State Road 29 PUD across the 23 street. So I'm guessing the Planning Commission 24 may just elect to hold the hearing in Naples as 25 they normally do. They did make an exception and 6 1 held that meeting for the State Road 29 PUD out 2 here. rt 3 But I think that after the neighborhood 4 information meeting in which we had hundreds of 5 people attend, we didn't have a whole lot of 6 attention for the balance of the project. 7 But in this particular case, we're asking for 8 up to 100,000 square feet of commercial on roughly 9 ten acres, and they're going to be of the 10 neighborhood-oriented uses that are allowed under 11 the Immokalee master plan. And, again, there's no 12 specific end user for the property. The Barron 13 Collier Companies, who own the property, are going 14 through the entitlement process because they 15 believe that there will be some attention for this 16 project, and rather than leave it agriculturally 17 zoned, they're going to bring it through the 18 process to establish a commercial planned 19 development for the property. 20 But if all goes well, I would assume that 21 we'll get to the Planning Commission meeting 22 probably late fall. When I say late fall, that's 23 probably going to be at least October at this 24 point, given that we're in August already. And 25 then the board would follow, hopefully, in November 7 tl 1 or December, but we hope to wrap up by the end of 2 the year. 3 Rich, have I left out anything? It's a pretty 4 straightforward application. There's not a lot of 5 this one. It's a pretty basic one as far as 6 commercial planning developments go. 7 Nancy, anything you think you want to add? 8 MS. GUNDLACH: I think you covered everything. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I would point out just one 10 feature on the master plan, it's a little bit 11 unique, but it's in your neighborhood center. 12 Along the southern property boundary, since there's 13 residential zoning to the south, we have a 50-foot 14 building setback and landscape buffer area, which 15 we can't put building improvements and things of 16 that nature. So that's been reflected on the 17 master plan and I'm sure there will be a landscape 18 condition or something that staff will impose on us 19 for that. 20 That's really it. I know a few of you came in 21 late, but happy to repeat anything that may have 22 been missed. If you have question or anybody else 23 that's heard the brief discussion, I'm happy to 24 answer questions. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: To clarify this, 8 1 you're saying that on -- is that 29? There would 2 not be an entryway there? 3 MR. ARNOLD: We're showing right here a 4 proposed access point on the far southern end of 5 our property and your transportation staff at the 6 county has questioned whether or not we meet the 7 access spacing criteria from the intersection of 8 Westclox right here down to that access point. 9 So Jim Banks, our traffic engineer, is working 10 with staff to determine what class of road this is 11 and whether or not we'll be allowed to have access 12 point. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: How many feet is it? 14 MR. ARNOLD: Jim, do you remember what we 15 said? We had that number before. 16 MR. BANKS: I want to say it was 240, 250 17 feet. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think it's 300 feet, or 19 maybe a little less. 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What do you mean 21 by access point? Is it a turning lane? 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, it would be access for 23 vehicular traffic to (indiscernible) the site. It 24 would be a driveway connection (indiscernible) . 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you would enter 9 1 at Westclox and 29? 2 MR. ARNOLD: We would. We would have access 3 here and over here on the western end of the 4 project, but also we're proposing access to direct 5 -- to State Road 29 directly on the southern 6 boundary of the property. 7 MR. BANKS: They have a restriction how close 8 you can be to an intersection because if cars line 9 up and start backing up where you need to turn in, 10 they don't want the cars backed up into the 11 intersection. 12 MR. ARNOLD: And I think staff has already 13 indicated that, you know, there may be some turn 14 lane requirements, and it's a little early for us 15 to know, but we're working with them to determine 16 whether or not -- what length and what turn lane. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: If you can stack 18 (indiscernible) I mean, you can stack 19 (indiscernible) cars. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And that access, the 22 one shown on State Road 29, if it was allowed, I'm 23 not saying it is, we're going to -- that's actually 24 a DOT, Florida Department of Transportation 25 controls that road, if we were allowed to have that 10 1 1 access, it would only be a right in and right out, g 2 not a full intersection. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What does that 4 mean? Does that mean that a traffic light would be 5 there or not -- 6 MR. ARNOLD: No. It probably would never 7 qualify for a traffic light because of the traffic 8 sign at Westclox and State Road 29. But staff is 9 just questioning, as the chief was saying, whether 10 or not you have enough room to stack cars and a 11 turn lane to get them safely off the road so you 12 don't cause traffic to back up into the 13 intersection. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because there is 15 no light. There is nothing there. 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But it's only 17 right in and right out. It's not -- is what you're 18 saying? 19 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. It would be a right in, 20 right out only. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, they're still 22 -- they're still talking about putting a traffic 23 light at 29 and Westclox. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We just don't know 11 1 when. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What 4 (indiscernible) . 5 MR. ARNOLD: We've got a variety of -- they 6 call it, in the county, they call it neighborhood 7 commercial-type uses. And it allows everything 8 from -- we've got a list. Sharon, do you have that 9 handy? We can kind of go through the list if you 10 want. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Do you have any 12 update on the status of the traffic signal? 13 MR. BANKS: We're still waiting on FDOT. 14 They're monitoring the intersection. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Hey, guys, could we -- 16 MR. BANKS: (Indiscernible) warrants it, 17 that's when they said they will signalize it. 18 MR. ARNOLD: If we could, just try to hold the 19 conversation to one at a time. We're trying to 20 tape and it's a pretty sensitive thing and it just 21 creates a lot of static if we can't get one at a 22 time. So if we would try to do that. 23 To answer your question, we've got everything 24 on there from general business-type offices. We've 25 asked for things like some limited automotive 12 1 services, barber shops, beauty shops, bookkeeping 2 services, restaurants, things of that nature. 3 There's a whole list of them. Anybody who wants a 4 copy of what we've submitted to the county, we'd be 5 happy to either e-mail it to you or if you'd rather 6 get a hard copy, we can get copies to Christie or 7 somebody at the CRA if that's more convenient for 8 you all to pick it up in that manner. Or Nancy 9 would be happy to provide it to you as we make 10 submittals, because the document that I have 11 tonight will probably be modified several more 12 times with refinements to it before we get a final 13 product that will be heard by the Planning 14 Commission. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The question I'm 16 hearing from everybody, it doesn't look like we're 17 going to get Walmart, so why in the world do they 18 need to rezone that for commercial? There's no 19 reason for it. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the property right now is 21 zoned agriculture, but it's in your neighborhood 22 commercial land use designation. So it's intended 23 to be commercial in the future. Barron Collier is 24 going through the entitlement process and at least 25 get a commercial planned development established on 13 1 it, because we do think that something is going to 2 happen on the northern corner. I don't know the 3 status of Walmart. Rich, I don't know that you 4 know anything more than I do, which is we don't 5 know anything about the status of that, but 3 6 presuming that something of a larger format moves 7 ahead on that intersection, we think it will, as we 8 made the case at that point in time, stimulate 9 other activity near the -- near that activity. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You just join, 11 right? 12 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Come on in. Do you want 13 to take one of these chairs so you can see the 14 screen? 15 Mr. Thomas, hello. 16 MR. THOMAS: Yes. I've been here for some 17 time. I'm going to share some information with 18 you. 19 Can you hear me over there? 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes, sir. 21 MR. THOMAS: I'll talk a little louder if I 22 have to. 23 A lot of people from the midwest have been 24 coming to Naples, okay? And they find Naples to be 25 a wonderful place to come, but we're finding out 14 1 now, and the big markets know this already, that 2 the people from the northeast that have been coming 3 to the Orlando area are sick and tired of the 4 people coming down to go to Disneyland. So they've 5 been buying land and buying houses in the Labelle 6 area. 7 Walmart understands that and that's why they 8 have decided to think about building the facility 9 here in Immokalee. And that facility in Immokalee 10 would be on the northwest corner of Westclox and 11 29. 12 Remember that on the northeast corner of 13 Westclox and 29, we have a DRI that the county went 14 after using the hospital as their point. But 15 Naples Community Hospital has a lot of problems 16 financially, so they've kind of backed off from 17 that, but they still have a medical facility there, 18 and behind that medical facility they have a 19 situation similar to Ave Maria where people can 20 develop. 21 So what's happening now, because a lot of the 22 people from the northeast part of this country have 23 been coming to that area, getting tired of all 24 those young kids and all the stuff down there, have 25 been moving down to the Labelle area and buying big 15 1 lots and nice houses. 2 So the people from Walmart said, whoops, we've 3 got a new customer base. And what can be better 4 than a customer base where I can bring my wife to 5 the Walmart, hello, I'll come back and pick you up 6 in an hour because I'm going down to the casino. 7 Or I'm going to buy some cigars up there and I'm 8 coming back to the casino and I'll come back and 9 get you. 10 We are the number one tourist destination 11 place in this part of the country. Fred Thomas, 12 Immokalee? Number one tourist destination place? 13 But think about it. Within two hours of 14 Immokalee by car, you can do everything you want to 15 do on vacation except one thing, and that's snow 16 ski, but we've got a (indiscernible) , just like 17 they have over in Dubai, because out in the middle 18 of a desert, what did they do? They built a snow 19 . slope, where everybody can come and do everything. 20 And we've got a snow slope over there that we can 21 do everything. 22 In order to protect that, there's two things 23 we've got to do. One, that traffic, trying to 24 bring all of that fertile stuff over to Labelle 25 needs to go up through -- I can't remember the name 16 1 of that street -- it's the exit before Immokalee on 2 75, they need to go up that way, go around 3 Immokalee with all those big trucks, not affecting 4 our traffic coming to Immokalee, but you got more 5 and more people coming to the casino now that we 6 got a hotel and all the rest of that stuff, they're 7 coming to us. We don't want them to have to wait 8 on traffic on that road. Okay? 9 Understand, Walmart understands that. They're 10 not stupid. Just like I said earlier, I don't want 11 to go shopping with my wife, but I'll drop her off 12 to go shopping if I can go get my cigars, go down 13 to the casino and have some fun. 14 We need to think about those kinds of things 15 because Immokalee has to become a walking 16 community. That casino built that hotel because 17 they knew that the people from the midwest -- I'm 18 from New York City. You have to excuse me. I'm 19 from New York City. And in New York, we speak 11 20 different Englishes. In Immokalee, we speak about 21 nine. Why do we speak nine Englishes in Immokalee? 22 Because we're just like New York was in the old 23 days, where people are swimming to shore, 24 (indiscernible) people from the Caribbean swimming 25 to shore to develop a new lifestyle, to get a ti 17 N g� 6 1 chance to do great things. 2 I get sick and tired of everybody worrying 3 about the southern border when the northern border 4 is more porous than the southern border. f€f 5 What do I mean by the northern -- drug dealers 6 understand it, because what the drug dealers are 7 doing now is putting tons of marijuana and heroin 8 and those kinds of things in their high-speed 9 boats, going up the west coast of this country, 10 going into Alaska, where there's very few places 11 they can lock into, loading them big 12 tractor/trailer rigs and bringing them back. 13 How do you know that, Fred Thomas? Because me 14 and my wife went out to that part of the country. 15 We decided to go because they had a conference in 16 -- was it Seattle, Cheryl, a conference in Seattle 17 for my national professional association, and I 18 told the people riding with me, who was the 19 existing executive director of the housing 20 authority and some other staff people like that, I 21 said, hey, you all, make sure you have your 22 passport or good ID. 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You better let 24 someone else have some questions. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Why don't we save 18 1 you to the last so you can finish. Let's go ahead 2 and take some more questions from other people. 3 MR. THOMAS: If you want me to stop now, I'll 4 stop, sir. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I think we need some 6 questions from other folks here. 7 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir, boss. Yes, sir, boss. 8 But we need to protect Immokalee because it's 9 the number one tourist destination place, but I'll 10 answer any questions you have, but let me finish my 11 last statement. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Let (indiscernible) . 13 MR. THOMAS: When we started to come back into 14 this country -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It has nothing to 16 do with -- they're just talking about that 17 (indiscernible) there. 18 MR. THOMAS: The reason why -- the reason why 19 it has something to do with that is for you all to 20 understand that Walmart understands. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But we can't clean 22 up Immokalee. Immokalee does not look like a place 23 people want to come to. 24 MR. THOMAS: Excuse me. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We have the 19 1 hardest time at CRA trying to get places cleaned up 2 here. If you can't clean up, people are not going 3 to come. 4 MR. THOMAS: I agree with what you're saying, 5 but you got to understand -- 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Then you got to 7 come to the meeting. People got to come to the 8 meetings and say we got to clean this place up. 9 MR. THOMAS: I agree with you. I'm not 10 disagreeing with you. But have any of you been to 11 San Jose, Costa Rica? 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm not -- we need 13 to talk about -- 14 MR. THOMAS: No, hold on a minute. Hold on a 15 minute. 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No. No. 17 Immokalee is the place that needs to be addressed. 18 MR. THOMAS: The reason why I brung up San 19 Jose, Costa Rica, the largest town in that country, 20 hello, and every store on their main street, they 21 got a armed guard out front. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Fred -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We got to go home. 24 MR. THOMAS: The point I'm making -- 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Fred, it's not -- q5 20 1 it is Immokalee. We need to talk about Immokalee. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. 3 MR. THOMAS: But I'm saying, but people come 4 to Immokalee -- 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We cannot -- we 6 cannot -- I come to meetings, we can't get people 7 to clean up Main Street. 8 MR. THOMAS: But, see, the point -- 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It is most 10 difficult -- 11 MR. THOMAS: -- before you worry about 12 cleaning up Main Street, we want Main Street to 13 look like Central America. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No. We want it to 15 be clean. We don't want -- care what it looks 16 like. It needs to be clean. 17 MR. THOMAS: I'll come back later. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We'll come back to you. 19 Yes, ma'am. 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: One of the things 21 with the statement that you were making was that 22 Walmart does know and that's why it's building in 23 Labelle. 24 MR. THOMAS: They've already built one in 25 Labelle. 21 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. So now 2 we've got one in Labelle. And he was saying that 3 that Walmart that was going to come here is iffy -- i 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- at this point. 6 MR. ARNOLD: No. I think I said we really 7 don't know the status of it. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: He doesn't know 9 the status of what Walmart is going to do. 10 MR. THOMAS: The status of it is based on what 11 our county does. The status of it is what our 12 county does and how_much problems they make for 13 Walmart to come here, but the people want to bring 14 that Walmart here because they know the traffic is 15 coming this way. And that's what I'm trying to get 16 across, that we, because of our location, you can 17 get the flavor of Central America, still drink the 18 water, you don't need a passport, and if you're 19 from the midwest, oh, I feel like I'm in Central 20 America. 21 MR. ARNOLD: Well, Fred, I know you've got a 22 big picture outlook on Immokalee, but we're here to 23 talk, really, about the ten-acre neighborhood 24 center piece. 25 MR. THOMAS: I understand. 22 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you don't have 2 any business in place right now that wants to come 3 in there right now? 4 MR. ARNOLD: We do not, no. Barron Collier 5 Companies -- 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you're just 7 going to -- okay. 8 MR. ARNOLD: -- is going through the process 9 of entitling a lot of their land. 1 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And you don't know 11 about Walmart, so now you're building on this side 12 over here for some businesses that you want to come 13 in and Walmart doesn't want to come in? 14 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know, ma'am. I think the 15 answer is -- 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. So, in 17 other words, now we're going to build another 18 section to have businesses come in when we already 19 had this Walmart that was going to come in that is 20 the status we don't know about, but now we want to 21 bring other businesses on the other side, across 22 the street from where Walmart -- 23 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- Walmart, 25 supposedly, the status that we don't know about, 23 1 was going to be built. 2 MR. ARNOLD: I would say this -- 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 4 MR. ARNOLD: I would say -- the answer is yes, 5 but the answer is this is intended to be an 6 entirely different type of shopping. You know, 7 what we zoned for the other parcel across the 8 street was to allow a large format retail store, 9 like a Walmart. 10 This is oriented much more toward 11 neighborhood-type uses, beauty salons, things you'd 12 find at normal strip centers, grocery, barber, 13 beauty, you know, pharmaceuticals, you know, those 14 kinds of things that all of us need on a more daily 15 and regular basis. 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But we all 17 (indiscernible) . 18 MR. THOMAS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Why would 19 those businesses come, looking at Immokalee, at a 20 place nobody knows too much about, unless they know 21 that they're going to have more traffic coming in 22 here so that they will go to those other stores? 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And wouldn't that 24 Walmart attract more people for those businesses 25 that would be across the street from them? 24 1 MR. THOMAS: Amen. 2 MR. ARNOLD: It certainly would. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Wherever Walmart { 4 goes, everybody goes. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Can I ask a 6 question? Are we -- because I answer the phone at 7 the (indiscernible) . Can I ask, is the Walmart 8 that is coming to Labelle any more than 9 conversation like it's coming to Immokalee or for 10 sure we know it's coming to Labelle? 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 12 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know anything about. 13 (Multiple simultaneous conversations.) 14 MR. ARNOLD: Could we -- guys, could we keep 15 the conversation one at a time, please? 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So they've already 17 started, this gentleman said. 18 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Theirs is a done 20 deal. 21 MR. ARNOLD: Chief? 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: One of the things is 23 to give you some extra information, I deal a lot 24 with everybody in the different communities, and 25 I've got contacts all over so far. 25 s. 1 Here's a couple of investors that are heavily 2 looking at properties in and around Immokalee. 3 They believe that Immokalee is the next growth 4 explosion in Collier County. 5 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So they are 7 aggressively purchasing properties in Immokalee and 8 they're looking. And a friend of mine is an 9 investor and a land use attorney and he does a lot 10 of stuff with corporations. 11 And one of the things that he does is look for 12 property that's available with the appropriate 13 zoning. This property is zoned agriculture. They 14 would never even look at it because they don't know 15 if they can build on it. 16 One of the things that landowners do is get 17 their property rezoned ahead of time, even before 18 they even have interest in it, so when those people 19 are looking for property, that pops up on the list 20 of available properties that's zoned in the 21 appropriate zoning and they will say, hey, let's go 22 look at that. They will never even look at it if 23 it's zoned agriculture. 24 So it needs to be rezoned in order for them to 25 even look at it. 26 ti 1 MR. ARNOLD: And I think the chief -- 1 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. Is the one 3 where Walmart is at already rezoned? 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So that's ready to 7 go, that one. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 9 MR. ARNOLD: It is. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So now you're 11 going to rezone this other one so you can put those 12 other businesses that you want, those other 13 businesses there. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I look at it another way. 15 It's zoned agriculture and the only thing I can do 16 there today is agriculture and some other very 17 limited uses. I can put a house there. I can put 18 -- maybe I can go through another process and 19 obtain approvals for a church, but I think we would 20 all agree it's probably not the most appropriate 21 land to be agriculturally -- 22 MR. THOMAS: One of the big things -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But if Walmart was 24 there, would you need those other businesses there? 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 27 1 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Would you have to 3 rezone it? f, 4 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The Immokalee 6 community needs those businesses. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, we would 8 want that. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And let me tell you 10 why. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But, again, with 12 Hendry County having a Walmart and, of course, Lee, 13 and I know Collier does, but in Naples, why would 14 -- you know, our business here would have to go 15 Hendry County or Lee County, because it's actually 16 closer to get to those Walmarts. 17 MR. ARNOLD: I understand that, but, again, 18 this isn't about Walmart tonight. This has nothing 19 to do with Walmart. This is about zoning on 20 another piece of property. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Zoning -- rezoning 22 any agriculture property to anything commercial 23 would benefit the entire Immokalee community 24 because that puts tax paying property on the tax 25 rolls. 28 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's right. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right now today, 60 3 percent of the total property value in Immokalee 4 fire district does not pay any taxes. 40 percent 5 of the properties in Immokalee are the ones 6 supporting the entire community because 60 percent 7 don't pay taxes. They're either non-profit, tax 8 exempt, or because of homestead exemption, they 9 don't pay taxes. 10 We need stuff that pays taxes. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: This property 12 would be good for the community. 13 MR. THOMAS: But instead -- remember this, 14 Walmart has already agreed, already agreed to pay 15 for, to pay for the stoplight and the turning zone 16 lanes and whatnot so they have two zones to come 17 in. One just above Westclox and one at the 18 Westclox thing. And they've agreed to pay for -- 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's right. 20 MR. THOMAS: -- the traffic light. 21 MR. ARNOLD: Well, just to clarify what Mr. 22 Thomas is saying, it's not really Walmart that 23 agreed to do that. It's tied to the zoning 24 document that was approved by the county 25 commission, but it's really the developer has to 29 1 make those provisions. It may or may not be 2 Walmart. 3 MR. THOMAS: The developer. And who's the 4 developer? 5 MR. ARNOLD: Barron Collier Companies 6 currently own the property. 7 MR. THOMAS: Yeah. And Barron Collier is not 8 stupid. They're not going to do anything that is 9 not going to make money for them. Trust me on 10 that. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Amen. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else have any comments we 13 haven't heard from? 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm confused, 15 because I thought this was a Walmart meeting. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, apparently, there's some 17 social media that was going around that said this 18 was related to Walmart, and this meeting has 19 nothing to do with the Walmart property. This has 20 to do with property at the southwest corner of 21 Westclox and State Road 29. It's a ten-acre parcel 22 owned by Barron Collier Companies, and we're going 23 through the process to rezone this for a 24 neighborhood-oriented shopping center. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So 30 1 (indiscernible) . 2 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're here representing the 3 property owners. I don't know who sent out social 4 media. Anything can go out on social media, but 5 we're not here for Walmart. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But what you might 7 have heard -- 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What we are 9 talking about is across the street from where 10 Walmart would have been, and I did think also 11 myself that this was a Walmart meeting. That's why 12 I was here because the community is very interested 13 in the Walmart coming to Immokalee as soon as 14 possible. Hopefully, the status on that will 15 change sometime soon. 16 But now we're talking about other businesses, 17 other -- first, we can't get the first one, but 18 we're going to start getting ready for the second 19 one. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, this is in your 21 redevelopment area. This is in your community 22 redevelopment area. It's in your CRA boundary. 23 There's water and sewer facilities here. There's a 24 lot of homes being built west of here. There's 25 schools nearby. There are a lot of other reasons 31 ( 1 that somebody would want to build commercial 2 businesses here to support Immokalee. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We live right by 4 it. 5 MR. THOMAS: The water sewer district has 6 prepared itself by increasing the water 7 availability and the sewer availabiity all the way 8 up to that point and they wouldn't get involved in 9 that if they didn't know something was coming in 10 that direction. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 12 positive to make -- 13 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- to mention. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Go ahead. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's based on -- 17 this plaza -- I mean, this area there, I'm a 18 businessman. Let's say I come to Immokalee. 19 There's already a beauty salon, a barber shop, some 20 more things like that in town. But guess what? I 21 couldn't even rent a place around here. I can't 22 find a decent place to actually open up my own 23 business. 24 So by having that there, this is as good as a 25 Walmart. I can expand, I can go out there to a 32 1 better location, saying, all right, I have this 2 location, this place is good, it's neat, I can 3 present my business there. So it's as good as 4 Walmart to me, so. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Anybody else? 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So we're going to 7 be attracting more small businesses in that area 8 there. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think, as the chief said, 10 Immokalee relies on that. I mean, that's been the 11 bread and butter of most communities. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Competition. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And even though 14 Immokalee -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Even though 17 Immokalee, I'm not saying anything that you said 18 was wrong, because I do agree to a certain point, 19 even though Immokalee -- but it's still -- it's 20 still very attractive, like he was saying, for 21 these businesses. That's why prices of the houses 22 have gone up so high. So it's very attractive. 23 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Can I ask one more 25 question? 33 1 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Of course. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: With the 3 conversation of Walmart, I'm not talking about 4 Walmart, there was a development for middle class 5 housing associated with Walmart, is going to build 6 over there. Are you going to build something? 7 We hear in the grapevine that it was some 8 houses -- called the Hatchery or something, it was 9 going to be called for middle class. 10 MR. ARNOLD: There was Hatcher's Preserve 11 project, I think, that had been previously 12 approved. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Is that still 14 coming -- 15 MR. ARNOLD: Donna, you probably know more 16 about it than I do. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Whether or not we 18 get a Walmart, is that still on the drawing board? 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's under 20 construction. It's rental, affordable housing -- 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- non-farmworker. 23 It's under construction. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oh, it's just 25 affordable? That means a middle class person who 34 1 has an income can't move in there? 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's low income. 3 MR. THOMAS: But that's further back. 4 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. 5 MR. THOMAS: If you go to the front end of it, 6 they've got some areas up there between Carson Road 7 and 29 that are going to be set up for another 8 gated community. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I don't know anything 10 about that one, Fred. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Do you have a 12 design of how the building -- how you're going to 13 separate the buildings or anything yet? 14 MR. ARNOLD: We don't yet. We're working 15 toward that and at zoning level, we don't typically 16 get into a lot of details. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 18 MR. ARNOLD: It's still subject to change 19 based on end users, but that's something we are 20 working toward. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: For the most part, 22 this is going to be like a strip center, just a row 23 of stores? 24 MR. ARNOLD: That's probably what we're likely 25 to see, an L-shape or a U-shape of some sort, but 3 35 1 not determined yet. 2 MR. THOMAS: It will be just like the facility 3 they put down at the corner of Collier Boulevard 4 and 846, Immokalee Road. When they put that 5 facility in, a lot of (indiscernible) a lot of E! 6 small (indiscernible) came in there because they 7 know it's attracting business that they can buy 8 things you can't get in a Walmart, but you want to 9 get in the stores around it. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Anything else? Anybody? 11 Just to remind everybody, there will be public 12 hearings held on the zoning case later in the fall 13 and you're going to get signage posted on the site. 14 You'll be obtaining notices from Collier County 15 government if you live within, I think it's 500 16 feet, Nancy? 17 MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Plus there will be general 19 advertisement. I'm sure your CRA will keep you 20 posted with regard to those public hearing 21 schedules as well, and then it would be heard by 22 the Board of County Commissioners for final action, 23 we hope, sometime late fall, before the first of 24 the year. 25 Anything else? 36 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 2 project for 2016 that will come to Immokalee , 3 (indiscernible) ? 4 MR. ARNOLD: What's that for 2016, I missed, 5 Cheryl, the first part of it. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: This is a project, 7 if it's approved late September, like you're 8 saying, of 2015, this is a project that will start 9 building in 2016? 10 MR. ARNOLD: That's the earliest that it 11 could. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's the 13 earliest? 14 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But this hearing 16 you're talking about, would it be of benefit for 17 citizens of Immokalee to go to this meeting? 18 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think if you're 19 interested, it's either good to communicate with 20 your Planning Commission or your county 21 commissioners, whether it's in writing, e-mails, 22 telephone calls, come to the meetings. I know that 23 it's -- it's a trip to go back to town. I don't 24 know for sure, but I just don't know that the 25 Planning Commission is going to host a special 1 37 1 1 meeting out here unless maybe there are other items 2 on the agenda for Immokalee, but I think, at this 3 point, I would assume that it's going to be in the 4 Naples area. And, again, you're going to get 5 notice. 6 But, sure, any -- anybody who wants to come 7 and speak for it or against it, that's a public 8 hearing and that's why it's there, for you to be 9 heard. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They're mostly for 11 it, though. There's not much concern, is there, 12 for rezoning? 13 MR. ARNOLD: We really haven't heard that, but 14 it doesn't mean that somebody won't have an 15 objection. We just don't know. 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Do you have 17 concerns with it? You're at the county, right, 18 Nancy? 19 MS. GUNDLACH: Haven't heard of any at this 20 time. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think it's a 22 great -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The only thing I 24 have a concern -- what -- the red light there, what 25 is going to happen with that? I mean you said it 38 1 was contingent on that Walmart deal or -- 2 MR. ARNOLD: Well, a lot of the same comments, 3 Kari (phonetic) , are coming back on this project as 4 well. It talked about having proportionate 5 payments toward signalizing and putting pedestrian 6 crossings and things of that nature. I would 7 almost bet that we have very similar if not the 8 same conditions that the county wants to impose on 9 this project. 10 So whoever comes in first is going to bear the 11 burden of having to make those improvements. 12 Wouldn't you say that's fair, Jim and Rich? 13 MR. BANKS: Yeah, they -- again, FDOT is 14 monitoring this intersection. When it reaches 15 (indiscernible) going to be signalized. And when 16 -- at the time we thought the Walmart was coming 17 in, which still may, that was going to be one of 18 the triggers that actually helped the intersection 19 get over those thresholds, and -- but, yeah, the 20 county is setting it up to where this site would 21 also pay a proportionate share for signalizing that 22 intersection. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: As it is right 24 now, it's a very dangerous intersection, as it is 25 right now. 39 ) 1 1 MR. BANKS: We relayed (indiscernible) . 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's even 3 without the Walmart and without the other 4 businesses that would come in. 5 MR. BANKS: Yeah. During the Walmart 6 neighborhood information meeting, you all's 7 comments were taken. I actually relayed that to 8 the (indiscernible) . 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But I'm saying 10 you're going to get -- even if Walmart wasn't even 11 involved -- 12 MR. BANKS: Yes, I agree, and I relayed -- 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Or this other 14 thing wasn't even involved. 15 MR. BANKS: Yes, and I relayed those comments 16 to the Florida Department of Transportation. They 17 said it currently does not meet crash warrants, but 18 that's -- 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: When did they take 20 their survey? Probably right now, right? 21 MR. BANKS: I'm repeating what FDOT, you know, 22 told me, but that is part of -- one of the triggers 23 for signalizing that intersection, what they call a 24 crash warrant. And they said currently the traffic 25 volumes and the number of crashes per year do not 40 1 warrant a traffic signal. 2 But I will say this. When either one of these 3 corners do develop, it will be very likely that 4 that will be the trigger that gets that 5 intersection signalized. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Does it matter 7 that there are few exits out of Immokalee? I mean, 8 if you have an accident down that way, you can't 9 get into Immokalee. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. But you 11 need enough accidents in order for them to be able 12 to do something about it. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Was a traffic study 15 ever completed during the correct time of year? 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that was a little 17 bit of some misinformation, Chief. The traffic 18 study that Jim Banks did and did do for this one, 19 it's all annualized traffic counts. It's not as if 20 somebody stood out there a certain day and counted 21 these. They're based on trip generation studies 22 for different types of uses. The county publishes 23 their peak hour and volume reports for these 24 roadways. And then Jim takes that information and 25 looks at his traffic numbers. 41 1 MR. BANKS: Yeah, we -- the data was collected 2 in June, but then it was adjusted to reflect 3 seasonal conditions, which was a 30 percent 4 increase. So the data that we -- was collected at 5 that intersection was then added -- increased by 30 6 percent to reflect seasonal conditions. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. The last 8 traffic study I saw didn't have that adjustment on 9 it. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Uh-huh. 11 MR. BANKS: Both studies that I did, the 12 Walmart and this one, both reflect a 30 percent 13 increase in the intersection traffic. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else? 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. Is it a 30 16 percent increase or is it more? I mean, how do we 17 know that it's 30 percent? (Indiscernible) . 18 MR. BANKS: Actually, it's not quite that high 19 for Immokalee, but we used a more conservative 20 estimate. Actually, Immokalee is more about 20 -- 21 you all's traffic is more consistent throughout the 22 year than, say, like at the -- say, near the 23 beaches, where you have a lot of tourists and stuff 24 that come in during the winter months. You all's 25 traffic is usually about 20 percent difference 42 1 between the peak season and the middle of summer, 2 but we still took a more conservative estimate and 3 used a 30 percent adjustment rate. 4 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir? 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Correct me if I'm 6 wrong, weren't we informed at the CRA meeting that 7 the state said they did not have the money to put a 8 stop sign there or a red light and it would be five 9 years before they had the money? 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, they're not 11 going to put it in. They're going to require the 12 developer to put it in. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The developer. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So -- 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Would be Collier. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- whether we have 18 met the requirements saying that we -- we could 19 have one, you know, they weren't going to put one 20 in. 21 MR. BANKS: Well, based on -- based on the 22 data that we collected, so everybody is aware of 23 this, based on the traffic volume data that we 24 collected, they are correct in their statements 25 that it does not meet volume warrants. 43 1 Now, you can debate whether or not it meets 2 crash warrants or not. That's what they told me. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 4 MR. BANKS: But, yes, it is pretty much that 5 they're using one of these projects as going to be 6 a catalyst to help fund this traffic signal. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They fill out 8 (indiscernible) . This is what I don't understand. 9 We're not meeting the traffic requirements, but 10 then the state wants to do a loop road because 11 there's so much traffic. So somebody is telling 12 stories or somebody is not giving accurate 13 (indiscernible) . 14 MR. ARNOLD: Part of that, too, I mean, that's 15 a whole other debate about either the bypass or 16 improvements to State Road 29, but there's a lot of 17 truck volume out here that isn't prevalent in other 18 parts of the county and I think that's part of the 19 analysis they're looking at. 20 Anything else, anybody? If not -- yes, ma'am, 21 back there. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: All we want to 23 know -- 24 MR. ARNOLD: Speak loudly so we can hear you 25 on tape, okay? t 1 44 i 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: All we want to 2 know, is Walmart coming and when? (Indiscernible) 3 82 to go to Walmart is a lot more dangerous getting 1 4 on that road. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Well, as I said earlier, I wish I 6 had an answer for you. I don't know the status of 7 Walmart, but the approvals that we had across the 8 street would allow something -- Walmart or 9 something very similar to go in. I don't know the 10 status of Walmart and their decision making to 11 build or not build. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 13 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else? Nancy? Oh, yes, 14 ma'am, okay. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So what is the 16 other project? I read something about another 17 project across from (indiscernible) ? 18 MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's the -- tonight's 19 meeting, as I said, there was some misinformation 20 going around on social media, but this project 21 tonight is opposite the proposed Walmart site. 22 This is on the south side of Westclox. It's a 23 ten-acre neighborhood shopping center. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 25 MR: ARNOLD: Anything else? 45 1 Going once, twice. 2 MR. THOMAS: I just want to remind everybody 3 that the Immokalee water/sewer district that 4 provides water and sewer to our community didn't go 5 that far, but now they've gone and paid and gotten 6 some federal grants to bring that water supply all 7 the way up to Westclox. And they wouldn't do that 8 unless they knew something was getting ready to 9 happen out there. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. 11 Anybody else? If not, we're going to close 12 the neighborhood information meeting and, again, if 13 anybody would like an electronic copy of our 14 submittals, PUD documents, the master plan, Sharon 15 has a lot of business cards. We're happy to e-mail 16 it to you if you'd like to get an e-mail. If not, 17 write your name on the back of one of Sharon's 18 cards. We can mail it to you or we can give copies 19 to Christie and she can disseminate it to whomever 20 may want to contact her. All right? 21 Thanks, everybody. Goodnight. 22 (Recording concluded. ) 23 24 25 46 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF COLLIER 3 4 I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 5 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 45 6 contain a full, true and correct transcript of 7 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed 8 by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a 9 digital audio recording. 10 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or 11 employed by any of the parties in the above-entitled 12 cause. 13 3. I am not financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of this case. 15 16 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: 17 18 Date: August 14, 2015 Joyce B. Howell 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 CI i GradyMinor 1 Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects i 1 6 I Y May 6, 2015 I Nancy Gundlach,AICP, RLA PL 2015 Qp 0 0 6 Principal Planner Zoning Services, Planning&Zoning Department Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, Westclox 29 CPUD Dear Ms. Gundlach: • Attached, please find copies of a Collier County application for Public Hearing for a PUD Rezone for properties located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of S.R. 29 and Westclox Street. This rezone proposes to redesignate approximately 9.5±acres from the A(MHO) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Development Zoning District The proposed rezone is being requested to develop the 9.5± acre property with up to 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses. The rezoning is necessary in order to obtain the appropriate zoning and development standards to permit development of commercial and retail land uses. . 1 Please feel free to contact either Richard D. Yovanovich at (239) 435-3535 or me should you , have any questions. Sincerely, • 0 - D.Wayne Arnold,AICP c: David B. Genson, PE Richard D.Yovanovich, Esq. ( l g 1 1 Q. Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. Ph.239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 t Bonita Springs,FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com i I 1 Co byer CAntvay COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED ❑ PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F.,Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code I Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Address: 2600 Golden Gate Pkwy, #200 City: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34105 Telephone: 239.262.2600 Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: dgenson @barroncollier.com Name of Agent: D. Wayne Arnold / Richard D. Yovanovich Firm: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. / Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address: 3800 Via Del Rey City: Bonita Springs State: FL ZIP: 34134 Telephone: 239.947.1144 Cell: Fax: 239.947.0375 E-Mail Address: warnold @gradyminor.com / ryovanovich@CYKlawfirm.co Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. 2/27/2015 Page 1 of 15 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION Please complete the following information,if space is inadequate use additional sheets and attach to the completed application packet. a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest: Name and Address %of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address %of Ownership c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest: Name and Address %of Ownership d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners: Name and Address %of Ownership Please see Exhibit 1 100 2/27/2015 Page 2 of 15 er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 1 e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers,stockholders, beneficiaries,or partners: Name and Address %of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership,or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired 12/1998 Leased:Term of lease years/months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: ,or Anticipated closing date: h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 2/27/2015 Page 3 of 15 EXHIBIT I Disclosure of Interest Information D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Barron Collier Partnership, LLLP - Successor by merger with Barron Collier investments Ltd. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 PARTNERSHIP INTEREST GENERAL LIMITED PARTNER'S NAME PARTNERS PARTNERS Barron G.Collier III Lifetime Irrevocable Trust 0.500000% 24.500000% Trust U/W of Barron Collier Jr.,f/b/o Juliet C.Sproul 0.500000% 24.500000% Lamar Gable Lifetime Irrevocable Trust 0.250000% 12.250000% Frances G.Villere Lifetime irrevocable Trust For Christopher D.Villere Family 0.083334% 4.083334% Frances G.Villere Lifetime Irrevocable Trust For Mathilde Villere Currence Family 0.083333% 4.083333% Frances G.Villere Lifetime Irrevocable Trust For Lamar G.Villere Family 0.083333% 4.083333% Phyllis G.Alden Lifetime Irrevocable Trust 0.250000% 12.250000% Donna G.Keller Lifetime Irrevocable Trust 0250000% 12.500000% Grand Totals 2.0000% 98.0000% GRAND TOTAL—ALL PARTNERS 100.0000% Page 1 of 1 , a : r Co er County 1 k COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 REZONE REQUEST i This application is requesting a rezone from: A(MHO) Zoning district(s) to Commercial Planned Unit Development g ( ) the zoning districts . i Present Use of the Property: Undeveloped land , i Proposed Use (or range of uses)of the property: Commercial retail center g i Original PUD Name: N/A Ordinance No.: N/A PROPERTY INFORMATION 1 l' 1 I On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the i property covered by the application: I • if the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1"to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and 1 • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: 29 /46S /29E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes&Bounds Description: See Exhibit 2 Plat Book: Page#: Property I.D. Number: 00068880000 Size of Property: ft.x ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres: 9.5+/.. Address/General Location of Subject Property: Southwest quadrant of Westclox Street and S.R. 29 PUD District(refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑Industrial ❑ Mixed Use ❑Other: 2/27/2015 Page 4 of 15 Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibit 2 Legal Description A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2493, PAGE 2779, LYING IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 29 AS SHOWN ON THE WESTCLOX STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 69022; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°15'42" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 89°15'42" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1001.87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 00°38'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 556.4T TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE WESTCLOX STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP, COLLIER COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 69022; THENCE SOUTH 70°1329" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET, A DISTANCE OF 261.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 648.65 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1812.95 FEET, A DELTA ANGLE OF 20°29'59", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 80°28'28" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 645.20 FEET)TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89°16'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 121.98 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTCLOX STREET AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH 15TH STREET (STATE ROAD 29), THENCE RUN ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 00°38'24" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 349.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 9.50 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Page 1of1 Co et County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 341.04 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N CPUD SR29 CPUD(undeveloped) S RSF-3 Single family residential E ROW and C-1-SR29COSD SR29,undeveloped,multi-family and furniture store W A(MHO) Undeveloped Lands ) If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. } Section/Township/Range: 29 j 46S /29E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page#: Property I.D. Number: 00068880000 Metes& Bounds Description: See Exhibit A attached ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: Name of Homeowner Association: Mailing Address: City: State: ZIP: 2/27/2015 Page 5 of 15 ' 2410765 OR: 2493 PG: 2779 1103IDI0 in OIUICIAL UCOIDS of COLLII1 MUTT, IL Parcel I.D. #00053360001 12/21/11 at 01:4111 MM I. 111001, dun Grantees TIN 165-0630512 cou 14417500.10 UC Ill 12.50 IIDIIIIG 5.11 DOC-,70 100122.50 coins 11,00 DEED ietc: LII TIWWILL 2100 GOLDII GITI III! f200 This Document Prepared By IAWLIS 1L 34105 And When Recorded Return To: Lee Treadwell Barron Collier Company 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Ste.200 Naples,FL 34105 yy� �� This DEED is made this /a� day of a'G[F ftfn , 1998,by: Marguerite R. Collier, Lamar Gable and Barron Collier Ill, as Trustees of the Marguerite R.Collier Irrevocable Land Trust under date of 11 December 1996, and Harold S. Lynton, Katherine G. Sproul, end Juliet C. Sproul, as Trustees for Juliet C. Sproul under the Will of Barron Collier, Jr., deceased, as confirmed by Change of Trustees dated June 15, 1993, and filed June 22, 1993, in Probate No. 75-33, of the Probate Records of Collier County, Florida,and Barron Collier Ill, Individually, L= , t. " 11, ' , Frances G. Villere, individually, Phyllis G.Doane, Individually - v• na G.Ke : •'viduafly. (The mailing address of - Or oris-Sui1_p2' ••► • •: Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida 34105),collectiv ly •• I •• ` - t• TO n. ( Barron Collier investme td. a Florida li p (hereinafter called the Grantee), whose mailing • ess is Suite 211;:ri•r► L� -n Gate parkway, Naples, Florida 34105. O -/.ar - -_____19> Grantor,for One Dollar whose receipt is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, transfers and conveys to the Grantee,and its successors and assigns, the Grantor's ownership in real property in Collier County, Florida, described in the attached and incorporated Exhibit"A*,but less and except whatever interest each Grantor may now have in the oil, gas and minerals under,and that may be produced from, that Grantor's real property as described in Exhibit "A", and each grantor reserves unto himself, herself, or itself whatever Interest that Grantor may now have in the oil, gas and minerals, under, and that may be produced from that Grantor's real property as described in Exhibit"A". This deed includes any and all right, title and interest of a Grantor in and to any and all buildings and improvements on or to that real property,any and all fixtures and personal property on and used in connection with that real property. None of the real property is the homestead of a Grantor, or any member of a Grantor's family. Each individual Grantor resides on real property other than is conveyed by this deed. Grantor conveys that Grantor's real property to Grantee without express or implied . warranty. All warranties that might arise by common law and Florida Statues are excluded. 84RQN COUJER CO. i OR. 2493 PG. 2184 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, grantor has executed and delivered this deed the day and year first above mentioned. i Signed,sealed and delivered in our/presence: 0 t�ss Margubrite R.Collier,as Trustee V�tr StISAi t L. /f?ATj,) of the Marguerite R. Collier I Print NAT:ifel Q Irrevocable Land Trust Witness 3.'4diey A,'8o4z- Print Name 1,,,,A, i dut. .-/cczd__ Lamar le, as Trustee Wits J I-, miquo of the Marguerite R.Collier Print N Irrevocable Land Trust Witness / Wi-di ele 42, H. et- Print Name ) 1 / Li.._ s '\,'8 ) 7!V - -", . Witness -z: • Collier III,as Trustee of S:n. l--. /yl ' J t : : .uerite R.Collier Print N / Irre • a Land Trust Witnes;;-, —%— / -itillitt, 0 pliv Print Name STATE OF Es k a/+ 0�., 1`L COUNTY OF �-l-+ - -( - CIV— � iT is foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this )V4 day of , 1998, by Marguerite R. Collier, as Trustee. She is personally known to me ortweroducasirriou as identification. NOTARY SEAL . 6- PL,., w51w L MAMPO /LAMA& efit4twto 2 i n CoimiM1011,Il�tll t i OR: 2493 PG: 2181 STATE OF ft COUNTY OF GO L Li � e foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /2-• day of f}r�GThtl) , 1998, by Barron Collier III, as Trustee. He is personal known to me or has produced as identification. Y PVe OFFI*AL NOTARY SEAL ,e /�ab ( G wuw L MATUNO Notary t ' o coCCO$ NU IN SUSAJ4.MAT044 7., s Nn carmeopm Emma Print Name of p■.O OCT. 15,2000 tittuAi i1. Witne Harold S.L , as Trustee for Si/SAIJ 1---/h ATJ,eO Juliet C.Sproul under the Will of Print rd4 44:5 Barron Collier,Jr.,deceased,and as confirmed by Change of Witness �` A B Trustees dated June 15, 1993 in Xia e� ML Probate No. 76-33,of the Print Name Probate Records of Collier County, Florida 4-.4d _l_Agt________ ER C QU . thu e C S�� Trust N'L . le, • d - g • G. Sproul, the ill • Collier,Jr.,deceased, 69, =-= , �., • a confirmed by Change of Witness ee dated June 15, 1993 ,.-4e/1-i. 01 r 4-,,A1 I.• June 22, 1993,in Print Name r} • -to o.76-33,of the IIJJ I� ••- - -words of Copier • lorida ! _ •4, ....i 1-v.., ' (Ali� Witness ''" h C. S as T ee� stic J L. ovird,e0 �� � c-.0 , let C. Sproul under the Will of Print /E C 1 Barron Collier,Jr.,deceased, and as confirmed by Change of Witness -_ / t Trustees dated June 15, 1993 in X/ /y I. G�lo z. Probate No.76-33,of the Print Name Probate Records of Collier County, Florida STATE OF hat.* COUNTY OF no � The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this iZie day of (Jiihow) , 1998, by Harold S. Lynton, as Trustee. He is personally known to me or has produced as identification. ,614 / td,gLL____*aF4� SUSAN LYATWRO ( ,e,:,1 mom" Notary ` l s rr aor�NaN£J I St SI-x.)1../ze.A l or ‘,0 OCT. 15,2000 Print Name STATE OF FC COUNTY OF iLr 3 ( 1. i r 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /a/L day of 1 SP}a{n/1 , 1998, by Katherine G. Sproul, as Trustee. She is personally known to me or has produced as identification. /�/ �/ t (seal O�tOF PL9,� w9AN L MMUao Not(ar1y ^+I /mom'.mount,SEAL 2 .. <' cOlYes1QW NUI fl >L15f'� /.-Th�//f.•O <' CC555434 Print Name 71. 40 49 MY OOMMtSSJON EYPIIEE Or FAO OCT. 15.2000 STATE OF F4-0i/OA- i COUNTY OF COS-L.leY-. 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i(2 day of 1 i i.ei , 1998, by Juliet C. Sproul, as Trustee. She is personally known to me or i has produced as identification. " i• OF-r-NOYARII SEAL 14.1,1 A-L'1•MW4 CbW (Seal ci r%r�`b, SUSAN L MATURO Notary ! } c� cows.oN wino �.().S 4-Ai A• ("1/1 Jre© `v; 1 CC500434 ' ..?"e `t!' ° MY ooswxssioi ExPWEB Print Name _iid.414/gZ--- 6.1— f�/a Witness R C Barron Collier It,Individually 1 Print me / 04% -- 4.-"'", 1 Witness ems; . o . I Print Name 1 A�, X 0 I. Y _ -. Witness -Jr- a•'Cy' a•le, Individually v s: . 0) ii" Print Na , oi„./.419. i Witness // A ffe4A4y /� • 4 z • Print Name • Ikt.444A/ 4.dha .1 ruV�� C: L-tE L, 'IS • Wit es� rYl 1vR0 Frances G.Ville, Individually s A Print N ar Witness ji 411110 "Xrdter//ei/ 1 Print Name dartte. /.ikeukz � t2 W s Phylit&. Do e, Individually 5 t f1-A-' i,. (Yl fr7 4C1 Print N cia, 5- Print Name • 4 rtip. ... JDJ 1A (knurP q kQC(ot�. .1111111.111117 Donna G.Keller, tnd�vidualy SA�Il�.11tAfJ�Zo Print Nig:4 VVibiess Print Name STATE OF R_og 1Dk COUNTY OF C L.LlEJC The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /• 'r'e day of Qd/><Il , 1998, by Barron Collier ill, Individually. He is personally known to me or has produced as identification. - 444/01 i a OG&MDIAY pEL Note ammo.wgr65.4U / A7i/1to o C0099404 Print Name 7 OrFtOc WOCOTrr�a WIRES STATE OF rt-cverD 4 COUNTY OF CALL IOC- s,�'�ER Co�,� -`The foregoing inst acknowledged .: ., _ : this I day of wthlmo , 1998,by La ,ar = • = i•ividually. He i.• pe -• ally known to me or has produced a$i6e •' i . •• , R o *kJ u I .a p T _ /rAT • o 9434 71 OF O° H 2 DS _ u ova STATE OF iic.velon- COUNTY OF Co L-i4 i]'L- l IE e �foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1?le day of , 1998, by Frances G. Villere. She is personally known to me or has produced as identification. , ` Fpr Fwe K1 V ,. ��t, W$AN L MATURO eana.roa Mann Not ry ccssom SiL.Vfikf l • /hFITZ/g--0 C WY COINIIDONEM/NEs OF'F1.O OCT. 15,2000 _ Print Name STATE OF kof2IDA. COUNTY OF COLL,E7t: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this aZ day of CUCIIDOVI , 1998, Phyllis G. Doane. She is personally known to me or has produced as identification. �a�,� 1 aU FEW.MUM PEAL No ary SO /7N /'Y1 raid ro.f • °. SUSAN L."Tum ea.nppa Kasen Print Name �.i. CC109434 OF FLO49 wOCT 1e 2000 5 i i s 1 STATE OF t0A 4 COUNTY OF Go+.►.► //�!� ''T�t»� forpoinQ instrwr�ent was acknowledged before me this la day of W.eESfItI� 1$99, by Donna G. Keller. She is a has produced as identification. lei (Seal) Not .940 ,14)t- nffrrt10 ..,` PEA ausu► 1�1►n►� Print Name 1'2a < CC555554 } 7400-I.O4O MY OCT. 120 { I, i i 3 1 4 R F ir.— s'*1 VI, rsa CI C).. ° PIT , .. ,-- ,tc Irs...• OP Z' E GIR 1' 6 F I. a„ip. Exhibit .RW Collier County Township 46 South. Ranee 28 East. Section 34 All fractional Southeast 1/4. Township 46 South...tanms 29 East. Section 5 All lying West of S.R. 29. Township 46 South. Range 29 East. Section 19 The South 1/2, less the Westerly 201.608 acres lying West of County Road right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 156, Page 379; subject to easement recorded in Deed Book 13, Page 404, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 46 South. Range 29 &,pst. Section 20 The South 1/2 of the South . y est of S.R. 29, less the West 30 feet thereof. W tj .:4511111111011111? cs Pm All, lying West of =.R • 1 4. , f t thereof and w less lands descri• • i • 21 2, and O.R. Book 1742, Page 933, Pub is 4); ti , Florida. �v N r _I t-: J oa described as follows: -111 G „ c (1) The North 1/2, lest :ast 30 ai. erect; subject to easement recorded in •..0' 4,:� ;;. ge 404; 41. Div. (2) The Southwest 1/4; subject to easements recorded in O.R. Book 13, Page 404, and O.R. Book 2117, Page 1743; and (3) The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, less the East 30 feet thereof. Township 46 South, Range 22 East. Section 31 described as follows: (1) That part of the Northwest 1/4 lying North of S.R. 850, less lands described in O.R. Book 143, Page 270; O.R. Book 194, Page 966; O.R. Book 217, Page 925; O.R. Book 228, Page 924; O.R. Book 254, Page 451; O.R. Book 281, Page 682; O.R. Book 748, Page 1877; and O.R. Book 763, Page 680; subject to easements recorded in O.R. Book 644, Page 1671 and O.R. Book 1122, Page 49; and (2) That part of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 lying North of S.R. 850, less the North, East, and West 30 feet thereof, and less lands described in O.R. Book 551, Page 577; O.R. Book 621, Page 1273; O.R. Book 730, Page 1906; O.R. Book 739, Page 675; O.R. Book 770, Page 196; and O.R. Book 2280, Page 757; subject to easement recorded in O.R. Book 616, Page 1061. 1 Cn-- I Township 46 South. Rance 29 East. Section 3Z _. described as follows: (1) All of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the p. Northwest 1/4, lying North of S.R. 850, less the lands described in O.R. Book 603, Page 518; O.R. Book 603, Page 519; and O.R. Book 603, Page 520; and (2) The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, lying North of S.R. 850; subject to easement recorded in O.R. Book 572, Page 253, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 46 South. Rance 30 East. Section 28 All, less the West 90.88 acres, subject to Florida Power and Light Company easement recorded in O.R. Book 441, Page 698. Township 46 South. Rance 30 East. Section 32 All, less the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, and the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, and the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the South 4 of the Northwest 1/4. R CCOLI1 Township 46 South. Ra • = Q o East. Sect = 50 -- s All. _ tra All, less the lands •e• � !', Page 1539, Public Records of C. er County, Fi;, CO o cr. Township 46 South. Razt• 5 East. Sect o All, less the lands descr p� • 2009, Page 1539, subject to Florida Power and parry easement recorded in O.R. Book 441, Page 698, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 46 South, Ranoe 30 East. Section 36 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, subject to Florida Power and Light Company easement recorded in O.R. Book 441, Page 698, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Range 27 Eet. Section 5 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, subject to Memorandum of Option dated April 10, 1997 recorded in O.R. Book 2320, Page 394, Public Records of Collier county, Florida. Township 47 South. Range 27 East„ Section 6 All, subject to Memorandum of Option dated April 10, 1997 and recorded in O.R. Book 2320, Page 394, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 2 8 Township 47 South. Range 27 East. Section 7 All, subject to Memorandum of Option dated April 10, 1997 and recorded in O.R. Book 2320, Page 394, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Rance 27 East. Section 18 All, subject to Memorandum of Option dated April 10, 1997 and recorded in O.R. Book 2320, Page 394, Public Records of collier County, Florida, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Rance 21 East. Section 19 All, less the South 427 acres, subject to Memorandum of Option dated April 10, 1997 and recorded in O.R. Book 2320, Page 394, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Range 28 East. Section 1 The West 1/2. Township 47 South. Rance 28 East. Section 3, All. Township 47 South. Range 2 � t on 4 All. c KK 11..�.$�� po Township 47 South. •a -e 0)28. aft:—Se ion C....) All, less the land dr_ • + f 0O9, Page 1554, -ti Public Records of ,ol r ■o y t S. CI CI V . _` �7 All, less the lands ibed in O.R. 609, Page 1554, Public Records of Col Q ;-unty, Flo r4,. -41E CI- C Township 47 South. Rance 28 Ea . action 7 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Range 28 East. Section 8 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Rance 28 East. Section 9 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Rance 28 East. Section 10 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 3 4. Township 47 South. Ranae 28 East. Section 11 f All. Township 47 South. Range 2$ East, Section 12 I The West 1/2. I 1 Township 47 South. Rance 28 East. Section 15 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, 4 Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 1 s. s Township 47 South. Rance 28 East. Section 17 x All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. i Township 47 South. Range 28 East. section 18 1 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Range 28 East. Section 20 i a All, less the lands desc ..-.11T T • 0 =,r° 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Coll -E?.x•. • +A-):,, mi i INA • • • • 1 z- 1. : := 1=.14. .1 I 00 , Page 1554, All, less the land d n '� Public Records of e• y IFW.• - -a a .R. 846. G? ; n �, N All, less the lands bed in O.R. :--1 ' '09, Page 1554, Public Records of Coll ,1, • ty, Fl. - d less and except the South 50 feet thereof. T � Township 47 South. Range 28 East.. Section 29 • • All, lying North of S.R. 846. Township 47 South. Range 28 East. Section 30 All, lying North of S.R. 846. Township 47 South, Range 28 East. Section 36 All. 4 • Township 47 South. Rance 29 East. Section 9 described as follows: (1) All of the West 1/2, less lands described in O.R. Book 251, Page 60, O.R. Book 431, Page 59, and O.R. Book 2117,Page 1738; subject to road right-of-way described in O.R. Book 120, Page 408; subject to easements recorded in O.R. Book 234, Page 906, O.R. Book 13, Page 405, O.R. Book 1578, Page 1756, and County Road right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 745, Page 1499. (2) The South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, lying West of S.R. 856, less the South 30 feet and the West 30 feet thereof; subject to easement recorded in O.R. Book 851, Page 850. (3) The West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, less the West 30 feet thereof. (4) The Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, less the East 30 feet thereof; subject to easement recorded in O.R. Book 235, Page 187. (5) The Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, lying West of S.R. 856, less the North 30 feet and the West 30 feet thereof, and less lands described in O.R. Book 257, Page 418. (6) The Southeast 1/4 of t t 1/4 lying West of S.R. e 856, lass the West 3 ;ti ~ h 200 feet thereof, and less lands des . in O.R. i. Page 324; subject c to easement reco • / O.R. Book 1 �'P a 405. ..Po 1 ` tie • if , • , .•�..� - !-_ W All, lees ACL ri ht of a'• .ti n of the CI 9 _. Northeast 1/4 East • �= : Ca . t _ 4", a Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 C,a•d the Northw ,,t 1 4 05 a Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, fu • less the 1 .e bed in O.R. Book co 888, Page 66, O.R. B..' 18, Page 49 •,. . ook 1200, Page `O 1102, O.R. Book 1459, 229, and O.R k 1869, Page 1954; subject to S.R. 29 nigh reco • -• Deed Book 9, Page 505; subject to easements . 6. '. Book 25, Page 241; O.R. Book 147, Page 570; and 11, Page 402, and O.R. Book 1200, Page 1102. Township 47 South. Range 29 East. Section 15 All of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, less S.R. 846, less the North 60 feet, and less lands described in O.R. Book 339, Page 391, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Rance 29 East. Section 21 All, lying South and East of S.R. 846. Township 47 South. Range 29 East. Section 22 All, lying West of Camp Keis Road, less County Road 846. Township 47 South. Rance 29 East. Section 29 All, less S.R. 846 and less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 5 E till k 1 Township 47 South. Range 29 East. Section 30 I All, less S.R. 846 and less the lands described in O.R. Book a 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Townshin 47 South. Range 29 East, Section 33 E All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, s of Collier County, Florida. I Public Records : Township 47 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 1 lands described in O.R. . 1 Book 2009,S Page 1539, public RecordssofhCollier County, Florida. i Township 47 South. Ranae 30 East. Section Z. I All, less S.R. 846 and less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 3 S All, less S.R. 846 and less the lands described in O.R. Book 1 2009, Page 1539, Public R oli oti 1 ier County, Florida. i All, less S.R. 846 - d • land des• 1.—d in O.R. Book N 2009, Page 1539, Pu•li RR s f • liar fTCo nty, Florida. •.ti: , • • I '!.:i-i`id,!:IM^W i1 f! r� i 4116 All, less S.R. 846. h, All. O?.Z, �-0'5 HE C1 • Township 47 South. Range 30 East. Section 9 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of collier County, Florida. ' Township 47 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 10. All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 47 South. Range 30 East. Section 11 All, less County, Florida.i Book da. Township 47 South. Range 30 East. Section 12 All, less S.R. 858. 6 114;1,•[humgr4 Township 47 South. Range 30 East. Section 15 - The Northwest 1/4. Township 48 South. Range 28 East. Section i All, less the West 520 acres. Township 48 So2111..ge 28 East. Section 12 All, less the Nest 520 acres. Township 48 South. Range 28 East. Section 13. The Easterly 60 acres of the Northeast 1/4, and the Southeast 1/4, less S.R. 858. Township 48 South. Range 29 East. Section 4 A11, less the lands described in O.R. Book 1579, Page 1732, and O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. • n 1 • - -• • , 1.• •�..-i Ti.,-. ••{ • All, less the lands de �i in O.R. 009, Page 1554, ox Public Records of Co iCounty, Flori - __ N All less the land O. Pa a 1539, Public Records of �lk O•.a r. V g I All, less the North 50 -nds described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Pub dirr. (o oilier County, Florida. Township 48 South. Ranee 29 East. ;action 23 All, less the North 50 feet. Township 48 South. Range 29 East. Section 24 All, less the North 50 feet. Township 48 South: Range 29 East. Section 25 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 48 South. Range 29 East. Section 26 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 7 bdH6;;.;,..),t]N^0, E^hiSkit d• To hip 48 South, Ranae 21 East. Section 27 ' All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, i i Public Records of Collier County, Florida. ( Township 48 South. Range 29 East. Section 34 All, less the West 191 acres and less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 1 a Township 48 South. Rance 29 East. Section 35 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 48 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 36 z All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 9 . i 1 Township 48 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 17 1 I All, lying South of S.R. 858 (formerly known as S.R. 840) , and West of the ACL right-of-way, and less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, • � ds of Collier County, Florida. �0��, `�'� o s Pa sv .r • All, lying South of • 1-• +o a_ S.R. 840), and •Ja• less the lands deep : ,,��j'� T •a•e 1539, Public Records of collier .� • 1 •I �� All, less the lands d- -'t' .ed in O.R. B:. (2 09, Page 1539, • Public Records of Coll £ • nty, Flo 4/E CI Township 48 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 20 All, lying South of the North line of County Road and West of ACL right-of-way, and less lands described in O.R. Book 344, Page 380, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 48 South. Rance 30 East. Section 29 All of the West 1/2 lying West of the A.C.L. Right of Way, and less lands described in Deed Book 15, Page 504, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 48 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 30 All. Township 48 South. Rye 30 East, Section 31. All. 8 ea'L 't:.•uaM- r∎ p N Township 48 South. Range 30 East. Section 32 All, less S.R. 29, and ACL right-of-way. Township 49 South. Range 28 East. Section ], The Northeast 1/4. Township 49 South. Ranae 28 East. Section 12 The West 1/2. Township 49 South . Ranae 28 East. Section 13 The West 1/2. Township 49 South. Rance 28 East. Section 14 The West 1/2 of the West 1/2, and the East 1/2 of the East 1/2. Township 49 South. Rance 28 East. Section 23 All the North 1/2. C ',)Township 49 South. Ram 1' . Sep c, All the North 1/2. rs, w Township 49 South. an. ,qc All, less the lands de •_• •. ', B:11(2 ,, Page 1539, Public Records of C er Coun y, . i.. . "' L•r C) w Township 49 South. Re . . East. Secti� 91,.1 The South 1/2. 410 -41- Cl - " Township 49 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 4 The Northwest 1/4, and the South 1/2. Township 49 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 5 All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1539, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 49 South. Ranae 29 East. Section f All, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Township 49 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 7 The South 1/2. 9 r....iri f 1 • • 1 Township 49 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 8 } i A11, less the lands described in O.R. Book 2009, Page 1554, ` Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 1 S Township 49 South. Range 29 East. Section 9 I S• The West 1/2. 1 I Township 50 South. Rana. 25 East. Section 22 I t That part of Government Lot 2 lying East of Gordon River. Township 51 South. Ranae 26 East. Section a 1 The South 1/2, less and except the right-of-way of U.S. Highway 1 No. 41 (State Road 90); and less and except the lands conveyed by dead recorded in O.R. Book 586, Page 1713, O.R. Book 1412, Page 896 and O.R. Book 2318, Page 2932, Public Records of collier County, Florida. I. Township 51 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 7 All, lying West of ACL right-of-way, less lands described in Deed 1 Book 25, Page 373, and subje - .• e County Electric Co-op q easement recorded in O.R. �t3y'V• - - A• V� °1 Y�)� . y • 9 - 9 • • , ;•,,. _- _ _ •1 - N 3 . .is t All lying West of A L i• -o - a ds described in Deed w Book 25, Page 173, -n•( !)in E ectric Co-op m easement recorded n 3- P IL- , .. i • !1 - 1 • ••. 1 i-r#..• 1 - . -•{. •r. t. \-O i All lying West of ACLL 1.Lt-of-way, is. .s described in Deed i Book 25, Page 373, and nl! - t to Lea .o Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R.'4'33j,�. - • I; = Township 52 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 21 All, less U.S. 41. . Township 52 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 28 All. Township 52 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 33 All. Township 52 South, Rance 29 East. Section 34 The West 1/2. Township 52 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 36 All, lying West of S.R. 29, less ACL right-of-way. 10 :c_o i nilNt1EH u-. 1Of Township 52 South. Range 30 East. Section 18 All, lying West of S.R. 29, less ACL right-of-way and subject to Lee County Electric Co-op easement recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 858. Township 52 South. Ranae 30 East. Section 19 All, lying West of S.R. 29, subject to Lee county Electric Co-op easement and recorded in O.R. Book 353, Page 861. Township 52 South, Range 3Q East, Section 30 All, lying West of S.R. 29. Township_53 South. Rants 26 East. Section 10 and Section 15 A tract or parcel of land lying Government Lot 12, Section 10, Township 53 South, Range 26 East, Cape Romano, Collier County, Florida which tract or parcel is described as follows: From a concrete post (Florida East Zone Plane Coordinates N 550,370.74 and 275,821.6 -) . the north line of Government Lot 11, said Section in V* 1•,j sheet 9 of "Plat of Surveys in Townshi 1 , . , '9' -6 East, Romano Island and Vicinity, Co 4 County for • r, Abrahamson & a o Maloney" by Car E. Johnson, Regist= ed Land Surveyor, .. Florida Certif a 3 N 7. 24 10"E along Said north line of •t 11 an. t. - nor- li .= • said Lot 12 for 435 feet to t o 1 'lax 7 w From said Poi t 7 ,24,10"E along said north li 1, .r t; t mo e or less to the approximate N t V • !An 1 0-n's Bay, passing through a conc post (Flori•"- t - Plane Coordinates iv N 550,639.06 a I. 6,575.29 E) -?- .5 �- t along said line; a thence run sout erly along s • i for 850 feet more "' or lees to an in`! b,- tion with a - = bearing S 19°35'35"E and passing throng ' _ �•• 1 - '1} ning; thence run N ,t 19.35'50"W along sai• +i°C�O ..'. •int of Beginning. Containing 4.7 acres mo - - -s. Together with an undivided 1/2 interest in Government Lot 1 of Section 15, Township 53 South, Range 26 East. Township 53 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 2 The East 973.5 feet of the Northeast 1/4, lying West of S.R. 29. Township 53 South. Ranae 29 East. Section 11 All, less TOWN OF EVERGLADES recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 87; less ACL right-of-way; less the Northeast 1/4 lying East of S.R. 29; and less the Southeast 1/4; subject to S.R. 29 right-of-way recorded in O.R. Book 16, Page 452; subject to easement recorded in O.R. Book 308, Page 548. All of Tract B, lying East of ACL right-of-way, Town of Everglades as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 87. All of Tract L, lying East of Canal, Town of Everglades recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 87. 11 i 3 All of Tract M, Town of Everglades as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 87. 1 1 Lots 2, 3 and 4, Hamill and Crayton Subdivision recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 10. i All of Block C, Immokalee Industrial Park according to the plat thereof as Collier County, Florida, being more�particularl Public ydescribed ass of t follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Block C; thence South 2°05'10" East along the easterly line of said Block C a distance of 657.82 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein 1 being described: fS thence continue South 2°05'10" East along said easterly T line a distance of 240.00 feet; 1 thence leaving said easterly line South 87°54'50" West 161.51 feet; thence North 72 012'15" West 51.96 feet to an s intersection with the arc of a circular curve, concave westerly, whose radius point bears North 72°12'15" west 174.00 feet, said intersection being a point on the westerly line of sadi Block C; thence northerly along the arc of said circular curve ,4 and the easterly line = ,r _r !4 - k C, through a '��"�� . stance of 60.38 '� central angle of 19 � � feet; thence North 2'' ' West along t 1' -terly line of said Block C a ;is - - 163. 5 fe-t; N Nor h :7.54'50" East a i thence leaving sa d ' - er w 200.00 feet t. . •f the parcel herein descri d .) -0 !' I1 c:a All that part of B b� ,�(0) _In-_ r Park, according to N the plat recorded i '1st book 14, - ges 7 8, Public Records of Collier County, °: da lying We lands described in i y AO Records Records of Collier/ °' Official Records Boo +.83, Page 101 , . County, Florida. • Ac ,F '"' A4- C'IRC 1 i • IWd-mrolo-me°-krwoo •iad-wN 12 k! Colt' County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colIlergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. 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. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d. 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. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions:The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 2/27/2015 Page 6 of 15 Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibit 3 Evaluation Criteria Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. Narrative Statement Describing Request The subject property is located in the Immokalee community at the southwest quadrant of Westclox Road and S.R. 29. The application proposes to rezone approximately 9.5+/- acres from Agriculture with a mobile home overlay (A-MHO) to commercial planned unit development (CPUD). The CPUD will include uses generally consistent with the C-3 zoning district with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of building area. 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, 1 drainage,sewer,water,and other utilities. The property is located in the urban designated area of Immokalee and is within the Neighborhood Center Future Land Use boundary of the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). The site is in close proximity to two local health care facilities located northeast on S.R. 29 and miscellaneous retail and office uses found along New Market Road east of the intersection with S.R. 29. The lmmokalee Area Master Plan currently permits neighborhood level commercial on the site. The site is well-suited for the proposed commercial development and has good access to both local and state roads. No level of service issues exist with regard to the surrounding road network. The property is within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District and potable water and sanitary sewer facilities will be extended to the project site concurrent with the development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicant owns the land within the proposed CPUD. Page 1 of 3 Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibit 3 Evaluation Criteria 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals,objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) The proposed CPUD is located in the Urban-Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of the Immokalee Master Plan Future Land Use Map. This subdistrict designation permits retail and convenience commercial land uses consistent with those identified in the CPUD. 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. Properties located immediately to the North and West are undeveloped and owned by the applicant. Properties located east of S.R. 29 are undeveloped and developed with multi-family residences and furniture store. Properties located to the south are undeveloped and developed with two single-family residences. The proposed commercial PUD is compatible with the CPUD to the north and the commercial to the east. The Immokalee Master Plan Neighborhood Subdistrict requires a 50'wide setback and buffer on the property's southern boundary, which will provide adequate buffer and separation of uses. Landscape buffering within the buffer/setback will be provided per the land development code. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space is consistent with the LDC requirement to provide a minimum of 30% of the site as open space. The applicant is proposing to provide retained native vegetation off-site consistent with Section 3.05.07 of the LDC because of the preserve area requirement of less than 2 acres. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Page 2 of 3 _ r is Westclox 29 CPUD Exhibit 3 Evaluation Criteria The project is subject to concurrency and adequate infrastructure must be in place to support future development on the site. There are no known capacity issues that will impact this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The adjacent parcels are not located within the Neighborhood District. The applicant owns additional property adjacent to the proposed CPUD. The CPUD rezoning is proposed for those properties which have currently been identified as having retail commercial development potential. The adjacent parcels are not located within the Neighborhood Subdistrict. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The PUD contains development standards and conditions, which are consistent with standards for other retail commercial PUD's. The proposed permitted uses and development standards are appropriate for the site and compatible with existing and planned land uses. Page 3 of 3 Co er county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coiliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so,what was the nature of that hearing? No Official interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ID Yes ❑ No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting(MM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM,the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s)after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item,please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance,the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS.A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. }\ -. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. 2/27/2015 Page 7 of 15 I , S&9tY COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 - www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: !!l PUD Rezone-Ch.3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code ❑ Amendment to PUD-Ch.3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone-Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS COPT REQUIRED REQUIRED ES Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of ❑ ❑ ❑ why amendment is necessary Completed Application with required attachments ❑ El ❑ Pre-application meeting notes ❑ ❑ El Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 2 ❑ ❑ Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 2 ❑ ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 2 ❑ ❑ Warranty Deed(s) 3 ❑ ❑ List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 2 ❑ ❑ Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 4 ❑ ❑ Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 4 ❑ ❑ Current Aerial Photographs(available from Property Appraiser)with project boundary and, if vegetated,FLUCFCS Codes with legend included 5 ❑ ❑ on aerial. Statement of Utility Provisions 4 ❑ ❑ Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 4 ❑ ❑ Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with ❑ ❑ ❑ project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey,less than 12 months old. Include 4 ❑ ❑ copies of previous surveys. Traffic Impact Study 7 ❑❑ ❑ Historical Survey 4 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 2 ❑ ❑ Electronic copy of all required documents 2 ❑ ❑ Completed Exhibits A-F(see below for additional information)+ ❑ ❑ ❑ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each(this ❑ ❑ ❑ document is separate from Exhibit E) Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24"x 36"and One 8%" x 11"copy ❑ ❑ ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance,and Master Plan 24"x 36"—Only if ❑ ❑ ❑ Amending the PUD Checklist continued onto next page... 2/27/2015 Page 11 of 15 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru &underlined ❑ ❑ ❑ Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ ❑ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing,include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: ❑ Exhibit C:Master Plan-See Chapter 3 E. 1.of the Administrative Code ❑ Exhibit D:Legal Description ❑ Exhibit E:List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each ❑ Exhibit F:List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-690-3500 for information regarding"Wildfire Mitigation &Prevention Plan." PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ School District(Residential Components):Amy ❑ Conservancy of SWFL:Nicole Ryan Lockheart ❑ Utilities Engineering: Kris Vanlengen ❑ Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad ❑ Emergency Management:Dan Summers ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS ❑ Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 ❑ PUD Rezone:$10,000.00* plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone:$8,000.00* plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre ❑ PUD Amendment:$6,000.00* plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre ❑ Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review:$2,250.00 ❑ Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet(submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 ❑ Listed or Protected Species Review(when an EIS is not required):$1,000.00 El Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC:$925.00 o BCC:$500.00 ❑ School Concurrency Fee,if applicable: o Mitigation Fees,if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20%of the original fee. All checks may be made payable to:Board of County Commissioners 2/27/2015 Page 12 of 15 pi. 2015 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 REV 2 Environmental Supplement For Collier County Zoning Application WESTCLOX PARCEL AUGUST 14, 2015 Prepared by: TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES,FL 34104 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Westclox project site is located in northern Collier County, in the south west quadrant of the S.R. 29 and Westclox Road intersection. The project is located within Section 29, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.Access to the project is via Westclox road along the northern boundary of the property. A general location map is provided in the included exhibits. The proposed project is located on undeveloped land, adjacent to pasture and single family development to the south and undeveloped pasture land to the west. Westclox Road is immediately north of the project and another major roadway, State Road 29 is immediately to the east. The entire project site is approximately 9.50 acres and consists predominately of undeveloped pine flatwoods that have been managed as rough pasture land. The majority of the site is clear of exotic vegetation. The property contains about 9.39 acres of upland habitats and 0.11 acres of wetland or surface water habitats. Approximately 8.26 acres meet the County definition of native habitat. (See enclosed native vegetation map) The remainder of the property is disturbed pasture land and an old excavated watering hole. The pasture land has been in use as pasture since at least the 1950's while the watering hole was excavated out of pasture land in the early 1990's when the construction of Westclox St. cut off access to watering areas to the north of the project site. The project proposed is a commercial project and is subject to the native vegetation retention requirements of the County Code. A commercial property, equal or greater than 5 acres in size, and located outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area is supposed to preserve a minimum of 15% of the existing native vegetation. For this property that would equate to approximately 1.24 acres. Given the location of the site and the type of development proposed,there will be no connectivity to any contiguous preserve areas so off-site preservation of native habitat will be proposed. This document provides information concerning the proposed Westclox project site as it relates to natural resources and environmental issues. It is submitted to Collier County in support of a zoning request made by the applicant. Page 1 of 13 I 3 i I Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 II 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS (Pre-Development) 2.1 VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS 3 The existing habitat types(based on FLUCFCS codes)are shown in Table 1 below and the attached FLUCFCS Map. i Of the total 9.50 acres contained within the Westclox property boundary,98.9%classify as uplands (9.39 ac.), 0.8% classify as wetlands (0.08 ac.), and 0.3% classify as other surface waters (0.03 ac.). The majority of the property is relatively clear of exotic vegetation due in part to the land management activities though there is some scattered Brazilian pepper. i Table 1-FLUCFCS Codes&Acreages i Wetland Habitat FLUCCS Code Acreage Disturbed land(hydric) 740h 0.08 i Borrow area 742 0.03 i 3 S 0.11 Upland Habitat FLUCCS Code Acreage Pine Flatwood 411 8.26 Disturbed Land 740 1.13 9.39 A list of plant species observed within each habitat type is found below. C=Canopy M=Midstory G=Groundcover V=Vine E=Epiphyte *-Protected species 411 —Pine Flatwoods, 8.26 acres 86.9%of site Slash pine Pinus elliottii C Dominant Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto C Occasional Live oak Quercus virginiana C Occasional Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia M&G Rare Saw palmetto Serenoa repens G Dominant Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera M Rare Beauty berry Callicarpa Americana G Common Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum G Occasional Wiregrass Aristida stricta G Occasional Greenbriar Smilax spp. V Rare Grapevine Vitis rotundrfolia V Occasional Page 2 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 740—Disturbed areas, 1.24 acres 13.1 %of site Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia M Rare Dog fennel Eupatorium capillifolium . G Common Ragweed Ambrosia spp. G Dominant Beggarticks Bidens alba G Common Bahia grass Paspalum notatum G Rare 2.2 WETLANDS & OTHER SURFACE WATERS Qualified Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. environmental staff inspected the project lands for the purpose of delineating wetlands and other surface waters. The wetland delineation methodologies and criteria set forth by the state(in Chapter 62-340,FAC,Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement ver 2.0)were followed in determining whether an area classified as a wetland or other surface water and in delineating the limits (boundaries) of potential jurisdictional wetlands and other surface waters. 2.2.1 Wetland Seasonal High Water Table&Hydroperiod The hydrologic regime on Westclox is extremely altered from historical levels and patterns by surrounding land uses. A small portion of wetland contiguous with an adjacent wetland area is present along the western property boundary. This historical depressional area still receives surface water runoff from the surrounding pasture lands and can hold standing water during very wet periods. This wetland habitat cannot maintain the normal hydrology that was historically present due to blockages to surficial flows from the surrounding land uses. The wetland is isolated and likely not under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. Seasonal high water table breaks the plane of the ground and appears to average 0 to 3 inches deep within the delineated wetland area and up to 24 inches deep in the excavated cattle pond. 2.2.2 Jurisdictional Status of Wetlands& Other Surface Waters The Westclox wetland lines established are assumed to be jurisdictional with the State permitting agencies per their delineation guidelines. It is likely that the isolation of the wetland area as a result of the surrounding land uses will result in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers not claiming jurisdiction of the on-site wetland,though that determination will not be made until after the ACOE has a chance to review the project. All wetland boundaries were field located with handheld GPS units. Page 3 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 3 2.3 LISTED PLANT &ANIMAL SPECIES A survey for listed animal and plant species has been conducted on the project lands by Turrell, Hall & Associates biologists. The only listed animal species observed were seen flying over the project lands. During the survey events white ibis (Eudocimus albus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and snowy egret(Egretta thula)were seen flying over this property from west to rt east. It is likely that they were flying from roosting areas around Lake Trafford to foraging areas to the east. None of the listed species observed reside on,or nest on the project lands. Due to isolation,pasture management activities,and management of foraging habitat,it is apparent that this site offers only minimal value to local wildlife. The two major roadways on the north and east boundaries of the site as well as the open pasture and residential lands to the south and west have isolated this property and made travel to it by terrestrial wildlife more unlikely. 2.4 HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Florida Master Site File(MSF) is a database of the known historic and archaeological sites in the state of Florida. The MSF office was contacted and the response back indicated that no recorded archaeological sites exist on the subject property or in close proximity. If a suspected archaeological or historical artifact is discovered during the course of site development activities(construction, clearing, etc.),the development activities at the specific site will be immediately halted and the appropriate agency notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the County or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action. 2.5 SOILS Based on the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) "Soil Survey of Collier County Area,Florida"(NRCS, 1998)there are three(3)different soil types(soil map units)present on the project lands. The attached exhibit provides a soils map for the project area as derived from the NRCS mapping. The following sub-sections provide a brief description of each soil map unit identified on the project lands. Information is provided about the soil's landscape position(i.e. it's typical location in the landscape on a county-wide basis), the soil's profile (i.e. textural composition and thickness or depth range of the layers or horizons commonly present in the soil), and the soil's drainage and hydrologic characteristics. The soils occurring on project lands are as follows: (7) Immokalee Fine Sand(non-hydric) Landscape position—Flatwoods. Soil profile— Surface layer to a depth of about 6 inches consists of black fine sand. Subsurface layer to depth of about 35 inches consist of light gray fine sand. Subsoil layers below this to a depth of 58 inches consist of fine sand.Below these layers the subsoil is pale brown fine sand to a Page 4 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 depth of about 80 inches. Drainage/Hydrologic characteristics—Poorly drained.Permeability is moderate.The seasonal high water table (apparent) is within a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months and can recede to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. Hydrologic group is B/D. (17) Basinger Fine Sand (hydric) Landscape position—Sloughs and poorly defined drainageways. Soil profile—Surface layer to a depth of about 3 inches consists of dark grayish brown fine sand. Subsurface layer to depth of about 25 inches consist of light gray fine sand. Subsurface layers below this to a depth of 44 inches consist of brown fine sand.Limestone bedrock begins at a depth of about 80 inches. Drainage/Hydrologic characteristics — Poorly drained. Permeability is rapid. The seasonal high water table (apparent) is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 months and can recede to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods.Hydrologic group is B/D. (22) Chobee,Winder, and Gator Soils,Depressional(hydric) Landscape position—Depressions and Marshes. Soil profile— Surface layer to a depth of about 5 to 15 inches consists of black fine sandy loam and muck. Subsurface layer to depth of about 25 inches consist of light gray fine sand. Subsurface layers to depths of 15 to 80 inches consist of greenish gray and light gray fine sandy loam. Limestone bedrock begins at a depth of about 80 inches. Drainage/Hydrologic characteristics —Poorly drained. Permeability is slow to very slow. These soils are typically ponded for up to 6 months of the year with the high water table staying within a depth of 12 inches for the remainder,though it can recede to a depth of 40 inches during extended dry periods.Hydrologic group is D. Page 5 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS (Post-Development) 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project will impact all of the existing wetlands on the site (0.08 acres). These wetlands have been degraded by isolation and past land management activities. The enclosed exhibits illustrate the wetlands that will be impacted by development. In addition to the wetland impacts, all of the uplands on the project site will also be impacted. A commercial and/or industrial development will be required to preserve 15% of the existing native habitat (8.26 acres) or 1.24 acres. Given the nature of the project and the lack of off-site connectivity with any other preserve lands, the project is proposing to purchase lands off-site as compensation for the preserve requirement. The project will also be required to eliminate the exotic and nuisance vegetation and maintain the preserves(either on-site or off-site)in their natural state in perpetuity. (See Table 2 below) Table 2-PUD Required Habitat/Preserve Acreage Summary Acreage Total Project Area 9.50 Wetland Area 0.08 Other Surface Water Area(Cattle pond) 0.03 Upland Area 9.39 Total Native Habitat Area 8.26 Native Wetland 0.00 Native Upland 8.26 Required Preserve 15%for Commercial and Industrial 1.24 25%for Residential or Mixed Use residential 2.07 The adjacent land uses to the south and west, the major roadways to the north and east, and the proposed commercial development on this property and make the preservation of a viable, functional preserve area very difficult. Stormwater and utilities infrastructure, stormwater management areas, and accessibility across the site coupled with the required square footage of commercial area needed for a viable project make preservation of a natural,viable,and functional preserve area very difficult. . In light of the above discussion, the entirety (1.24 acres) of the required native vegetation preservation has been proposed in an off-site location. The applicant is exploring several possibilities for parcel acquisition that would satisfy the native vegetation requirement in a more appropriate off-site location, adjacent to other larger preservation areas. Page 6 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 3.2 PROJECT IMPACTS TO WETLANDS 3.2.1 Direct,Permanent Impacts Development of the proposed project will impacting the small wetland area along the western boundary. The location of the wetlands on the project site is such that access into the site from Westclox Road along with the required stormwater management berm will result in wetland impacts. The condition and status of the wetlands will make it impossible to preserve them in a viable condition once the development is under way. Because of this, there are no wetland preserves proposed as part of the project plans. The project will result in direct,permanent impacts to a total of 0.08 acres of state jurisdictional wetlands. As used herein,the term"direct impacts"refers to actions that will result in the complete elimination of jurisdictional areas (i.e. excavation and fill). The wetlands proposed to be impacted are all heavily degraded by pasture management activities. The UMAM score for the existing functional values of this wetland is 0.33. 3.2.2 Temporary Impacts No temporary impacts are expected with this development. Prior to construction commencement all development areas will be enclosed with siltation-prevention devices, which will remain in place until the construction is completed. 3.2.3 Secondary Impacts to Wetlands & Water Resources The proposed layout of the project's development features will directly impact all on-site wetlands so no secondary impacts will occur on-site. A berm and landscape buffer between the off-site wetland area and the proposed development will limit the potential for any secondary impacts to off-site areas. Table 3-Preserves, Impacts and Secondary Impacts Wetland Habitat FLUCCS Total Impacts Preserves Secondary Code Acreage Impacts Disturbed Area(hydric) 740h 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 Borrow Area(cattle pond) 742 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 Totals 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 Upland Habitat FLUCCS Total Impacts Preserves Code Acreage Pine Flatwood 411 8.26 8.26 0.00 Disturbed Land 740 1.13 1.13 0.00 Totals 9.39 9.39 Page 7 of 13 i Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement 1 August 14,2015 3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS TO LISTED SPECIES $. 1 A survey for listed animal and plant species was conducted on the project lands by Turrell,Hall& 1 Associates biologists.No listed species were observed on the project site. Listed animals observed flying overhead included the white ibis, bald eagle, and snowy egret. Currently there are two is documented active eagle's nests within close proximity (6 miles) of the project lands. Both are f west of the site around Lake Trafford. No impacts to any listed species are anticipated as a result 1 of the proposed project. 1 3.4 PROJECT IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES 1 As outlined in Section 2.4 of this report, it does not appear that development of the Westclox property will impact any historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or otherwise of historical, architectural, or archaeological value. If a suspected archaeological or historical artifact is discovered during the course of site development activities (construction, clearing, etc.), the development activities at the specific site will be immediately halted and the appropriate agency notified.Development will be suspended for a sufficient length ". of time to enable the County or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action. Page 8 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 4.0 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Upon approval by the Collier County BOCC, the Westclox off-site preserve area will be established. The preserve will be maintained to suppress infestation by exotic/invasive and nuisance plant species. Maintenance/management actions will be conducted as required to meet the success criteria described below.Once the applicable regulatory agencies have determined that all success criteria have been achieved the site will be transferred to an appropriate management entity(Conservation Collier,SFWMD, State Parks,etc.). Funds for the maintenance of the parcel will also be transferred to the management entity at the time of the parcel transfer. After initial exotic eradication efforts are complete, follow-up exotic and nuisance plant control may be conducted until the infestation is deemed under control. Eradication efforts may include directed herbicide applications and/or physical removal methods throughout all portions of the preserve area. Exotic/nuisance plant control is likely to occur on at least a semi-annual basis for the first couple of years following completion of initial eradication efforts. Such maintenance events may be conducted more frequently if field observations indicate the need.At the end of this period, the complete transfer of the property and management responsibility will transfer to the management entity. Development of the Westclox project will impact approximately 0.08 acres of existing wetlands located within the property boundary.It is currently anticipated that mitigation for these permanent wetland impacts may be provided through the purchase and preservation of this off-site land. 4.1 PROTECTION OF PRESERVES VIA CONSERVATION EASEMENTS The off-site preserve area will likely not be placed under any conservation easements but will instead be donated to an appropriate public land management entity. 4.2 PRESERVE ENHANCEMENT VIA ERADICATION OF EXOTIC PLANT SPECIES All exotic vegetation will be killed and/or removed from the off-site parcel prior to the transfer to the land management entity. 4.3 PRESERVE DELINEATION If necessary, the off-site preserve will be clearly delineated with appropriate signage which will be placed along the perimeter of the preserve at 100 to 150 foot spacing. If the property is incorporated into a larger managed preserve then this signage may not be needed. 4.4 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATIONS After transfer,the off-site preserve area will be maintained according to the management protocols of the receiving public land management entity. Page 9 of 13 1 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 5.0 Preserve Monitoring Program 1 i The permittee will submit monitoring reports as may be required to the SFWMD and USACE 1 documenting general conditions in the Westclox preserve areas established for the project. It is anticipated that one "baseline", one "time zero", and up to five annual monitoring reports may be I required. 1 The "baseline" monitoring report (with monitoring conducted prior to initiation of mitigation activities)will provide the following information: i 1. Brief description of current conditions within the preserve area. 2. Brief description of anticipated maintenance/management work to be conducted over the next year. 3. A summary of rainfall data collected during the year preceding the monitoring report based l: on rainfall data recorded at an onsite station. 4. Photographs documenting conditions in the preserve area at the time of monitoring.Photos will be taken at permanent photo stations within the preserves. At least two photos will be z taken at each station with the view of each photo always oriented in the same general direction from one year to the next. i 5. Quantitative data collected from various habitat types documenting existing vegetation composition and wildlife utilization. b i The "time zero" monitoring report (with monitoring conducted shortly after completion of all 1 initial enhancement activities) and the five annual monitoring reports will provide the following information: i 1. Brief description of maintenance and/or management work performed since the previous i monitoring report along with discussion of any other significant occurrences. 2. Brief description of anticipated maintenance/management work to be conducted over the next year. i 3. A summary of rainfall data collected during the year preceding the monitoring report based • on rainfall data recorded at an onsite station. 4. Photographs documenting conditions in the preserve area at the time of monitoring.Photos will be taken at four permanent photo stations within the on-site Preserve. At least two photos will be taken at each station with the view of each photo always oriented in the same general direction from one year to the next. 5. Quantitative data will be collected from mitigation/enhancement areas as outlined in the Monitoring Plan included as Appendix E. 6. Other general observations made in various portions of the preserve area. These observations will address potential problem zones, general condition of native vegetation including planted species, wildlife utilization as observed during monitoring, and other pertinent factors. 8. A plan view drawing of the preserve area showing mitigation features,monitoring transects/sampling plots,photo stations, and water elevation logger locations. 9. A summary assessment of all data and observations along with recommendations as to actions necessary to help meet mitigation and management/maintenance goals and mitigation success criteria. Page 10 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 10. A summary of all observed wildlife sightings and evidence of wildlife utilization. The time zero report will be submitted following completion of the initial exotic eradication efforts,grading activities, and initial planting activities.This report will also document conditions in the preserve area following any initial plantings,outlining the number,size,and species of plants installed. Subsequent annual monitoring reports will be submitted over a period of five consecutive years following submittal of the time zero report. These annual reports will contain the monitoring information described and will focus on changes from the conditions documented in the preceding monitoring report, and attainment of success criteria. The permittee will notify the SFWMD and USACE if alterations to the anticipated monitoring schedule become necessary. The permittee shall retain the ability to modify this monitoring program and monitoring schedule should this become necessary to make the schedule consistent with monitoring requirements of other government agencies or to improve the information provided by the monitoring program. Any substantial modification must first be approved by the SFWMD and the USACE. Page 11 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 6.0 WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM On-Site Preservation/Restoration The Westclox project has not proposed an on-site preservation. Off-Site Preservation/Restoration The Westclox project has proposed to purchase off-site native lands to satisfy the County native vegetation preservation requirements. It is not anticipated that wetland mitigation credits may be generated for the project through this off-site preservation effort. Mitigation Banking Wetland function calculations left the project in need of 0.03 units of mitigation. The applicant will purchase these credits from an approved regional mitigation bank. The IMAM process and calculations are summarized in Table 4 below(Chapter 7.0). These calculations will be finalized . when the Environmental Resource Permitting is finalized with the SFWMD. F Page 12 of 13 Westclox Parcel. Environmental Supplement August 14,2015 7.0 BASIS OF MITIGATION PROGRAM AS ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS For the Westclox PUD, the wetland mitigation program is composed of offsite mitigation bank credit purchase.As demonstrated through the UMAM calculations/analyses, it is anticipated that 0.03 mitigation bank credits will be purchased from an approved mitigation bank to compensate for the project's proposed wetland impacts. A UMAM summary is presented below(Table 4) for existing conditions of onsite wetlands that will be impacted and preserved by the project. The proposed mitigation program will compensate for the functional loss that will result from the project's impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. With the purchase of the wetland credits from an approved mitigation bank, there will be no net loss of wetland functions/values associated with the Westclox PUD. Table 4: UMAM Summary Total Primary Location Hydrology Community UMAM Mitigation FLl1CCS Description Acres Impacts Score Score Support Score Deficit Score 740h Disturbed Area 0.08 0.08 3 4 2 0.33 0.03 (hydric) TOTAL 0.08 0.08 0.03 TOTAL CREDITS TO PURCHASE -0.03 • Page 13 of 13 q: I a, '7::T::: #'414,st4e1)*, Ill E 1 CL ��P woe 1s410N I.r -, , , a�r`rq r.. a�aa s m r�'64 `'4'¢ IS4IhN f_,i < "' t IX �, 1 4 r W a 4,- \-1-44• 4,4 1 S 4101 N Nt. - rj ��++ N ,e` e'yoQy' Is 4114 N c� s 0 �s.�`` ua` s N ri a • N 6Z.IS67-NS IS Incl.N 0E-NS -„ N151h51 ° „ • z ,. C) 9 Q �o r r i 4 a O N IS N19lN is o m 0 is I," Z ag° 'o lslnc4N i.. {-'f oY g x 1S-n#rn \\ N e o U 1s«la,ta u11�no / 6 W oo6 rn 1S4Pead 1OwM1d � X 0 ! w a J e Na �� O a Qp _ wa CO cc' o m CO W C 6 o O G W N 4. !— S ��- 2 W V` j los 1-7- I 0 •Ero W cKZ , ,.., c/ Q Y w O J 3 CL F- 0 L 1`m / a W W Na0 I K ....1 / M � p N N az i c~ 0., co z ? z3 II / O Y p? W © rJ , M M �W� Z r Q O V nP III m m m .W N Q EQ J a.■ A A A A y tec Fp M a w w Et liii 15 J t.- in , , ,..a A4.10, ,-.4,. f e:h 0 0. ,.. c e w _A- o i�4 p O c r , 1 u,a ImIwt"y- 0z 53 3?t w 10 OF z • CT z w p:115044yeatdoc atl CAD ISHEETIPERMIT-COUNT A1504.CNTY Ch‘g LOCATION MAP 6/25!2015 . Nt, W 4 � N W rn 0 a) Z Q°K- y i riwij11j e .,,,,.. i., ; . . .., _ ` y3 a w mw : . 811113 GI ws LL r -.7. ,. z °:,a o o t = °z uVi cw _ �;� � f4 � a u.o j�;� 0 -. } xd S v r 0 'A J : ._ , < , 2 it 0 Y i1 T f 1 co C3 Z 0 u- Y jl 9• c w vi ~ t. "may { ;T 11 { 'S 2 lre III;g j! . i , W i. A _ - x4. x, f' N N �5 a i_ aiii ,,t s,'2 4. ,fi i G..) O 7n m 'zr — — 1 x +mac , .1. • 9ti.. oZj a^ k� fi -, c gI / a � � 4 �N r � f p15504-vaeMoot atlC/1D19H�TPERMIT-COVNTYIISOO CNTY.dwp UCC3 R MAP&T52055 i / ' ' :2,n'''' 0.,-9, —;--,,,fr'r, : y Z r . . „;414: z ; h k UI L :uui. ., Wu>,<; S o k 1IHI z O i W ._ __,__.:digiogo.io-r--- ' ,.....„..„ isologi .„. .. ... r .. ..•- a- o z o N ....milli z z a F oo eeeee• `g o gip IN Nw rd - of c.),. Z'I -\-\ \ \\ -- \ . -------7-- — r F c ' . . U• 1 X :; ' ;' .. 'i. ( F Z e_ \\\\\i 4 4, ; , . I J `-.. . I, ' i . i , . ...... r.._ . , 0, ,. . , , . \\\\,.. 4.- Q 1-- ' , , ' ...,. m . , , \ ,.., ,A,.. ,e, ;.,r,--,•.0:•.;- lai :1.: 1 'I - 'T.:ili'l. /i,,,,,,,.. .„; / 1 , 0 E . ,.. \• 'j#I .\\\\\\ ... hl tx • c•--..T M O � a t . y•2 pci b_ , I,g a 4i 1 v.. _ ,..,,,,-‘_,-' - ,; ii.rt f. ' . .., ' .,/2,::, ?-,. :,. :,., it_ ,. ,I., ;.z,.,, ,,,,., ,,,. . A,,,,, 1 ga p11504-wxtcbx s0CAC4SHEETIPERMIT•COUNTY\1504CNTY.dwp NATNEHABRAT MAP 8/2520/5 D Z j t N ill Uj ❑ 0♦ a to LL W o Z rW❑ io 4• # "} Z OV 2 ?$W H° 1HII w ¢c n a Q 10 w j i b N� ' �a a o y .4-.- JJ � ' Z W 2 y Vt ®S®6 • ,3 2 LL TS®1 w W m N 3 S. t X. �5g 0 p � �.4:- s = z❑ r 'r. 17• .- ,. -7, _ .-4.4, � N • � s0 V W;*, - " S • � ;,''"6Z ! w° ?,°.=W 2w.*i O, +p � W 1 � 0- �,`' iv": l' :—i' ... ; ..,,.46. _ , .„,„ t,,,.. . ,,,,, :, .., Ai Aki4f ,jg 7k a,Y - /"Y • Q Aifrlit' s co e' IMJ'� O ,5.! LI iNc, r ti k` � x 11 a Yet :).t a M Q ,. 2 Ufa "� z e _ .- R .r K � 5 � C ��7 K P 1 $ ,' '�'.= k. , "`'rte W , i ,.. . 's� `� ,��'.iii ". 1:: Nil I • F p = TI .rye,' T {Y i Z `, /�` p11504-v 1vIo+at/CAC//3 IEET RMIT-COUNTY11504-CNTY.dwy SOILS MAP 8/25/20y5 t "8i 0 w 0 I 2 r ,? QQ�-� i AO. @ =FZ d'W L DE cow ..... ## Z X d 3 '° Z a z �fi)Le a t1d a J` ' A Z V !A CC W 7#Ia ?# W o W Q I I I ] W 6 S 8718 "g. E O u N O O N. , g ¢ W <2 m a� Y U M. S 4 D O Z S LL a O U _J Q g m a LL ~ t U /-..\ O Q . d O O U - Q m Q V G N ttp k I i ""/".''''' • CJ r cp fJ . , U . ' illi: .. /-_ ,, N i O rumT~ r s _ r .............._____ ,..._.,_............_ JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES , i lb 1 i p TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT SE. For 1r',. Westclox 29 CPUD q (SIR. 29 & Westclox Road, Collier County, Florida) March 11,2015 t Revised July 24,2015 III ,. C I 1 gg 6' I• s: Prepared by: �q JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. li 761 21'7 STREET NW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34120 (239) 919-2767 CERTIFICATE DF AUTHORIZATION No. 27830 ti (PRa.IEDT No. 1 41 21 2) `,N,�.��S P E.S M. 40,40, 1 I 1 43860 �. '' 'fiksulmilemillarnME �\ .�°T AT .O 'G% �- :°JAMES," . BANK, l°RiDA �/ J FLORI REG. NO,. D� , ..14, �Z / e' \ _ e ... _ 111'11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 Scope of Project 2 Figure 1 -Project Location &E+C Road Classification 2.1 Proposed Access Plan 2.2 Table A-Proposed Land Uses 3 Project Generated Traffic 3 Table B- New Site-Generated Trips 3 Table 1 -Trip Generation Computations 3.1 Existing+Committed Road Network 4 Project Traffic Distribution 4 Area of Significant Impact 4 Figure 2A -Project Traffic Distribution 4.1 Figure 2B-Project Traffic Distribution- New Trips 4.2 Figure 2C-Project Traffic Distribution-New+Pass-By Trips 4.3 Table 2A-Area of Impact/Road Classification 4.4 2014 thru 2020 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions 5 Table 2B-2014&2020 Link Volumes 5.1 Table 2C-2020 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 5.2 Appendix 6 1 i f t I x i t Conclusions Based upon the findings of this report,it was determined that SW 29&Westclox CPUD I I will not have a significant impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that i all roadways and intersections,within the project's area of influence,currently have(or I will have due to the completion of off-site mitigation)a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the construction of 100,000 square feet of mixed i commercial use. The existing road network will operate at acceptable levels of service for 2020 project build-out conditions and the project will not create any transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. 1 1 Off-site Related Roadway Improvements 1 At this time, the intersection of New Market/Westclox Road®State Road 29 does not meet signal warrants:However,it may need to be signalized.by the year 2020,but a final determination and approval will need to be performed by the Florida Department.of Transportation(FDOT). Once the project's traffic dem.andsfpatterns are established,the project will provide a signal warrant evaluation for FDOT and Collier County review. 1 1 • I 1 Site-Related Roadway Improvements , Site-related improvements(e.g.,ingress turn lanes)will be determined at the time of i acquiring SDP approval. g i qg 3 Methodology l Collier County staff concluded that the methodology established for the recently approved S.R. 29 CPUD be used as the basis for establishing the proposed project's TIS methodology. On February 26th,the SW 29.& Westclox CPUD Methodology Report was E provided to staff for acceptance.The Methodology Report is provided in the appendix. Scope of Project SW 29&Westclox CPUD is a proposed mixed use commercial center that will consist of 100,000 square feet of floor space. The site is located on the southwest corner of New • Market/Westclox Road and State Road 29,within iminokalee,Florida. The project • • proposes to have one full.access to State Road 29 and two full accesses on Westclox • Road. Table A provides a summary of the project's proposed land uses, NORTH 01 N.T.S. Wastelox St 4. Curry Rd C ,` ci R' •e .po Lake Trafford Rd v 5 u Vl � c m_ 6 t vi `�` a m r- f, `• a o, * Na 3 z Z z sfi9.b Ijo Immokalee Dr \ R `r'Qo Roberts Ave `R Main St (SR 29)' CR 846 Bosbn c '4 Colorado Aver �t Eustis Ave Carver St rr LEGEND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ■m..=mss, 8-LANE ARTERIAL i 111111111111 ONO 4-LANE ARTER AI,1COLLEOTOR 2-LANE ARTERIAL 2-LANE COU.ECTOR/LOCH. RAIL ROAD --- • • 31411 TRANSPORTATIDN ENE3INEERING, INC. SW 29 & Westclox CPUD Project Location & FIGURE 1 February 26, 2015 Roadway Classification 2. i 1 NA 1'4.1 '•th',i,,'„'i 4N h -3.112.n".::Utn1411%Ird:-6L Were<3n.-WU.,a'.4•:1tr7irld-eM47 `ri1,1 ,7MMl+ g LL Q , i II Z g_•rte,— _—OM :- S a I� C 1 Z 1 a to re vi ce- L°� 0 l 5 $2 o 6x0 i o to� ii co o °z from O U3 e3 < -J UQr 0 W S Q!- 41 1.0 in r- Oi W n w z 6 (i r,lL — A W C5 p D w wDfirO of 2 a c:; w au m °2 a °'2 T S.R.29 1 ", i _J ._ ------------ Il t . . ..- I — - O� ,^' d 0 I mo. a I 1- 5 V 'i` avfx F i V (n d a.o • a i f i cr a I i ' W . o.co c. • U f , i ir , F �W + f i # f1 r Q toU r t ! r;j } i O a a e 6 i i ; i =Q 3 U 1�i1 ---A41.1_,.,.///11 ! m i 1 I !— O as ; (� jar' - f2 N � U! U L. I u. ti) CI p Z 1jr: f f` 0 134 Z i (!J 0 C� w ZU) • i , rJ,,i W N i fi Ltl N O to Q. }V i^?; a U to Z W y F 2 gi fl ! /7 1 ND O p Q a / ! t fr, 1 p N t�s.,_ 4. j ;Z.: v f it i %f r' .1; m j a C /1 , r, ; L-.....,_. 1 •�? i Q 2' � `-.r--aj i ,tr i 1 p a v d x w 1 . fi: rf .} p pW a0 . • r % t�R n Z t 1I z 0. - o3do13n3aNn =3sn 5>. a.0 a wi w< as i,. ' Z1 t 2.2 Table A Pro i osed Land Uses • :Proposed Land Uses Floor Space Mixed Use Commercial&Retail 100,000 square feet Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by SW 29&Westclox CPU) was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition.That is,historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that land use code"Shopping Center"(LUC 820) was most appropriate in estimating the new trips. The net new trips were determined by adjusting the raw trip generation computations to reflect pass-by versus new trips generated. ITE has set forth the pass-by rate for this land use, which was determined to be 35%. However,Collier County staff only recognizes a maximum pass-by rate of 25%,which was used by the report. As determined, SW 29&Westclox CPUD net new trips generated during the AM&PM peak hours will be 1.17 vph&449 vph,respectively. Table 1 depicts the computations performed in determining the project's net new trips. Table B provides a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown in Table 1. Table B Net New Site-Generated Trips (Summation Of Table 1) Net New Net New Net New Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour. . .: PM Peak Hour Trips Generated : Trips Generated Trips Generated (ADT) . . (vph) (vph) 5,093 117 449 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS SW 29 & Westclox CPUD Land Use Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 820 Shopping Center 100,000 s.f. Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon S.P.) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 820 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.651.n(X)+5.83= 6,791 ADT ) AM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.61Ln(X)+2.24= 156 vph 97 /59 vph 62%Enter/38%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.67Ln(X)+3.31= 599 vph 288 /312 vph 48%Enter/52%Exit= Pass-by Trips per ITE= Ln(T)=O.29Ln(X)+5.00= 39% Pass-by Rate Max allowed by Collier Staff= 25% New Daily Traffic(ART)= (ADT)x(%of New Trips) 5,093 ADT New AM Peak Hour(vph)_ (AM)x(%of New Trips) 117 vph 73 /44 vph 62%Enter/38%Exit= New PM Peak Hour(vph)= (PM)x(%of New Trips) 449 vph 216 /233 vph 48%Enter/52%Exit= 3. 1 Existing+Committed Road Network Figure 1 and Table 2A provide a detail of the surrounding E+ C road network and their respective minimum level of service performance standards and capacity. State Road 29 is classified as a two-lane arterial and is under the State's jurisdiction. State Road 29 is a primary north/south corridor that extends from southern Collier County to intersect with U.S. 27 in Glades County: Within proximity of the site,the posted speed limit is 55 MPH. Wc-!sfclox Road is classified as a two-lane arterial and has a posted speed limit of 45MPH. New Marker Road is classified as a two-lane arterial and functions as bypass route to S.R. 29. New Marker/Westclox Road @ SR, 29 is a full intersection that currently has a stop sign control for the east/west approaches, except for the westbound-to-northbound movement, which is a merge lane that occurs to the north of the intersection, The intersection has an overhead flashing beacon that alerts all motorists of potential conflicting turning movements. The northbound and southbound approaches have exclusive left and right turn lanes and a single thru lane. The eastbound approach has an exclusive left turn lane and one thru/right lane. The westbound approach has an exclusive left turn lane and one thru lane. Project Traffic Distribution The project's net new traffic was distributed to the surrounding road network based upon logical means of ingress/egress,current traffic patterns in the area,population densities, business opportunities and competing markets/land uses. The distribution assignments were agreed to at the project's methodology meeting. Table 2A and Figure 2A provide a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage basis. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%,2%and 3%criteria(i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2A describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads that were identified as being within the project's area impact are shown in Table 2A. 4 | ! { IF i | ( i 1 f. NORTH ILLS. { Of ! 1 { i } _ St A -, \t A (Q (§ a .e H 2 • 1 ■ ,x. . ; $ .1¥ % } Lake Trafford Rd -- f , 5 01 « ) C a m u \ ! G ; 1 B ` z z %% % | y 6m�� Dr 1 . Roberts Ave | � ,..,,,,......_...........20% An k ( _ CR 846 1 ' , Bastpn , .4!Se 1 Colorado Ave* �� I A Eustis Ave g 1 ) , o E K LEGEND ND ~ 65% PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT JMB TRANsPoRTATICIN ENeNEER1N w& SW 29 & Wei clo■ CPUD Project Traffic Distribution FIGURE 2A February 2 2015 4. 1 / ir) •—• ca N * - ''''' i 11—Ak4 8 : PM 23 AM 12 : PM 38 AM 10 : PM 31 WESTCLOX ROAD 4 ,i AM 21: PM 38 ---1 41 i 0 ,--+N E W MARK L I AM 18 : PM 23 --J 1 (i) (NI P " AM 5 : PM 29 (I) ' LU z 0. 0. m (D .. a CD m W 1.1-1 F-- (7) 0) NORTH CV k..74, CD NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC (DOES NOT INCLUDE PASS—BY) ..< TOTAL AM PEAK ENTER/EXIT = 72 VPH/44 VPH 0 TOTAL PM PEAK ENTER/EXIT = 216 VPH/234 VPH to to 1.1 J 2 1— a. < – /— cki (J) SOUTH SITE ACCESS 4 AM 24 : PM 53 ---.T • 1 I ■ AM 18: PM 94- / w co & – I m 1 N JME1 TRANSPORTATION ENC3INEERING, INC. SW 29 & Westelox CRUD PROJECT—GENERATED February 26, 2015 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 2B 4 ... . . I I I 1 1 AM is PM 51 I I WESTCLOX ROAD AM 28. PM 51 1 I. I ,.---114. NEW MARKET I T 01 N I. 1-ti M a L1 it 3 V) N NOBS H a NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC (INCLUDES PASS—BY) < TOTAL AM PEAK ENTER/EXIT = 97 VPH/59 VPH Q TOTAL PM PEAK ENTER/EXIT = 288 VPH/312 VPH 1 W N n Q Q i F- r,J ; SOUTH SITE ACCESS •c N 1 AU 32 PM b3 AM 18: PM 94 u) M. 1 f M i I 1 i J MB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 1 i SW 29 & Wesfclox CPUD PROJECT—GENERATED I February 26, 2015 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 2C A 3 t m v) r C pi ,If t o 0 o a 0 a o 0 aOi Nti — Ni M N CO r Ndlf) r U a � o \ `Q 0 0 o o a N C") CV) NNN N C) CA 51 Ili Z Z 07 V1 W L r a Z Y > v 7- f N a 4 U) co y r c 0 z m x` L '+e ac w tow ( ZZ a a t () V L `t a yE �a Q N tU N 'V' CD Nr e-' 001 C. d CL n. > U. a) E N o o .4). 0 0 0 o 0 b t g N N V' N 0 in ca 1-- N EC n 0 im' o yo $ gco CO - 0) n c c) t"- co�>< 0 ..., W IL O 5 > cn Q. 0. C t! � N N NQ NCVN N g m IY C? 's w co) as ra e- 04 04 r CC N U Q ro gyp+ N C$ g {y Cr 6 ii O a+ — 0 — CA N 4 a 'O Cr) .� N Gf 'pG, A IN d. C fn ce. C N $ H S Ck ? .2 6 vi N LZ. !� II g w i.7 0 C Vl N Q: C e z W 5 cn g 2 SA 1 n d a 15> 2 1 m 2 c m x a z a 0 eE 'o C0 cc • I- ~ °4 3 -4.4 ne. a x 1 z $ 2014 thru 2020 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2014 thru 2020 project build-out traffic conditions,two forecasting methods were used. } The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions,peak hour conditions,peak direction,and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction factor as shown on Table 2B was derived from the 2014 Collier County AUIR Reports. The annual growth rate was extracted from the growth trend determined via the 2007 thru 2014 AUIR Reports. Using the annual growth rate,the 2020 background traffic conditions were determined, which { are depicted in Table 2B. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips(trip bank)identified in the 2014 AU1R report to the adjusted peak season,peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The 2020 vested trips +"background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 2B. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2020 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic.Table 2C provides a summary of the 2014 thru 2020 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown,all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build-out. 3 New Market'Westclox @ S.R. 29 Turning movement counts were obtained at the intersection of New Mark:et'Westclox @ S.R. 29. The traffic counts were adjusted for peak season conditions and forecasted to the project's build-out year of 2020 using an annual growth rate of 2%. The project's 3 estimated turning movement volumes at the intersection were added to the background traffic volumes. Turning movement counts,traffic forecast and project+background traffic information has been included in the appendix, An operational analysis was performed for this intersection using the procedures set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual(see pages HCS-1 &HCS-2). As determined, this intersection will fail to operate at acceptable levels of service regardless of whether the project is developed. At this time,this intersection does not meet signal warrants. However,it may need to be signalized by the year 2020,but a final determination and approval will need to be performed by FDOT. Once the project's traffic demands/patterns are established,the project will provide a complete signal warrant evaluation for FDOT and Collier County review. If signalized,the intersection will operate at LOS C. 5 2 I � � ƒ o \ k k » N 2 7 / % § � " ƒ f � k \ , a 2 A. a. / g - ® N (- CO o o 0 2 % n 1 c 0 $ 2 $ S 2 ] / f \ i § § § $ § § 133 2 e ■ it 03 1 ; % a § a a * 9 # $ 'CC x a / \ § 0 W W (Ni _ CC 0 § ■ K111 ■ g n n n re Cs CNI _ U . k < ƒ 7 % $ 3 V § § 0 N 4" < G § 2 § / \ \ < ® < ƒ m k j m + m _ % g w G re g m } j / g } n Ti » 2 & G m G 7 J )Iii % 3 x \ 2 U } k \ 6.1 o tAjd SI0 tJ ot, Uin t) ii I. a. S i 1 c i 0 u 0 Gt ¢ 0 0 0 O Y ,m a > 1 I : : Q ti. Pa o $ $ as sn n rn m d nM M K cA m > c : i,.,.p.) D. O Gi : : : W T i S s % e W i Y } Y [ Li . � Qan. cI ti wtoZ. Z CL W °L a > a n 8 1 g N C7 M i5 ac 0 to m tJ c.) as as GO El! J °' am Y A o ii W N N n o M i Q a of /� j to Q[ 03 01 U U 03 03 1G 0 .. G ttt N p ftt S 1 e o 000p o N em a ro cv D O. a N G ry IN i77 et CO 4 U Cl) E & c ' 0 4-0 °W tt? to v N :,'Z' N d Z ' Le N N iX N' 6 Ei o z iti cii g th (.1) r 0 N Z7 0 m v tx E el o a Y 3 z vii 1 , APPENDIX Support Documents Methodology Meeting&Report 6 i i . s INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS 1 t i Intersection: Westdox&New Market Road @ State Road 29 1 Date of Count: 06/25/2013 Tuesday 1 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound PM Period L T R L I R L T B L T R f 4;00-4:15 6 6 9 2 4 45 9 65 2 25 60 10 243 1 4:15-4:30 3 9 9 4 9 42 15 71 0 38 65 15 280 1 4:30 4:45 5 8 14 5 7 60 18 72 3 25 57 18 292 4:45-5:00 4 12 12 8 8 55 22 83 3 37 98 20 362 5:00-5:15 5 7 10 3 12 71 25 108 4 26 72 15 358 5:15-5:30 21 12 21 5 11 66 28 81 0 20 65 9 338 5:30-5:45 19 11 18 1 9 50 25 68 6 20 68 7 302 5:45-6:00 7 9 9 2 5 42 15 52 2 22 55 12 232 PM Totals 70 74 102 30 65 430 157 .600 20 213 540 106 2407 I Approach% 28.5% 30.1% 41.5% 5.7% 12,4% 81,9% 202% 77.2% 2.6% 24,8% 62.9% 12.3% %/Lane 2.9% 3.1% 4.2% 12% 2.7% 17.9% 6,5.% 24.9% 0.8% 8.8% 22.4% 4,4% %/Inter. 10,2% 21.8% 32,3% 35.7% I i 1 1 PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES I Eastbound ( Westbound ( Northbound ( Southbound I I L T it I L I R I L I R I L T R I PM Period I I I I I 4;45-5:45 I 49 42 61 I 17 40 241 I 100 340 13 I 103 303 51 I 1360 PM Peak Hour Factor= 0.95 N.Market @ S.R. 29- 1 Intersection: Westclox&New Market Road @ State Road 29 Date of Count 06/25/2013 2013 PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound I IL T R IL T R 1 L T B i b T B ) I i I I PM Period I 49 42 61 I 17 40 241 I 100 340 13 I 103 303 51 I 2013 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS Seasonal Adjustment Factor= 1.28 I Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound I I L T Bib T Bib T Bib T R 1 1 I 1 I I PM Period I 63 54 78 I 22 51 308 I 128 435 17 1 132 388 65 I 2020 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS Annual Growth Rate= 2.0% I Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound I 1 L T B i b T B i b T Bib T R 1 I I I I 1 PM Period I 72 62 90 I 25 59 354 I 147 500 19 I 151 446 '75 1 PROJECT BUILD-OUT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC I Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I I L T B i b T B i b T B i b I R I I I I I I PM Period I 23 29 0 I 31 23 0 I 0 23 30 I 0 28 15 I 2020 PEAK SEASON PEAK HOUR "+" PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound I lb T R 1 L T R 1 L T B i b T R I 1 1 I I PM Period I 95 91 90 1 56 82 354 I 147 523 49 1 151 474 90 I • N.Market @ S.R. 29- 2 I 1 I Intersection: Westclox&New Market Road @ State Road 29 I i A I 585 I I I I 806 V 85 388 132 I I I <— V —> . A A 244 63—i I —308 54 —> 2013 PM PEAK HOUR < —51 --> 202—> 195 78—I I —22 / V V <— A —> I I I 1 I I I 128 435 17 A 488 I I I 1 I 580 V I A 672 I I I t I 926 V 75 446 151 I I I I I I c___ V --> . . A .A 281 72—I I —354 e.____ <-438 62—> 2020 PM PEAK HOUR < —59 _____> BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 232---> 223 90--I I —25 I V V I <— A I I I I I 1 I / 1 147 500 19 i I I A 560 I • i I I 1 I 666 V 1 I I 1 N.Market @ S.R. 29- 3 . I i Intersection: Wastelox& New Market Road @ State Road 29 A 43 1 1 1 I I 48 I V 15 28 0 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 � — V A A 1 38 23-I 1 -0 I < <-54 ( 29 ----> PROJECT BIO TRAFFIC < --23 ( --> PM PEAK HOUR 59-> ( 52 0 -1 1 -31 1 V V 1 <- A > 1 1 I I I I 0 23 30 1 A 1 59 I 1 1 I 53 V A 1 715 1 I I I I ( 972 1 V 90 474 151 1 I I I I I I I I <- V } 1 A A 1 319 95-1 I -354 I 492 1 91 -> 2020 PM PEAK I-tOUR < -82 1 -> BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 291 --> I 275 90-1 "+"PROJECT TRAFFIC 1 -58 1 V V 1 <- A > I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 147 523 49 A 1 519 1 I I I I 1 719 V N.Market Q S,R. 29- 4 I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY I • eneral Information Site information 1 nalyst ',NB Transportation Intersection ,New Markwt @ S.R.29 Engineering Jurisdiction ' gency/Co. Analysis Year 2019 wI Project Traffic Date Performed 3/11/2015 1. alysis Time Period PM Peak Hour -roject Description ast/West Street: New market/Westclox North/South Street: State Road 29 ntersection Orientation: North-South Study Period(hrs); 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments ajor Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume(vehlh) 147 523 49 151 474 'eak-Hour Factor, 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 'HF _ puny Flow Rate,HER 163 581 54 167 526 82 vehil l) {'ercent Heavy 7 _ _ 7 _ -- ehicies _ edian Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 • anes 1 1 1 1 1 I onfiguration L T R L T ft pstream Signal _ 0 0 inor Street Eastbound Westbound ... ovement 7 8 9 10 11 " 12 L T R L T R plume(veh/h) 95 91 90 56 82 "eak-Hour Factor, 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 'HF 1 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 105 101 100 62 91 0 veh/h) ercent Heavy 2 2 2 2 2 0 ehicles ercent Grade(%) 0 0 lared Approach N r N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 apes I I 0 1 1 0 •nfiguration L TR L _ T * lay,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound W estbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration . L L L T L TR (veh/h) 163 167 62 91 105 201 (m)(veh/h) 946 925 0 50 0 95 Ic 0.17 0.18 1.82 2.12 -5%queue length 0.62 0.66 8.94 17.55 •ntrol Delay(s/veh) 9.6 9.7 566.5 ^ 608.8 OS A A F F _ F F pproach Delay -- s/veh) pproach LOS rn — Copyright©2010 University of Florida.Al Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.6 Generated: 3/112015 825 AM 1i CS I SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst JMB Transportation Engineering Intersection New Market @ S.R.29 Agency or o. Area Type CBD or Similar Date 4/1112015 Jurisdiction 'erlormed Analysis Year 2020 Prrrject Build-Out Time Period PM Peak Hour Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group LT R L T L T R 1.. T R Volume(vph) 95 91 90 56 82 147 523 49 .151 474 75 is Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 7 7 2 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 Pratt med/Actuated(P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green Arrival Type .3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Width ' 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12,0 12.0 ' 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 Al N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour • ^ Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian 3,2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Time Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl,Left NS Perm 07 08 Timing 20.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 0.0 55,0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 Y= 4 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= 0 _Y= 0 Duration of Analysis(hrs)= Cycle Length C= 98.0 0,25 g Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 207 44 62 91 163 581 54 168 527 72 Lane Group Capacity 269 291 149 342 501 897 762 442 897 800 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.15 0,42 0.27 0.33 0.65 0.07 0.38 0.59 0.09 Green Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.71 0.56 0.56 0.71 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay d 36.8 32.0 33,9 32.8 14.8 14.1 1 6.5 9.8 7.3 9.9 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0,50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0,50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 '18.9 1.7 8.3 1.9 1.7 3.6 0.2 2.5 2.8 0.2 PF Factor 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 L Control Delay 55.7 33.1 42,3 34,7 8.2 18,4 10.0 9.8 16.9 10.2 Lane Group LOS E C D C A B B A B B Approach Delay 51.8 37.8 15.8 14,7 Approach LOS D 0 B B Intersection Delay 21.7 Intersection LOS C Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 3/11/2015 8:31 AM 1.1 4 1 JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 1 i' TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLAN'NING SERVICES f g i E j 1 i t S }{ I v ill I f I TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT 1 METHODOLOGY REPORT 1 I• # I It I For III 1 k SW 29 & Westclox CPUD i i I g {' (S.R. 29 & Westclox Road, Collier County, Florida) I i (ii ' I February 26,2015 i = I { I I z Prepared by: I , pp {It } JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 1 176 1 21' STREET NW ) IINAPLES, FLORIDA 341 20 P ;Is (234) 919-276? ,;,,���Mt�lHrlltryr/rlrr �}BA i CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION ND. 27830 *��� �r . offf _ rriri r ill I '` 6NS i [•I (PROJECT NO. 141 21 2) 3 1 No 4386' \* 1 r i = { 11! �.` Sys*T� ! tL! = 3 0i tl( DAME= . BANKE ," • �� / .. ...•E(..1.0 .Ifr• 11 IFL A]—,•r A REG. N O.Fr4 r N.•1014.‘0� i f�► t '4 I II 41114 te NORTH N.T.S. g ti ui Waste** St ..=,-.=---r---,-- 01, Is Cur 9e Rd cc \ Lake Trafford Rd 6 - r- N 01 cj c ..E. \ a . 44, r t cf3 "A 8 2 z 2 `4% + Immokalee Dr q 1. ----• lib ••PG, .....1., (r, Roberts Ave Mai SR 29) II 4.---- 4k. CR 848 ... cAlliN1111 .... ME Eusti Ave Carver St -0 cc LEGEND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 01111111•11 WO OEMS E 6–LANE ARTERIAL -JOUR IMO 4–LANE ARIERtAL/OOLIECTOR 2–LAW ARTERIAL —,--......„.... 2–LANE CoLLECToR/LocAL RAIL ROAD --- •• • MB TRANSPORTATION E NGIT•M ER IN B, INC, SW 29 & Westclox CPUD Project Location & February 26, 2015 Roadway Classification FIGURE 1 /v1 a Scope of Project SW 29 &Westclox CPUD is a proposed mixed use commercial center that will consist of 100,000 square feet of floor space. The site is located on the southwest corner of New . Market/Westclox Road and State Road 29, within Iinmokalee,Florida> The project proposes to have one full access to State Road 29 and two full accesses on Westclox Road, Table A provides a summary of the project's proposed land uses. 1 Table A Proposed Land Uses Proposed Land Uses Floor Space::` ;. .':' ..:...... Mixed Use Commercial&Retail 100,000 square feet Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by SW 29& Westclox CPUD was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. That is,historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that land use code"Shopping Center"(LUC 820) was most appropriate in estimating the new trips. The net new trips were determined by adjusting the raw trip generation computations to reflect pass-by versus new trips generated. ITE has set forth the pass-by rate for this land use,which was determined to be 35%. However, Collier County staff only recognizes a maximum pass-by rate of 25%,which was used by the report. As determined, SW 29& Westclox CPUD net new trips generated during the AM&PM peak hours will be 117 vph&449 vph, respectively. Table 1 depicts the computations performed in determining the project's net new trips. Table B provides a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown.in Table 1. Table B Net New Site-Generated Trips (Summation o Table I Net:New;::_:: :`. : .: Net'.New. ..: : :: :. ::: ::'NetNew: Daily Weekday AM PeakHour ; ; •PM Peak Hour' Trips Generated .•Trips Generated Trips,Generated (ADT) (vph v.h 5,093 117 449 1 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS SW 29 & Westciox CPU D Land Use Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 820 Shopping Center 100,000 s,f, Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon S.F.) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 820 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.65Ln(X)+5.83= 6,791 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.61Ln(X)+2.24= 156 vph 97 / 59 vph 62%Enter/38%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.67Ln(X)+3.31 = S99 vph 288 /312 vph 48%Enter/52%Exit= Pass-by Trips per ITE= Ln(T)=0.29Ln(X)+5.00= 39% Pass-by Rate Max allowed by Collier Staff= 25% New Daily Traffic(ADT)_ (ADT)x(%of New Trips) 5,093 ADT New AM Peak.Hour(vph)= (AM)x(%of New Trips) 117 vph 72 /44 vph 62%Enter/38%Exit= New PM Peak Hour(vph)= (PM)x(%of New Trips) 449 vph 216 /234 vph 48%Enter/52%Exit= \ / it 1 3 O 04 5 NORTH 'LTA 1 or t M ti ui 1 a 3 , s 41-iii 1 Westclox St Ss C ny Rd i its ,`�o + dg o ! v a N °!�4. i 10% Luke Trafford Rd a1- --M Cr `_ ° •pd� 1 to 471' c `,. c a_ m M g �`�`` hex 3 2 a x , /gyp 4 Immokoke Dr Roberts Ave 24 20%4 man St (S ?O CR 848 ...w 8ostan Iwo I .44.ti Cokrodo Ave \♦ Eustik Ave over St -o cc 0 1 \\\\\\ 0 LEGEND 64 5%}, PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT JMS TRANSPORTATION ENI3INEERING, INC. SW 29 & Westclox CPUD Project Traffic Distribution FIGURE 2A February 26, 2015 is. I>. z z >. > ywZ > in g ,e •Q e U e 0 `* 92 mm Qom) CIn co?d 1�+ 0 C) al a. E N C6 -,- c'' ..1' D 4. Pi a c a e * e e o e N CO M N N N N CO to Ib,G Etislw z � Z 1n C7 w 0. 2 L 5 bt 6 .x , N g 7-- vEms ,- fN O Z V L W I O d ,,X U1 co W co z z U v =L L p 1< O '= N 117 - d' C7'1 4 R) CL CL a > 2 V m y iag o o � � ,o *:te. .'� N NN VD NN - r IIIC o_ O W E v m CO L� O , co a) o)) al a) OD CO LA > > ILI IX Jln n 00000 C] Q a m • en To IS C14 4N N NvtNCdN N l iU 11.1 St '- 1.9 N N A a N M o CA N e, R .2 w lz II Q C. p C b N Wq < Q = N el 6 7, 2 V, rii o vi ui a u o z ui 3 ui g) vi V Y 10 �- 1 vt Ii) CO CO CO CO CO v- W a Z 2 1 11: r r g i I ~ '� x a c� 3 z In i { } i i ta*& 2 §. _ _ 2 I § § % ; 7 } § 7 § k 0 } w 2 { / a |ha { ƒ \ ® p m o 0 o i all ' k }i ° 7 \ 1 % 2 } f 7 § § § § § _ \ 7 a m | � � � a@ a ( / i i ® 1 M s o $ 0 0 0 0 I C w N 4 w w p | . | x 2 t r N e / § k 0 ` CO 2 A k 2 \ 2 § ) @@ h. } J LLI 1 CO 4 I 7I § ■ % m w « � a b « CK - ■ % 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 2 f # » a G m / v. § 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ a f k g / G g a N B . . , $ 2 $ E ig o a f < o ? N 2 a « ± # ¥ m m a § g ® ce k k } Ui \ a 2 th / \ k% $ G S # f ti 2 J 7 • 2 a J a J 2 x \ } 3 o N Q S M Q V C to N 'S 2 y co 0 0 0 0 0 0 m EL ]e a o ., _ G o° 0 ° 00 0 0 0 it R L. • o N Q S G G.4 N M lA C) OS 4 N �yy N C 4 } (�O t~O tNp r0�S DI MJ 0) x �` y o� w ? ? z co fn w < z z 0 >" , b ., .9 r: Y :s> � m �a f; 1— 2 d aaia� w w ) zz Q g z c v al z t s 1 N 0 2 a on m m o 0 m m m CO H J R l a 4w w 3 m rn v, " o 1 ,,,ppppq 0 Y ` t a r co N so t M 1•- np �y G ,x G � sP 2 tq SoV F7 4 0. �p��� e 0I al m 0 CU Cf al CO Ci ` -JI r O 0 0 0 O 0 0 NN Q ° '� n v v vii w sii N N cos D. X a (.7 E ti vi ¢ m o `6 A. Nc 0j V 01 Y � 8 t' N N a tY � N r (6`O W y+ !D Q C z ui Dig z 0 CO a ro. m `a8m P T a g p- a A a I 1 t i 148 3 a N . I -i14! slossimsusiss:1111:1111scult 1 1 x , , 11 -^_1_�_.11101 Elloolosmomirommissommissimmosomp 1 T , 1 10-'1 ::::ei:i::i:i::::ii:::::::ii:::::;::::i:::i:::::1: :i ::: 11 I I ij !! ::::::iii:ii:::::::::i::H:iu:;:::: ::i::::::i:::::i ;::o ii I iiiiioioioinioii:i:iuiiouiiiiii:iiiui:ioiiiiiiii s1 '"I.: f and BM —„ i 4 1 t i I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii � ill ihiiiiiiiiiiiñIiiiiIhiIiliiIiiIIliiiñIiiiIiüñlIiiIT _1'i1 i1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ' 1 ; 3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii lliiiiIiiiiiiIii a _Iiieli Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirkiiiiiiiiiiiritilliiii” II1IIIhIIII T. Novi d� 0.0 0 O..... F zess00as��a0 somm�I 1Qe�Q®m�0 aun commemmusemmusimmann =©ma©o©c nzu ©nc 1� IIIE MEMEMO M DISOM�OMM M T I EME EM 0O 1 = Emu sammusslose2,1 ,n .n '2 G. RGNC- g��e,tr � .�7 c�.o��5•.+'1 � Q� �v v F,�•=� d :r I7c��"' � . G 1 .' i 1 -; tip`, m !a - oaf I 1 n il S ac y �'' s � v. ! 11.1P , I i a" lr .111 li>_lis°� .a: 1 a I Ye IT Ili _ � ��x lI a�Sa�btli', 116 x•1 i 1 r.' g uIln�t�l3 '•�. sF lK 4 u1i116bIR -^t r i3 � FI S io1e5t15>Ill 1 -- VI 11 ili' I i ( I ( e r I� it x l�-; b h Ill v ` E Y 4 'b-p 1 i i 1 1 111 t.e 1.-1 =c - 1 t l � � -iai iyiy !-3� 1l I 18 X s 2 - � 6y { Irvidil'''411111° ;II� ��ll g�� '1 � �=a� � � 3��,�p' L mc5 Hd 5 't� 1a3 �xi�ty .e II11I1 11I 1 . . • @ '7 °37ter; fi l 11] . a ;, i !ij ii � K'�. a ;iii,I 6 F > 30 rOk000Q z ,..nw urr ..s u3131-� t 1 � I I i �l y y 'g 1 j i i ( 1 1 1 1 I ! .E 7� 4111.9 G .. 3:1//111 .111111133111: 11111M1-, , , .. 1 : I 1 I 1 1 ' ;F:4 '1. ' a 1 8 .___ Ii. _` ILl MECOMEEIMEDEMOMMERIMEIMMS .44111► II L COMMIIIIIIIIMMIZEININICHNIMINIEMEMIZOU 1 1 III I01EM818111IIIIIIIMIIIIIIIBI681116111M1811E11061111 X111 z Al 1 '1114u 1111:::::1:11111ESIMEMESESEM ii l :::i:i:i:;:::i:::::::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:i:! _i' i 161 I EMBEHEMBIRMINEINICIMMENINt# 1 i'1.zi 11711' 111111111Mialairillhilliat i 1 14 liiiiiiMINEINE Tilia 111111 e ci11,1 iiIIiIIIIiiiIIiiIiiiiIIIiiiiiIIIIilIIII liIi1IiiiIiiii1IIiIii g 111 IIIIIIHIII1IiIiiIIIIIIIIIHhI1IlIiiiiiiIIIiIIIIHIIiIIIIIIIibh iiIIiIIiIIidhIIiiiIIIiIiIiiiiiIIIiiiIiiIiIIiIiiIiIiiIlIIiiiiIilIii_ �2�5�NM " --1111 I . iiiiiiiiiiir_illo ; ' '''y IMMENrj i Lti »xc mm0mpl stake0imig o001 c camp t-11 EMENIFICEMINEMEMBENEMEMINIMEEMMIEN=CM a I E O ingEMEMt 3:' I8�LB l'i I:iiu - •: 1 Al II IIG1 011CF-10�01t E: 411110- - - - .0 X1111101111111 11ENEg I I I i 1 . •i�s 1 i 3' x �• I ■ iI 1 i 114 �� i a,611 a Ix1Twill � i ari 1 11ilt 6 gg L �I'" { �i $g I 1 a , � rp s 112y ,'Trl , ;� g n AI1c � �€ � . c �-i Fli _241 A i } ` 7 4t„c A L„,, ,,,,,,, , G �I C! . , L 1 L , 1 : , i ] 1 E r II I 1 ( x' i I 1 ! 1 i Al Ili A 4 x 1 1 _R A s E .x t x} I 1, - 1 ottioLi !v2t a 1 x X 3 ` th a a HIM ' ; 1 i � i I xa�e"a�-v� i , ( 1 _ Y3 i yy IIy $dB , Cc$?jy I� a� LI _ �{ 1 91g1 ( 1940 JLS.yy J i`� GG (•'G 7({� I }�i� 1 i I k ' r TI, 1 1--i I #1 '' . irliR7&li l';'-! il2ie [ a� 1 ''' -E Qr 4I� au I I �:: €�€?' 1 ill 1 - Sys”_ .,z =411111501111210111021FIECIPPEMIP i d ' �` bb1� a ! i �� ��i di-;i SF I1[ 11 I C 4 1 !. 1 H:::::::::iIIIIIIHhIIIIIllhIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ::I: E _ 1 i EE 1111EEMECEESB11111M1MENE MIEB EVOI E1M811111EEP 9g§ •y r"3� ,T—ww-�•""',--'(•'1"�••; -1 r r--t-(..... •q..y..»�»,t.. .o.�., t ! ..i..-•.^_f•T•�••', -711 i II Iti ,:,i..T ril I , ' Hill: ; L:i 11 : oil " 1 t H 1, ! , 1 . ; ; :x. , , _,.1._ t '; i ,..1_,..4.. 'l'T • - T -I'T , j f.i"i 1.. . i' 't rt . ',!.':j. 1.! l' .; i I-+-l'! ".'._. .i.••! iii *-`.r°. i � 1i11 1 111 ' '. 11 i1 r , E ! i If ! ' _ 111111 11 # I e 11110 li' i !. .I •1 :i_!i i I i i J l, 1 l _}.�_�._:l. ! i 1 , . = I ' ! , ,I Ill i I i....I.LL� ..i_i. .� T , , 1 j w t i T r , ,.1_,...,„.....4.___—---' ..--_...L...,....{.. .I .4-_,—,f- i.- r --+.--1--4—'__,._ ._.f,..-.. ._-;--.ice i I ' [ , i r r i ] s 1 �{f 4 11 11 t a ' I t' • T1 iit 1 , , : . I ; 1 ' 1 1 ilili, • F 1:.:... ` ..__i_---_1--1— ..._f..-� .-... ... ,.7 _i,_..1-...I- i••..... ..— —I-7H 1 1 I ` W.. ! . 11 f i i ` i 1 3 u ; i 1 . ; i . I ; 1I, , f . f i � 1 4 iJ I !lit iii 1 • t : : , : . 1 I ! ; ' 4 4 �' i { 1• E p y { i { I I ti • f[ t ` "s ! ! 1,110 1 ! i •,4: trt� ! { i II l ili ` 1 I. r I,I i( i a`i + ;� � 1 1 ly 1° �. ': 1 -I _ I i-1.- lii ; il � i [I11 - , [! 1111/ 1I 11{ 1 _ 111 1. 311= 111111111.1' 1. 111 } i! ' I - 1 i 1 � ; ' � i •; ' 1 { 1 ; 11 . I 1 if 1 11l � ` i 1111 1 1 1 i ' ri _,i +IT w1/ !,...T.i..�1_}1"�. ..i..,,1..-: -17-1111+4.--1 3 i :. 1 i ` sl i , I■41 = 1 i.ti Its lfi { Ir, f 1 1s ' ! ' ' 1 I ty I1 ' �! � .' s !,}. . I . i `-_ ' I ! ± s,d04 _ 1/ „ . i. 1 ) ._* ..}z a'1.; ii ..i.{�.. - ! . 1 (:' ..L 1 fw -_ 41,.1 s. it{. r .c� *:If.1 : i . ?11, in 141 _`_,l _ r.,:;! 4 1Y r 41 f _ I y i- pl w" a! 1 111.1 I` •p. ! a°.i r.4 . l : j 1/T t 'i ' ' �.... r.{ ��— #—, r 1 —n,-1'11 I- 1 • • "-+.1 ! ; , r :"# " .! I is -1 1 1.. I i t + r• i � _ !i . .1/a —I ' L4 "1 is ''�ly I i t i.� '..j ". I !! f € ,•x f ( ,.i�t ,.^ 1 t *1t ,_ MO.5 r� 1 i i ty a 1121 1:1 1 7 w _ ,• 1r> 1, r.. '. >1 # ! ! 'i• -i. • L.1...1,.:.4.1 : 4 's-• -14'.liii: , . ; ..• qqyM }' , rfi�" i 11 ! 1 , t°, v� Ix ( ' i ' I t 1 ) 1 ,Cf r c { °• 1 1 1# 1 i 3 l- J I_ '-� 4 i_' R �' !•3, ''1 r 1.:i :. I 1 , • OWNS . I-'11 : 1 1 1 111 1 '`, . ) : 1= i �1' i A , ; 3, >t i- r� 1r. 'x F • ':.!{,k' '- i i i �, ?A {'. .a {:e rf -11111111 ': 1 - 1-11, C O aI 1. i i Si `' I`! i t ly` .. l{ rd-�' "141...,...117T.:1/ 3 i 1 ..ii y.. rl I ¢,A11 ----, "-. LI _ k +? iii' r .1 ��a ., .; a� .. ,. . a '� ■ .4! 311i'- 1`! s, f• !�•1 , ........,}- .4.'1'1.1, . - f`: '-2 _,..(.3... _ i • {. �..�. . _.4. i . 1/.J.. }j'' 1+ ' lii , i , 111 ' i s1 'i ti :IC I it' J1.{f{ `�1 i �{ff} 11 ! 11 ' , 11 ' ! 11 11/ III " 11 1IX{ ,: 11 ! I ;.iii ' ill Hi 1 , 11 ti( IE c t ; .�.�, ) i; ; t ! i 1111 1 1 { i 1 ; 1 i,4 1' i� .. 111 .1., l.1/ iii ,i, ; II ; I i 1 1 1 1 1 ; .It i �—+! I�f.I ; .F +'� s j:i� €f I? i� „• �i �a I . i `+E•.� '� �-' 1 `,._� �i t f /1111 , j�.� '•a !iI � { { ; � i i ! ; i }} r i �f f{{ 11 Ill{ - 1}-{ t4: {€ = ` °i Ir ! 1 I :.�i s. .4;, ,+" {,) i`yr _ i; {. 1 r 1 I.. i'' Ial' 1^r 1• _ '11�i a Ee„ ( , ,,.i q t ?1 '$ ,, i t. ' 'J1/ 1 i' mill t. 0 {s: 1 s.• 1 r ; f •.r I i s .§1 a, t -:S : ice! ,t t I } :i ti';1. rt )•1 • is ( ( _ _ t! '' 11'11 1 z 1; i�` �'' #' 1/m ; _ i� � 1s i 1 �''"� t s � � - 1•' t^ �• s in a, V. �". ; � ' ` 11;11 i' �� �- 41.,.., 1 :1,:, ,�j * s 1. Y 0: * 1 I 1 . ._ i�; " ,,kk' 1 S.1/ i R r11. , , 1•r �x' 1 r. P t a" 1 di 1 .1 +' _ 1: of f' -6-�j t I.._ rr " --1-e�.''1/.: • iiIr: 7 , 116 i 1/ l ' 1111 1 ! I ii a lii it 1 Ii ( ' " j : " I ; WI : ! ! t 4 { 4 ` jIji_jl 111 !; , III- i " 1 .1111(4 ••.: !*! t, 1I ill 1 ! ii it is 11 1 ?1, I . i_ ( 1 ' ii1111 1 g�,' tell i i{: $t 11 d is ! I, .,f t. E 1} i it 1 S !,'• ! • 2_I if ¢1x11 •a w r i f i!" ix: 1: ILA i 1 ,4 i'; °' ;. 3j 1. l=S I, Ili 1 6 1;1! 1 .L _ I;i , ;� _ l i • I !• 4 I i ' 1 '1/Y 1 1 ' 1'! i t 1 1 1 1 t .. ., i ' t 34 , 1' it V i 3� 14 ii i ' y gl, ,„,:1' i 1•Bi`i 1T1 tr7tt21 1 i 11 '' i I it; 1 •I 11/ i f i 3. i i t f ;�.` f. . 4,, ii; 1,.. • ?l. i i 1• }-- ii } .t- -Ti r M`'',i 71.'• I.,••• 1.• {{{�ri te• r ,f i •):i 'r., t to L. ;- X11 r - ,611 '1 i ►� 1 - : 8! i I•°3..j)` l i l4 ii iii l'',t i 1' ii•.1...,_.,.. j2,. v1,, .._._1/'i`?.a,L.it.l;,...'.. k.:l_ t -' ,t..3.1..L1...• /II ii I i 11I 11-711-11,---Ti.F1-11 II - i .1 d i I I 1 11 -TI [i .rinTifp-r- , 1 „ 1 1 ., l, ,.. 1 i ! • J1 „ , , , , , , , „ , d wi , , TH • 1 , 1 , , ,, 1 , , I III ' ' I' il.111: ' '.' 1:11: 1 ! I Iiiiifi II 1 kill 11 11 ; ! 1 . . _t_i f11 1 11 ,, if ii, -+. , rtnit".-TTT'TA,-,11.t.i-rf.- -41-4:1- 14-14- .1 .."--"-4'-r.-1-`, i ! ; i +-ill il-1-.• -:itif-1-, - , - ?:1 , ,.; 1; .1 i 11 i.1 1 11. li I. ..;1-1 -11*II 1 !.1 h.: Li.. i. h.:. I'll .11.1 li '11 .li 1 11.!:-I 11 411;1.'. .:I.1.I.1*1 I 1 ; ; • I 1 0 if illii 111 WI :11111 ! I Will ! ' 111 ..11,, IiIII LI II 111 111111 ill1 ; Ilii 1 t 1 • 1 -4-14-.-1---t-1--i-1,1-t-T ..1 • ' '.14.1...t...1.4.i..i.f..1...-.-...L. ' : A...r.t.,..I.1 . -1.±.1„'4..i. .it 4.1 ..,,t-,.. i ',. :Hi It 11 ; 1t1 ; 1 1 1 ; : I tr. • : . , 1 f L" • 1 : I it . ; 11111i ; : 1 ; itt , : • ; • t ; 1. :• : I.;:t• 1 1 • • 1 I • 1 : 1 1 : 1 _1 ; stil . ti , ... 1 ', Itit ; 1 I • . • : 1 1 -7: : i „ : • : , • • 1 -T ; . ,-i . 7-* - I ; O. ; I I I: ti. LA 1 1 1 I ..: 1 ; • 1 ; • • 1 1 •t • ; : : : ; 1 r • • - ;z . :17. . 1 : ; 11 ! - 1 . 1 I 1 . 1: 1 1 . t ' 1 1 1 1 I- 1 I.!._i_1..1 ! li , ; ,,„ fH ;__/_r __ ___4_ .„.,],, 11. .1 7 ■ 71, 1 I I 1 1 ; 11 I.-• : it , Ill •.'. • 1 ; 1 ; , ; -,. 1 1 1 11111111, 1 • 1 ir: 1 1 • ' ". • I I I I : I ' 1 1 . 1 ,i ! 1 _i 1._ f ,A... ; Inlillif : . 1 1 al . • f • f I ."--4--1-1-;•--1.-- 1-7 --"'''''''' ; • : '-'-'1: t--t--- t--I--r-- ---,:----,!--4 1.-----T-t--1- 4.• •i••'• ••••-■- - i I ; . 1 ; • 1 : i 1 It : 1 4.: • 1 111 :M11 1,,$ ;11 ; I_ li . ,:, $ ' 1 . r • 1 I , s i! ii • ii : . ie1 . • • eii I 1 .1 i ; I, , 1 I „ I : 1 . i . . I- 1. r 4'1 i -~-1-1-1- • , f'• 1 • i i I . 11i ' , ( : : ; 11 ; i WI . I : isi , ! i ; f if *: • f i i IA I : ;i. : I , • 1 ,, i' 1 i ! 4 ,, i1. j itili : 1111 Til .- 1 • iili .,,, ..1_ 1 ! , , .. : , .1 . 1 ; 11 11 ; 11 , 11 ; it % ' ill , ' 1 ' • III , , , i I ; , I II : : : : . 1 : ! 1 • 11 11111 - [ 1 II 'i'':' 1 r 1 ; 1 • • • : 1 its ; • 1stA 1 il ; 11it • . 111 : : . 1 fi, • : t 1 I : t _111 • 11 ? ;•. • 1 I1H. 13 : ; ; ' • I ; • I ( 1 i IlIt TITT-ritp-ri-rd II i 1 i I, 1.1 rf.-.., ,TriT,T1-7 i uhri r---• , ;--. si..- -r,- -4.-.T.i7--- lild ' I 1ff 11 ; " 1 , 111111 1111111111111-1 1 , 1.1 : 1 111I I , lilt ' 111i. 4IIii t , 1 : .. t. • Iit .., 1 -. 1 , . , ., , , , , , , , , , I , ,, , , , h , 1 ,, 1 l • 11 ; , 1 1 , 1 , , , iii. , 11 .41 - i,, -4t fl ' ill ' ill 'elraii l 'A1*-1 ? *1 I 1 =1 , I ! • i ! ; II; lir AIIIN. ir4 • 1111' : 111 •14 . 1.9,: 11 ',ALP, ;,,i 1 -- 11 ii . : , i , il ! , , .. ,: da ,. .Hsiii . - i ! : I 1 ; 11 qi iliii ! i ; : • f■ ! i li : 1 ! 1 ! I I ' 1 i i • ii, , 1 1 f :JI 10111 ' HII1111 I il-linli H . ILI ' lll hill WI ! 11 : 11 • ,i iiill Li LU_O !.11_ f.1-1 I 1 11 l-t1-17 : ; 7711-1-11".,. I 1-1- -,, r ! : I '117- TrriTrrit.:.1.t.- •! --i i 1 ,-`i .;.-.1 )1 . I 11 I IiIcil 1 ; 1 11 ', IL, 1111 HI 11 l . : 11 ill 111 .11111 1, 11 1 Al , 1 , 11 ,./ ! , . fl , i , ; t • I it 1 1 ; 11 • t • fl . 1 1: . / 1 1 • , 11 ; : 1 - tIt ' • i I , E ' lasii ; 1J', . ; I i 1 h . 1..„.._1-1_:.., 11 i.. 1.1.1.4.1..i.i ; I.! '..1-,-./Li ' 1.....i . i • 1 i .. rZ $:.. 0%4:4 ,:I ,.. ....;1-.1 s.,ir.i -..*s is, .. og Er., 1 t... . i . , is . ••-, ...., •••••.: I, 1:... NM V., I , i 1 . is ,_,,....t .: , 1 if ii.F iri J - ..,i 4 1.1 i•-f ,.., ,,4 L. f.; I-, tss 1:: i..i L i , sm ,,s i, , s . . , • , , , • ,..,.. 1 ,., ,,, ,,4 .. ,, . , ., , : 1 . • i .4 V ! It% ••' 1,i3. Ils CI •• ..,,J IZI :•• ... '- '. ';‘,5 I, itl, -t Ls, 0:.; a4 !..,1 , , . el vl 4...• 1 Ici i Iiii , . . .• , , si , h . li , • , , " , 1 . . .. : , 1 -•"; 1 : . ; 1 • 'i .- . ! . ' ' . ' : • •+.1....4. .1.4 . ,-,,,_., ' 44.,,,j •; . • ... 1 ili . i,.11. ..; . e III , .: '1 ei 111 il . • .,1 • ; ij .• 1. 11 .1, • I1111 , 1 , i 1 i , 1.] ....t1 ,A fr. •J' 1.'.. 'fel. re-• •J - ? .: I• •.: 1 i ,.. ,I. i , • •e• • _ li, .e .! , 1 ; I r •, • ! l's fr. !t: '11 ".." • it l'i IN InI i: !! 1.1! 1 :1 1-='! -; q -A 4 A -11'1 At z-t '-,' :•!/ ;71i ' f1 1-L1 I-'il- it/ r 1; ' 1" 1 i 1.4.21_L. 44-.4-44+4.41 -1 ' t■ ..'44., •„...1.1_,.. 1 / 14+ _4 _1_,:_f ..4.4..,-j . I ,.1 1 : . _ , , „ I , , i tt ,,* ai :7. 1F!. 1... :,:r iti ;41 IFJ lit v :^ 'F-1 F:i !i...! '1:9 h t: : 1:s! 14 •:./J 1.1.t. 1.-): !Az; fy•14 .,4 ! 41 Izi i:I •... 1-A-1;It rf.4 ;4 1 1 1 1 I i„ , • • i 1,1.1.1.,-;_;_,JL 1_11 J.: E '0 • ! ' . ‘ .1.1.1 1,., ,i.' i s• ! 'e i_ ', i•-• .si SI .1. it t. 1 Tri---t- ----IT-. i .1 , Eff Tr --.1-11;1:1-1.f.:1-0-. - i 1- tii. •T tri-r-,t i •.•,•t-. --,-,-, •1.1- - i ,•,- , ,,, -s ,. .1 . , s, i 111111 ;Sj -4i 1:11 5i 5 t I • 1 11; rfl 111J. le.; :i 1=1 .4 1:1'; a 11F1 1:-4 .'' hill ; pni.ltN1244 .,f; i 41 !,:t EI o T9 - ,:. i.--.. H.- i :t i . -i :1....1 „1. 1...... .,,LaLi. • i • I , i 44)• . La:. I_ i .1.• I , .. ..... , . , ,; i: , I ri .1'11 1 i . ,IttTt !i =IT I rt.',.,117 ri-Li !. 1 1 I I 112 771 i LI H „1 i , It Iiiil, !,1 e;.• t,'•1 ; : 131 41 I./ PI 141 E-4 ki I i:‘..i ..i ,b '. .14 ; :i :It ii 44 1.if il;t t ; ! 1 itj tii 1'7 N gi.1 I s 1 1- •1 11't - 11.11- ' 'l 1,* I I. -■ f 1 i .. - ] i - 1.1 . - i -, f.-1 ri '; 1 .. I . , . i i-f-A-ii•I-1-1.- . 4 i ci-441 , • : !.i, LII-4-,-1.• 4 -. 1 :14-ri 7-1-41-f '-'4-- it."i' .• r 1 . : 171' -1 . . • , vu...i A 1.-, , 11 -I 1,9 1 1.1 4,1 1 11 '- ,.: [" -1 - ,.3 1• .1 - •,+ i 9:: :di.;. -I 1 ;14..4: .1 iz-i i,r1 1•1:1- -.4t4-1- 1:1-11-`: , ':+. "."- -'11-17iii::-t„-- IC1.1+: t*H. ..I 4_, it , i_ , . . I lAf ., .. .*ii, -4, A / :::•• 4., 4 A' cell - jet • r..1 1•,' '-1 1 1 1 '44 '1 ill...II . ; .": I I I'l -1 I-; ": r;•: -I IV. `1: “: .', 1 i PI f=: ,-1 t 1 if ,• •:, .: : I-1 , • ii._ - i: . • ! i •:•11-1‘-.'1' - i---T1T11.13 1'1 1, 1 i 77i',.!-I-Ti : 1 ..1' ltilli Titri---4-.- -11.-1 , . .1 -.. t i : i I ! , ililit Itril - ill , L :iii : Iwi ! 1 .,. ; [ . . ; r ,, . 1 , 1i.ii , Ikiii III i 11 . • , I ili • ii 1.1 ! w ! Lii , li • i ' f t . ".. 1 1 . „• 1 ; , - 1 11i i Iii:1 .1111 11 il 1;! 1 1=: 111ii iffill ' 1111 :t1 . 11 L ! ir! Aiiiii4 Eli ! !' •S; :., .g.; ,a4 .,.1 ; . . 1 ' Ai ;• .. . 111/1, Ullif ill ' :11.1 I 1111 f It ii • l• -4 .7/14. . 'iri... iti :1- Itf Ilfifili . f , ! P' • • likz 7,; if 17; Ls, •f ;*:";-} Ai 1 ;e: 11 ,--1 ■11.1t • . 111 .ztilit ; ti 1.1 '11 4 i'f: 4 'II 4 ill'A li 4 .: 0 !2= ! ' • i'" ' Ilf 1! s; 11 t- R NI It.ii t.,-, ,-,: f. '9! 1 .. 12,1 ,0 11 41 k i7, 1.,i 1 To ,;‘, ,=: it 1;1.ell I. !Ili' =4. 11 l'i it ,113 4 A isi i i i z i':- i'7 ffir 141 IV i 'i I ,r. 14 31 ILI .• 1 02 ;• /..:. C' d' ik! 1 t; ti J1 .,;• ., 141 1:,g,•7,?-1 ..-E; 1;4 I ft 1. it ; . FA •- ;.,- • ti 1 . 'pi. Z, 'f.1 IP; IN 1-1 17,1;,,-• -...• a ik!:•143,1,A,.,,i4_ • •1,9 ,.. 044 ilr; ,_ ittl , ,,t;i ...R L•••I I, „._ pi 1114 ifel_lh 1 I 11 ' ' jt41 ---ti JIJI .(11-11 l ' i 'LI. Ili ill HI Iii .,, 11 11 : 1 11 1 1.1 ! 11 1. 1114' I ills itj ! Ill ' I' il 11 • •• • I 1 es, il ! ilk 1 1 Hi .,• ". i ; • t•' ':, . 11 •• , I it • -1 • _; • : 11 t1 i VZ: 7' . ; ' : . r • I J ,X ', e HP 11 ..J14 114,1 ' '11A1 .' 4! ili ;II i,'; Ill ti II :F4 iii, L?" ,1, 1 lilt 1-, i Lill i ' 14 LI ,'• Izi IA it' IV I , IA 111 ili II 11, 1.1 1.11 44 141 ii III 14 I 0; '. 2 'II 1. t' •11 ill Ti, :1 ••• 1'41 1:i; IR1 111 i 1 st-It ' ':•:. it t•-:1 ilc.lit, If.: 1•1, ..; ' • 1-• IA IC . 4 141 I 11 ll 1 iN ii li 111 '7', 1 1 ftl N It li' 1 iri if II, ._,, A ,...A..$ ii - ,4 4. 1:1; :.•_: 1,..E i. , - 1:,. ip i-, a). 11 -7.1.; ..,, :11 0,1! ,!..• 41_11, I • .4,-, , .,-•;-•1--,4,-;,-.11-1,-- , ,-19.-..! , i •-rt.-1..1. ..1.. ,, .. r.e.C1.....t.,.. i •4 1,,t 1 i I U 4 1-1 I V : , il .)0 lii iiii iti : , Ir. ii; 1.1- .4.5; 1,.., b . , II, ,.9 irl tri •!, Fi . il iii 1 --1-1-4-1-1 -ti -4-• --i.4. 4-i-i- l: ' I -r +r.1 . 1 ', ' ! I ' I-, '4- •-i-r-4-' f 1 rl t•4 r , -' 1 I-, -11 lc" I d .: 11 iiili li IIIII .: 1 . . ,,,;, ,. ; it ,s1 , t „, i , „ •!, ..,,,i. ..., ,J4,4, .1. ..i •., : : ; fi. : . „ • . i :.,.. .,1 ... . „...„. 11 . , ••!'' i' -7..r"; 1'..- 8... , . I 1 i..i -.4 ,- 1-/ - i - 1 . : 111 • . 1 ili ' , . 1 i ( [ ' ir 4; ,• , , s 1 ,'• ••• r 112, ; 1 , i 111.1 I--1 I,I ,•••1.._,* • 1 tq. , 'I ,,1 I 1.J I J ill i I 4- • . .....;_ -' RT:-I 1,Z1 •,•A iT";AY!"' •, ,; :::, f e .1 1;A f. 1.71:1 1.v., .r. IA iii iii iii IA ---, 0 34:i ,. ......t. ,....„,... ,_,.. ......4_ -..1........s s •- - LI... • 4- - '-Zi. .1-1 '.- ' ' - ' 1• • /101 12-, ..._.,..,.......„„................_...________. ,...._..... ,...,........_ ,....„„„...... _.„,_..... „ . Westclox 29 CPUD Deviation Justifications Deviation 1: Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.E.1.B.ii (b), Site Design Standards, which requires for corner lots, no more than 80 percent of the off-street parking for the entire commercial building or project shall be located between any primary facade of the commercial building or project and the abutting street, with no single side to contain more than 65 percent of the required parking, to permit 100% of the required parking to be permitted between the primary façade and the road frontage. Justification: The deviation is justified due to the narrow configuration of the subject parcel, it may not be possible to orient vehicular parking areas without a majority of the parking lot located between a primary façade and the road frontage. Other nearby properties are developed with parking areas located between the primary façade and road frontage. Landscape buffers will be provided between parking areas and the roadway. • PL 2015 00 0 0 6 60 REV 1 • Deviation Justifications.doc Page 1 of 1 S I i lb i. "APO COLLIER COUNTY WAIVER APPLICATION FROM THE REQUIRED HISTORICAL AND ` ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT. 1 i 1 DATE SUBMITTED:_ PLANNER: i F PETITION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAIVER: PL 2015 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 REV 1 1 (To Be Completed By Zoning and Land Development Review Staff) t 3 PROJECT NAME: Westclox 29 CPUD 1 5 7 i LOCATION: (Common Description) Southeast quadrant of Westclox Drive and State Road 29 in Immokalee SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST: Proposed rezone of 9.5± acres of agricultural land. As shown on the Archaeological Probability Map 13, the project is not located in an area of historical/archaeological probability. The project is located in the southeast corner of Section 29,T46S,R29E. - (Properties located within an area of Historical and Archaeological Probability but with a low potential for historical/archaeological sites may petition the Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator County Manager or designee to waive the requirement for a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment. Once the waiver application has been submitted, it shall be reviewed and acted upon within five (5) working days. The waiver request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low potential for historical/archaeological sites.) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev.06/05/08 1 SECTION ONE:APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA A. Name of applicant(s)(if other than property owner, state relationship such as option holder, contract purchaser, lessee,trustee, etc.): Barron Collier Partnership LLLP Mailing Address:2600 Golden Gate Pkwy,#200,Naples,FL 34105 Phone: 23 9.262.2600 FAX: E-Mail: dgenson(@,barroncollier.corn B. Name of agent(s)for applicant, if any:D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Mailing Address: 0. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.,3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134 Phone: 239.947.1144 FAX: 239.947.0375 E-Mail:warnold @gradyminor.com C. Name of owner(s)of property: Same as Applicant Mailing Address: Phone: ( ) FAX: E-Mail: Note: If names in answers to A and/or B are different than name in C,notarized letter(s) of authorization from property owner(C) must be attached. SECTION TWO: SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA(Attach copy of the plat book page (obtainable from Clerk's Office at the original scale)with subject property clearly marked.) A. Legal description of subject property. Answer only 1 or 2, as applicable. 1. Within platted subdivision,recorded in official Plat Books of Collier County. Subdivision Name:Not Applicable Nat Book Page Unit Tract Lot Section 29 Township 46 S Range 29 E 2. If not in platted subdivision, a complete legal description must be attached which is sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property on County maps or aerial photographs. The legal description must include the Section, Township and Range. If the applicant includes multiple contiguous parcels, the legal Historic Preservation/Forms/rev.06/05/08 2 description may describe the perimeter boundary of the total area, and need not describe each individual parcel, except where different zoning requests are made on individual parcels. A boundary sketch is also required. Collier County has the right to reject any legal description,which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property,and may require a certified survey or boundary sketch to be submitted. B. Property dimensions: Area: square feet,or 9.5± acres Width along roadway: 1,031 ±feet s j Depth: 452+feet(average) C. Present use of property: Undeveloped D. Present zoning classification: A,Agriculture SECTION THREE: WAIVER CRITERIA Note: This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or historic resource that may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be evidence that a major building has been constructed on the site or that an area has been excavated. A. Waiver Request Justification. 1. Interpretation of Aerial Photograph Photo shows property is undeveloped with surrounding developed and undeveloped lands. _ 2. Historical Land Use Description:Undeveloped agriculture. 3. Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: The site contains undisturbed trees and ground cover. 4. Other: B. The County Manager or designee may deny a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the waiver with conditions. He shall be authorized to require examination of the site by an accredited archaeologist where deemed appropriate. The applicant shall bear the cost of such evaluation by an independent accredited archaeologist. The decision of 1 the County Manager or designee regarding the waiver request shall be provided to the applicant in writing. In the event of a denial of the waiver request,written notice 1 shall be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the County Manager or designee regarding a waiver request may appeal Historic Preservation/Forms/rev.06/05/08 3 to the Preservation Board. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Preservation Board regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION FOUR: CERTIFICATION A. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this application. Any time delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information shall be the responsibility of the applicant. B. All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and shall be a permanent part of the file. C. All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently fold to fit into a legal size(8 %"x 14")folder. Signature of Applicant or Agent D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Printed Name of Applicant or Agent -TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION- SECTION FIVE:NOTICE OF DECISION The County Manager or designee has made the following determination: ❑ Approved on: By: ❑ Approved with Conditions on: By: (see attached) ❑ Denied on: By: (see attached) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev.06/05bg 4 E i 1 5 is RNG 28 I RNG 29 f sP P 11 12 ® 8 9 ' 10 11 ® 12 I. a14 17 . 16 5 14 iii 13 lit, 4 b CE 1��4J00 1 i i p. • 23 2 20 21 22 23 24 A.{ { Y an SUBJECT WI PROPERTY • 26 7. '"' 25 130 t29 28� 27 26 25 r� Y 4 31 , 32 y 3 SR eso ` 4i, 34 35 38 my Po 1 - tiki i- CRIO{ TA'P 46 r�+m , • *Cnsu TWP 47 I 11 ��sw SR 84e 41111; 6 1. 71N1 4 3 2 1 . 111111114% Pe dr? 7 8 9 •p I, 4 0 .. ....c a • ( cams . ,,,>���, �., S g 17 18 5 4 13 „ IL . •.4 1124 19 20 • 21 22 23 24 . t • X,.....ca PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED ROAD MUM PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED AREA INDICATES AREAS OF HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABTLRY IMbIOKALEE QUADRANGLE •* INOIGTES HlssORlC STRUCTURE(HDT TD sc■E) AREAS OF BISTORICAL/AR OLOGICAL PROBABILITY • INDICATES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE(ROT TO SCALE) . l3 RDICATE5 HISTORIC DISTRICT waa,a. .lm,ORM OMNI ua NNW a,w.w amen , _ . i --:141„,..-,..,,,......__, ---4 V-1 ., •",.',".4 '-- -♦ .'. x � -:;-,,-,=:-.., r m is t, i\CI) IV' •••*, . ' ',,'''�ti �• '.a .�. � t m 4a, r �,� ^S .. �lll ' r_- 7�lil , - :, } . f1 � r i1� a i - he+ .i C, ` f s e�,: ,' a t '0. 11:4--':,,tr e# , - Syr .: s x,r ;f t 4'� ^vim z F >`; _ �7 r R '"� ` ass" L.�� .*,--•.„.-_,:k" , 4 .a - -� -. ._ cr''P: ,�_ `,� fir' i .,_, i --"- : ,' ' _ Kg.,-'--4.'_ .ate _ > 3. a °` a, s it r c v ,. 3 ,sue"-47::-."--.,t �. 3 y y a � j f p•" '�` r.,, 4-t - _ ~ z -, y`� 4` 8 6 Y• F at .•. ae �'L t }' 4,_r't ¢r ti r f as,- m41 C]. :- 7,44-: nr - '` ._tom-, ,r.' yl '� .f ; Sv:a J _ lim` > .� f� .r aT'�� �:. l •:;gyp ` �4' �' 3 z' - � •N r" -. .rk 44.h i,� ` bC n . N :' i:J` aF . , . ,.{ -� x` .. 6"`w'Pi `'^. .5..-sue .. .. - ,.... X_ V 0 Ci m4 _z 6 � ] w S Co er County PL 2015 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 REV 1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net • (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: PUD Rezone Date and Time: Wednesday,4/1/15 at 1:30 p.m. Assigned Planner: Nancy Gundlach Engineering Manager(for PPL's and FP's): N/A 420 Project Information 1 Project Name: Westclox Stet CPUD pig: 20150000660 • Property ID#: 00068880000 Current Zoning: A MHO Project Address: 2145 Westclox Street Cry. Immokalee state. FL zip: • Applicant:•&1VY 'A 604/1/W ` Way ne Arnold AICP -947-1144 Agent Name: Phone: Agent/Firm Address: Q. Grady Minor&Assoc. City: Naples State: FL zip: Property Owner: Barron Collier Partnership, LLP Please provide the following,if applicable: i. Total Acreage: 146.69 ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: N/A iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: N/A v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: N/A vi. If the project is within a Nat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: N/A FL 2015 00 0 0 6 6 0 REV 1 Coder County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net, (239)252-2400 IMeeting Notes I s ,-- Cfpuipm,,ii d( D.�s-J. sum) br/in1 r�rwr•� " Pea clicelet Isis, • ( 4,9.D & A7(on• t -n � . ! - — S ' r-- � tsY S h Vet74-IL.,/ / 4S E DlvMSt ' 10 A-11 3 4—mss r•,,,7.5 Q es.. r •s--r E.C._1•Pc4•1-' 1]g,, p�OL T+vN9.1 Qu t 4yEwr S1,^�J [Gw7E -a- we.; 45 to c) Le-4J L}Nt S 6N ti �Cam' 403 RA ekci+l+n-G $K- 21 °�11,,.t- .) 4 'gO L.) ' 'S6iLV R-7 r b' To 4e-C 6.- 1Y c j-7& flie- 6.-M2A- 14.fet-iE-f T 4. WI 0 "14"-"A el sr t 7, S,bNA-t- 1f7.2c7p C. lc A. C pQ c-oc e.E — CoA)S Vt Fvz WC_ 2 21 i e s-r*L-,0,. {' ` a.L�.�r•J L Sah _ � r �� /-/- ' V A ' . .1.1M n - .,� if`'i L`-i}^l`! p ��/) j�s:` //� ■lee,,,..- - EL C..-z .LZ.2., "l` P/ 7 11 (J.l : rvsr -- d 1 L7 �l-Y✓� �.r., , [ `y.:-- � �.-,� / �— /5 r 7 D Y�'J�'7 P v �' JZ.i�_ p,...p. .��,p ...a- 1. [ — -7, 14 . :`' �, . — LL✓ 1T_. 4.r h A.N... - r x.14"'1 Z..0-7, t.�'i' L ir„2.�.f 4 ,-- , • i; i 1' F i Cofer County i COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 341D4 ti www.collierlov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 ) f Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: ❑ PUD Rezone-Ch.3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code.. 1 ❑ Amendment to PUD-Ch.3 G.2 of the Administrative Code ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone-Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code 1 The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time 1 of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets x attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. i 1 ) REQUIREMENTS #OF REQUIRED NOT COPIES . REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of ❑ 2 ❑ why amendment is necessary LY Completed Application with required attachments ❑ Pre-application meeting notes ❑ Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 2 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 2 ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 2 ❑ Warranty Deed(s) 3 [� ❑ List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 2 ❑❑ Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 4 el Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 4 ❑ Current Aerial Photographs(available from Property Appraiser)with V ❑ project boundary and,if vegetated,FLUCFCS Codes with legend included 5 aerial. ❑ Statement of Utility Provisions Statement � 4 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 4 ❑ Environmental Data Requirements collatedirito a single Environmental �/ Impact Statement(EIS)packet at time of public hearings.Coordinate with Ill Dr/ ❑ project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey,less than 12 months old. Include 4 12 ❑ copies of previous surveys. Traffic Impact Study - 7 U Historical Survey 4 School Impact Analysis Application,if applicable 2 Electronic copy of all required documents ❑ Completed Exhibits A-F(see below for additional information)+ \,1121 [ ❑ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each(this q � c ❑ d ❑ document is separate from Exhibit E) Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24"x 36"and One 8 Ya" x 11"copy 121/ ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance,and Master Plan 24"x 36"—on)y if ❑ ❑ LJ,yam Amending the PUD Checklist continued onto next page... 2/27/2015 Page 11 of 15 Coftr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru&underlined 0 ❑ Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 O *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing,include an additional set of each submittal requirement The fo llowing exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: it/Exhibit C:Master Plan-See Chapter 3 E.1.of the Administrative Code Exhibit D:Legal Description Pr-Exhibit E:List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each E/Exhibit F:List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU(Rural Fringe Mixed Use)Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-690-3500 for information regarding"Wildfire Mitigation&Prevention Plan." PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ School District(Residential Components):Amy •ckheart ❑ Conservancy of SWFL:Nicole Ryan r5 Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen ❑ ,P'arks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad i♦ Emergency Management:Dan Summers [r Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ 1 City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director 0 Other: CFEE REQUIREMENTS 0 P -Application Meeting:$500.00 PUD Rezone:$10,000.00* plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre .0 PUD to PUD Rezone:$8,000.00*plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre D PU r, Amendment:$6,000.00*plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre 2 omprehensive Planning Consistency Review:$2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet(submittal determined at pre-application meeting):$2,500.00 ❑ fisted or Protected Species Review(when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Legal Advertising Fees: ovCCCPC:$925.00 VBCC:$500.00 ❑ School Concurrency Fee,if applicable: o Mitigation Fees,if application,to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 209S the original fee. All checks maybe made payable to:Board of County Commissioners 2/27/2015 Page 12 of 15 svi i+-CtoX 2 7 CPOD Environmental Data Checklist The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 L' / rovide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. f 2. Preparation of Environmental Data Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource i F. management.Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological i sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification.System(FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District 1 (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval.For sites in the RFMU district,provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify 1. on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands(wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order I approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff,consistent with State regulation. 6 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five(5)or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of i potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project(post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared I with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. The analysis shall I be.performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies, and must demonstrate i no increase in nutrients(nitrogen and phosphorous)loadings in the post development scenario. 1 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been 1 met. i 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site,provide a topographic map to a half foot and,where possible,provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site.For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. t (7—s - r movide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological comunities similar to those existing on site The survey shall be conducted in accordance with.the guidelines or 1 recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(I'FWCC)and the U.S.Fish and I • Wildlife Service(USFWS). Survey times'may be reduced or.waived where an initial habitat assessment by the 1 environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low,as determined by the 1 FFWCC and USFWS_Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the i likelihood of listed species occurrence is low,the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager i or designee,when the projects not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. 1 i ��Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered 8. /Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the 1 FFWCC or USFWS.These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site.Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans.Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 3 i 10. F sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation,provide documentation that e parcel(s)were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06.For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003,provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP.Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality,process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05,3.05.07 and 10.02.06. .entify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System(FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified.Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided.Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features,located on abutting properties. 12. Include on.a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. ere off-site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on-site,demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation(monetary payment or land donation)identified to satisfy the requirement.Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans,a location map(s)and property identification number(s)of the off-site parcel(s)if off-site donation of land is to occur. 14. P ovide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property,along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. _15. S and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields(crop fields,cattle dipping ponds,chemical mixing areas),golf courses,landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored.The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides(U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)8081)and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure(SOP)FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious.Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site.Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone,about.6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment,the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment,when the contaminants are over these levels.If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted.The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. Foe f1 C J' Q,C 3 .1 r f ' 1L,G /A/4( C'�� . 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. 17. ovide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13),if requested. I b i 1 18. Where applicable,provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30,F.A.C.,as those rules existed on January 13,2005. cj 19. entify any Weilfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones(WRM-ST)within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive 4 WRM-STs and will comply with the WRIv-ST pursuant to 3.06.00.Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans.For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs,provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the i' project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones i entified. polt+0.1/ a r c/i- ii' IA/ ST- W-9 ovh ' 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and x. quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. i • I 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district(ACSC- I ST),show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. ` I 22. For multi slip docking facilities with ten slips or more,and for all marina facilities,show how the project is i g consistent with 5.05.02.Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee 1 Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands,show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 6:IT:Ipae County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's i —/compliance with LDC and GMP requirements.(LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) 'rovide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. .. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. . xplain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. o25. P zoning and CU petitions_For PUD rezones and CU petitions,applicants shall collate and package applicable nvironmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete.Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review(by CCPC)required? f f= D (j`(44 ' pi/ GW4 f/144/2 1/R67l 4$1( 27. Additional Comments S I-A 1/PAU r ,5 9v iitiw 28. Stipulations for approval(Conditions) PUDZ-PUDA Checklist 101/61CCoA 29 C/V 1. The project is in compliance with the overlays, districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties. (i.e. CON, ST,PUD,RLSA designation,RFMU district, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00)land use compliance 231. ubmit a current aerial photograph and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated,provide FLUCFCS overlay or vegetation inventory identifying - _upland,.wetlandand.exoticvegetation.. (LDC 1-0-02.13.A.2.m) - FLUCCS aerial..: -- __.. .�. 150. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve"on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07A.2). preserves labeled oE/` _,S'/ oft�Ui,,yf; ikiass", 151. ovide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to e retained,the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off- site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations(LDC 3.05.07.B-D;3.05.07.F;3.05.07.H.1.d-e). preserve calculation ( 072 Qreated and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC ,--- 3.05.07.H.I.e. 154. i�tained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC .05.07.A.3,include all 3 strata,ta,be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors.(LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) preserve selection 208.Provide the justification for proposing a created preserve versus retaining existing native vegetation. (LDC 3.05.07.H.l.e.i) 212.P inciple structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve ' oundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations,fill placement,grading, Q • plant alteration or removal,or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve(i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Provide cross-sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) preserve setback ( the location,maintenance plan, and type of habitat of any proposed off-site � preservation/mitigation.. (LDC 3.05.07.F.4) 115. Wetland line shall be approved by SFWMD and delineated on the site plan. (LDC 3.05.07.F; 10.02.03.B.1.j.) wetland line 153.P ovide a complete and sufficient EIS (and the review fee)identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs,off-site preserves,seasonal and historic high water levels,and analysis of water quality. For Iand previously used for farm fields or golf course,provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 10.02.02) EIS required 228.Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required,when so warranted_ (LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) • 229. Include the wildlife habitat management plan as an appendix to the PUD Document (eagle,RCW). (LDC 3.04.00) wildlife plan 181. Golf Course PUD within RFMU or RLSA:Provide an Environmental Master Plan and Natural Resource Management Plan(NRMP)approved by Audubon International. (LDC 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(a).xi.b;2.03.08A.3.a.(1)(k); 4.08.06.A.3.h; 4.08.08.F.1) 230. Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be _ • . .preserved.-(LDC 10.02 d3.A 2 - . . .. _:_��: _• 232. PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site.(LDC 10.02.13.A.2.m) unique features l Additional Comments: Stipulations for approval(Conditions) • • I • . COY County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-in Sheet PL#:20150000660 • Collier County Contact Information: Name Review Discipline Phone Email O David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 davidanthony @colliergov.net ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque @colliergov.net ❑ Steve Baluch Transportation Planning 252-2361 StephenBaluch @colliergov.net 7 Madelin Bunster Architectural Review 252-8523 madelinbunster @colliergov.net O Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin @colliergov.net O George Cascio Utility Billing 252-5543 georgecascio @colliergov.net `i>o'J Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst.County Attorney 252-8773 heidiashton @colliergov.net ❑ Kay Deselem,AICP Zoning Services 252-2931 kaydeselem @colliergov.net ❑ Eric Fey,P.E. Utility Plan Review 252-2434 ericfey @colliergov.net ❑ Paula Fleishman impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman @colliergov.net ❑ yichael Gibbons Structural/Residential Plan Review 252-2426 michaelgibbons @colliergov.net Lit" Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Services 252-2484 nancygundlach @colliergov.net ❑ Shar Hingson East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson @ccfco.org ❑ John Houldsworth Engineering Services 252-5757 johnhouldsworth @colliergov.net ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodihughes @colliergov.net ❑ Alicia Humphries Right-Of-Way Permitting 252-2326 aliclahumphries @colliergov.net O Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marciakendali @colliergov.net ❑ jp4e.d Jarvi,P.E: Transportation Planning 252-5849 reedjarvi @colliergov.net Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review 252-2915 stevelenberger @colliergov.net ❑ Paulo Martins Utilities' 252-4285 paulomartins @colliergov.net_ ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Fire Safety 252-7348 Thomasmastroberto @ colliergov.net ❑ Jack McKenna,P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jackmckenna @colliergov.net ❑ Matt McLean,P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-8279 matthewmclean @colliergov.net ❑ Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 252-4215 giibertmoncivaiz @colliergov.net 0 Michele Mosca,AICP Impact Fee Administration 252-2466 michelemosca @colliergov.net ❑ Ann is Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annismoxam @colliergov.net ❑ Mariam Ocheltree Graphics 252-2315 mariamocheltree @ colliergov.net ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandyotero @colliergov.net iVf John Podczerwinsky Transportation Planning 252-5890 john podczerwinsky @ colliergov.net ❑ Brandy Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard @colliergov.net ❑ Fred Reischl,AiCP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl @colliergov.net SSz 1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 ❑ Stacy Revay Transportation Pathways 252-5677 stacyrevay @colliergov.net I ❑ Brett Rosenblum,P.E. Stormwater Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum @colliergov.net I ❑ Michael Sawyer Zoning Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer @colliergov.net I ❑ Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt @colliergov.net ❑ Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott @colliergov.net ❑ Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review 252-4312 danielsmith @coiliergov.net ❑ Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone @colliergov.net "Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 2524446 markstrain @colliergov.net 1 ❑ Carolina Valera Comprehensive Planning 252-8498 carolinavalera @colliergov,net z ❑ Kris VanLengen Utility Planning 252-5366 krisvanlengen @colliergov.net I 4 ❑ Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh @colliergov.net I ❑ David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks @colliergov.net j I ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkie @colliergov.net s ❑ Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning 252-5748 ChristineWilloughby @colliergov.net Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email /l �5 ibi i e-M T1Y1 S Assoc .f'- Ve{Tio IC/krek "CrSXN.t[/IBS.Qr' 1 4O '3Q(4 ?".:1402404 eciLI,Fe. D6 SvN.C. el APROI—ICOU.0 472.COI R-4„--.1,),1 an,"--1 'ell C -IV- c-/o' ,o r:o:l, e c.-i kl, ;-h-n-QDF^ -.4.-.2.. E-w l ta.41.er Lr,,ll t i tr Cciv, feli-eri5 f.:I' I LI 2525 7�E5 _`iCt t- a.t.:.1-Qc'C_4-4[,<r Gc�.t, ii id ,+Lt, Lu i,� F-Fai'lknn, a to 1_Cn 4Ac1 r_R)e..n.r�\ 15-cxr°, 1 n,rt.2,c 5 5.1 S-1'S2 t_(1 tr D c rr( 0 ezitterFcv. (.1c1. • GundlaciiNancy Subject: PL20150000650(Rezone) Location: Conf Room C Start: Wed 4/1/2015 1:30 PM End: Wed 4/1/2015 2:30 PM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: CDS-C Required Attendees: AhmadVicky;Amy Lockhart-Taylor(lockha @collierschools.com);AndersonRichard; AnthonyDavid;ArnoldMichelle;AshtonHeidi;AuclairClaudine; BaluchStephen; BealsNathan; BeardLaurie; BrethauerPaula; BrownAraqueSummer, BunsterMadelin; BurtchinMark; CascioGeorge; CondominaDanny;CromerAaron; David Ogilvie;DavisAme; dfey @northcoliierfire.com; FeyEric; FleishmanPaula; HouldsworthJohn; HughesJodi; HumphriesAlicia;jnageond @sfwmd.gov;KendallMarcia; KurtzGerald;LenbergerSteve; LevyMichael; (martin @sfwmd.gov; MastrobertoThomas; McKennaJacl' McKuenElly; McLeanMatthew; MoxamAnnis; NawrockiStefanie; PajerCraig; PattersonAmy; PaulRenald; PepinEmily; pjimenez @sfwmd.gov; PodczerwinskyJohn; ReischlFred; RosenblumBrett; SawyerMichael;ScottChris; Shar Hingson(shingson@enfd.org);SmithDaniet; SpearPatricia; StoneScott;StrainMark; SuleckiAlexandra;TriminoEvelyn;ValeraCarolina;VanLengenKris; WalshJonathan; WeeksDavid;WilloughbyChristine;sumpenhour @gradyminor.com; Gundlach Nancy Planner: Nancy Gundlach Fire District: immokalee PL20150000660jp g Project Type: Planned Unit Development Project-Description: Rezone a portion of the overall parcel, 9.5+1- acres, from the 'A-MHO' zoning district to the 'CPUD' zoning district to allow up to 100,000 sq. -Ft. of commercial land uses. Existing Application Name: Meeting Type: Pre-Application Meeting Preferred Date: next available Unavailable Dates: Location: 2135 Westclox St, Parcel Number: 00068880000 Full Name: Sharon Umpenhour Email: sumpenhourOgradyminor.com Company Name: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 1 Representing: • Contact Number: Primary: 239-947-1144 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. • • • - r 2 • Co 7er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing @colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting,please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 5 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE(Indicate type below,complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL(Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP(Site Development Plan) ❑ BD(Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDK(Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU(Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP(Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI(Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP(Final Plat ❑ SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC,(Street Name Change—Unplatted) ❑ PNC(Project Name Change) ❑ TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL(Plans&Plat Review) ❑ VA(Variance) ❑ PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP(Vegetation Removal Permit) O PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties(copy of lengthy description maybe attached) See attached Property Appraiser print out. FOLIO(Property ID)NUMBER(s)of above(attach to or associate with,legal description if more than one) D0068880000 - STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES(as applicable,if already assigned)' 2135 Westclox St • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY(copy -needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME(if applicable) Westclox 29 CPUD PROPOSED STREET NAMES(if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER(for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL# • Corr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 • Project or development names proposed for,or already appearing in,condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) j�ggf Please Return Approved.Checklist By: D Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: Sharon Umpenhour i Phone: 239.947.1144 Email/Fax: sumpenhour©gradyminor.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. AMC FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 00068880000 Folio Number _ Folio Number Folio Number • Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: 3-17-2015 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 00068880000 Site Adr.;2135 WESTCLOX ST " • . . . _ . . • Narre/AdClrees BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP LLP 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY#200 • City NAPLES State FL Zip 34105-3227 • Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range : Acres *Estimated • 1E29 000100 001 11E29 29 46 29 146.69 . . • " • Legal 29 46 29 S1/4 LESS HWY, LESS WESTCLOX ST . . Millage Area 0' 5 Millage Rates 01 *Calculations • • Sub./Condo 100-ACREAGE HEADER School Other . Total Use Code 60-GRAZING LAND SOIL CAPABILITY CLASS I • 5.58 93869 15.1669 . . _ . . . . . Latest Sales History 2014 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) _. Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $451,485 01/01/14 4998-865 .$._ (+) Improved Value $0 . _ 12/21/98 p493-2779 $14,417,500 • — • •- - •• ••—• • - (=) Market Value $451,485• 06/01/82 975-674 . _ __________ _ . _ _ ___________ . (-) Agriculture $259,038. (=) Assessed-Value $192,447 _ . (=) School Taxable Value $192,447 ._ (=) Taxable Value $192,447 . . If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll • hitp://www.collierappraisencom/main_search/RecorddetaiLhim17Map=No&FolioNum=00068880000 1/9/2015 1 1 E 1 1 - y t r q r tit i 1 . e E ±'-''':',;;-:,115,-" ' _1 cr+x 41. . 'r- 4 lir Yt.4 I'iYj T",..;. _ `v y -q ` 11 ? / . 1 ' • -y t.r ^:"j? ` {:ti ✓: Q ' F I 1 L` ii " F Y cr.....,....-_,- L y+ �y' t.'i '-7771 Is,.. -.- ti - GO I f> F . !...1'0_, 1 T P { r y-0 t4r E El 'Al,. t ' � cJ� .WY{® . 5, W 1 r; 1--..- --..21=e•-, -'-'5--.:. Is 0,Y ,1 cA-4i.-- ..i i-.-,;•1;,..1'L_'`-,7=,,-7.'''',•-:-.,,,',.-'-'.=;7=';'''S.-2--,'' '..' "- -;_-. ---- -' - =- -:- '- ---: I.- - • '- � 2 J 11r 1 i 57[5 ' . C ''I" • I+ ` — - /' •_ 7111= �t.y.'� {I I v �., F . 4 ' i- f 4 E v C7 4 .4 i t [ 1 A� _ k t` .r v .ab— S. - •'84V'-__"ti p, 4�rf•�-- )) `te Tt , f y r `f y i• ; '' '' _.. a ' M1-�_742 . S I - � - r . t �-- le _ t -,x " ° , ,.RF:, .-J .� i 2�,sue F7. _ =�s_ai rt _ I ',4 f� _ -'M J"{ n n 4a.! L 13 y4' 1.F.) NT; - } T .n � ' cs � - - - c 1 - _,---,.....::- .,-.}1,',4!,1- ,--; !r -�:S � •1 i r, 1 tizel r 3 _ 1 + r 1 { _ _ _ . i _ d , ..„..,.___. _ Jc 4 r } h p 5 'f A AGENDA ITEM 9-D Co 6r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES -ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JANUARY 7,2015 SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONE (PUDZ) - PL20150000204; ABACO CLUB OWNER Mary Wagner Collier County 2730 S Ocean Boulevard 3301 Tamiami Trail E Palm Beach,FL 233480 Naples, FL 34112 AGENT: APPLICANT(CONTRACT PURCHASER): Alexis Crespo, AICP Rock Development Group Waldrop Engineering,P.A. c/o Chris Konal,Blake Doganiero 28100 Bonita Grande Drive,#305 535 Hercules Boulevard, Suite 201B Bonita Springs, FL 34103 Clearwater,FL 33764 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an amendment to Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Abaco Club RPUD,to allow construction of a maximum of 104 residential dwelling units on 15.9+/-acres. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive in Section 26,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. (location map on page 2,proposed PUD Master Plan on page 3,and aerial/boundary map on page 7). PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 1 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC R▪ig 1 i 0 J -. a i .--,..v.____ Q MIN=AXON 13 iiiji,iiii,lg Ii,iil iiii g it li lii13 i iiQ . . • v = a e 11 11 r L .1:::iiii`i;€i1,;,;:;:a,;;:;.M ipiti': ;i'';. .illiiiiiiiiiiiidigiiilillillrfilliiidENIMIIII 1 f.‘ ail � I<ii[iYl`: •s•�•;:,i,i.i!i:s is ii'ir:i:,i;;::i•:,::.t,:7'. • 0111�11b 11;1:1;;iiia 1111•i;;ir.:: 1g11: ui;i'.it;i AI C ▪ Q iii..T iii-,n.;:p0:1ii:::,11, € i :gih'iS a: j- t i Z �11 ini °�` �aO0 RICCIPDCC000w JR iii sl i nom: Z i vds� eeeeeeeeee o N c!ii i .. g i 1110/ 41611111.3 '4:-',-, i © q OA ef ,::',4"fr ills wn . il CV 9 s v IN, va , ,�, a o �� p D a u I m z S A p o h_ H • p p w /' .. e O g P b3 cr U Sx d s CL l w- .� . - - « A x ay 3 'a§� 9 A a II z $" 6' .o - A A Z �"g _a1 gb 111 its .le 6 1100.. 1 1 i 1 I i' $ I i a a app $. p as as $ in ihi OWVM11100».w, PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 2 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC �l •�•rrr� Wr 1 ...-- -..-..� ,ruwemnl M 1•le e 1 j S Q a e e _tip_ iii II 4______ i W f N en R s W O N N Q tn Ogi 11 is li 1---H I � � J 1 > ? dlit II a e I _ x� :tii,g • 4 • -I Imo._i � b lie! 1 w � ;g � t7 I II; CC .N 0 I `d w r yt o -N W, \ L yi j Z `v 4gaaa -I 11-11 I l N TO 14 I I r_� I Q4 J L_� 1 � $ g iX / 4r1 \:.-2--__ ..--:— -....._7-_-;......-74__----;-* . ---:' ri I I . 2 . . ; 1 c-n_ L -.,_ 1_ ..L ''r;_ ' ._-, at- --- -7-' - - ' ! 1 Lu V 0 0 a. flog W • . _- '#MlN3BI ] ujNy3a@NgC GNV1BN(15Ixj I Z oe n autos ever coLid NYgai:nv t I » mss °` ABACO CLUB PUD MASTER PLAN PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 3 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed PUD is comprised of two parcels totaling 15.9 acres. The 11.76 acre parcel to the east, fronting Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive, is an undeveloped and wooded site owned by Mary Wagner with a zoning designation of Agriculture (A). The parcel to the west, fronting Immokalee Road, is 5.3 acres under County ownership and contains storm water retention for Immokalee Road with a zoning designation of (A). Both parcels have a common property line with Bent Creek Preserve PUD(see aerial/boundary map on page 7). During the acquisition of right-of-way for the six (6) lanes needed for Immokalee Road, the County by condemnation, acquired the 5.3 acres in fee simple. Pursuant to the Stipulated Final Judgment (SFJ), the County and Mary Wagner agreed that within ten (10)years of the SFJ, upon rezone, the County would convey to Ms. Wagner, fee simple, title to the 5.3 acre parcel and the County would retain a drainage easement over the entire site. It also provided for pond relocation. Currently,the parties are working out the details on the relocation. The subject property is designated Urban (Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub- district), and is within the Residential Density Band around the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The applicant qualifies for 111 units or 7 units per acre. The applicant is requesting approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development on 15.9 acres to allow for the development of a multi-family and/or townhouse community with associated accessory uses. The applicant is requesting a density of 6.5 units per acre equating to 104 dwelling units. The proposed structures will not exceed 45 feet in actual height. Vehicle access to the development is along Woodcrest Drive with a pedestrian/bicycle connection proposed along the southwest side of the site, connecting Abaco Club PUD to Bent Creek Preserve PUD. In addition to principal structures proposed, the applicant is proposing the following accessory uses: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 3. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 4. Entry Gates &Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Water management facilities. 7. Walls,berms, and signs. 8. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to, landscaped areas, gazebos,park benches,and walking trails. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 4 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC the Board of Zoning Appeals,or Hearing Examiner,pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code(LDC). Furthermore,the following development standards are proposed: TABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS111 PERMITTED USES Townhouses Multi-Family Recreation AND STANDARDS Dwellings Min. Lot Area 1,400 S.F. N/A N/A Min. Lot Width 16' N/A N/A Min. Lot Depth 100' N/A N/A SETBACKS I Front(2) 20' 15' 20' Side 5'/0' 7.5' 10' s Rear(Principal) 10'from Perimeter Buffer 10'from Perimeter Buffer 10'from Perimeter or 0'from LME or 0'from LME Buffer or 0'from LME 1 Rear(Accessory) 0'from Perimeter Buffer 0'from Perimeter Buffer 0'from Perimeter Buffer 1 or LME or LME or LME or Bulkhead I Water body131 20' 20' 20' i , Min. Distance Between Principal 10'/0' 20' 10' Structures{4} i I Maximum Height 45' 45' 45' Actual 1 I I Zoned 35' 35' 50' ) 1 Minimum Floor Area 1,000 S.F. N/A N/A (1) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. (2) Front setback is measured from back of curb or edge of pavement if not curbed,for private roads.The minimum 15'front setback may be reduced to 10'where the unit has a recessed or side-entry garage. T Front-loading garages shall be setback a minimum of 23 feet from the edge of sidewalk for private x roads. (3) Waterbody setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the water body. (4) The minimum distance between buildings may be reduced to 0'where attached garages are provided. ) The applicant is also requesting the following deviations from the LDC: I 1. Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G regarding multi-family dwellings, which allows parking spaces for recreation facilities to be computed at 25 percent of the normal i requirements where a majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation x facilities, to allow the parking spaces for the recreation facilities to be computed at 25 percent i of the normal requirements for the entire development. 1 1 PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 5 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC i ) 2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum wall height of eighteen (18) feet along the Immokalee Road frontage, and a maximum wall height of twelve (12) feet along Woodcrest Drive. 3. Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.3.e, which provides that a temporary use permit for a model home (occupied or unoccupied) and sales center shall be issued initially for a period of three (3)years. The requested deviation is to allow the model homes and sales center to remain in use up to five(5)years without requiring a conditional use permit. 4. Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, subject to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 90 days per calendar year. This deviation will remain valid until 90%of the units are sold. At such time,the deviation will be void. 5. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of roadway, to allow for on-premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5 feet from private, internal roadways within the PUD. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. 6. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, which permits two (2) ground or wall signs per entrance to the development with a combined sign area of 64 square feet, to allow for two (2) ground or wall signs at the project entrance with a combined sign area of 80 square feet. 7. Deviation 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 street. The sidewalk must be located on the side of the street adjacent to the residential dwellings unit and shall be 6 feet in width. 8. Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i, which limits satisfying native vegetation off-site to less than one(1)acre,to allow for 1.22 acres of native vegetation to be satisfied off-site. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: (Subject property—6.5 units per acre) North: Immokalee Road, golf course/mixed residential development Heritage Bay PUD with a density of 1.3 units per acre. West: Mixed residential development (in process) Bent Creek Preserve PUD with a density of 3.25 units per acre. South: Mixed residential development (in process) Bent Creek Preserve PUD with a density of 3.25 units per acre. East: Woodcrest Drive, LaMorada golf course/mixed residential development (in process) with a density of 1.47 units per acre. PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 6 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC I i 1 is tn.t , y$,� FI ITAGE ` Hii�I, 7v{i ;V. M HE�INING - yi r>C:T , I _ �. I WI DEVELOPMENT I 1. I `k � Heritage Bay PUD ' , ' Gn G\ 4,1i It a. : I: : "'.. 4§ S 23 h ,"_A. r 26 C •. ,_- i .i "a AU,''...'.'. liy00000ii4,C . . ...,....00A ,, it Lint estone,_T,RL .___�.,�• i .. xv °' ' nYtt1e rrT� 7 P71 ' �• - ImmoN.alec RU _ _ • S ��rrBENTjCREEI -,, le--.:2'}1_•)• 110, i•QEP,RFSFRVI l `-J r Wind load .,•. • 1� `f Category 2: DEVELOPMENT q • 159 mph 1v Z'� LaMorada y.A,0 n.v,.�.00 rhF,. ' a� Mixed Residential/golf DEVELOPMENT • � Bent Creek Preserve PUD • i. . Lao O a 4 Try • m • ,li,, s 1,i.,hirt: 5 I. 4PA r P.FJr F .,.._._r wcy� y i� if ».. �,.± .�� � t � � �)��Y� Antrgua. LN• 4° 410_ _ � � .. . ..4.�j,P•t• iF; ,�• • ,T 2 • • • 1■•i•jN•1• ` . r I. ",.P ,' PROPOSED ' a_ "= ti r' I � Abaco Club PUD � \ . q°. a. r • l'''\ Aerial Photo/PUD Boundary (subject site depiction is approximate) PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 7 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Sub-district), and is within the Residential Density Band around the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Sub-district permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre (DU/A), recreation and open space uses, and essential services uses. This project,which is relying on the Residential Density Band density bonus in the FLUE, is proposing 104 DUs, recreation and open space uses, and essential services. Density calculation and explanation is shown below. 15.9 acres X 7 DU/A= 111.3 DUs 4 111 DUs Base Density 4 DU/A(15.9 ac. X 4 DU/A=63.6 DUs) Residential Density Band Density Bonus 3 DU/A (15.9 ac. X 3 DU/A=47.7 DUs) Sum: 111.3 4 111 DUs eligible; proposed density is 104 DUs or 6.54 DU/A (104 DUs/15.9 ac.) 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]. Policy 5.4 New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. (Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.)] 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. (The PUD Master Plan does not depict direct access to Immokalee Road, an arterial road as identified within the Transportation Element. However, access is provided to Woodcrest Drive, a local road, which connects to Immokalee Road. The applicant indicates direct access to Immokalee Road is not permitted) Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (The PUD Master Plan depicts a loop road.) 1 1 PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 8 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. (The PUD Master Plan does not depict vehicular interconnections with abutting properties to the west or south and it does not appear possible to do so. The abutting Bent Creek Preserve contains platted lots for single family dwelling units along the western border and most of the southern border; the remainder of the southern border is platted as an "Open Area" tract with access easement and drainage easement (Tract 0A2, Bent Creek Preserve Phase IA). Exhibit F,#2B, indicates the developer will provide "a bicycle/pedestrian interconnection to the Bent Creek Preserve PUD to the south as shown on the PUD Master Plan" and such interconnection is shown on the Master Plan, labeled as "future interconnection.") Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (The PUD allows for multi-family and townhouse development; provides for open space and recreation areas; the required preservation area will be provided off site, consistent with the Land Development Code (LDC); and, per Deviation #8, sidewalks will be provided on only one side of the [single loaded] road—the side on which the DUs are located); GMP staff has no objection to this deviation.) CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff determines that the proposed PUD rezone may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 1.22 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD. The native vegetation will be provided off-site. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve 1 any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 9 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC 9 1 Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating i stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; I b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point 1 where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the I applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the I project's significant impacts on all roadways." The proposed rezoning to allow a maximum of 104 multi-family units (residential condo/townhouse) on the subject property will generate approximately 38 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link, Immokalee Road(CR 846). Immokalee R Road from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard is a six-lane divided facility, with a current 1 service volume of 3,300 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 1,200 trips, and i currently operating at LOS "C," as identified in the 2014 AUIR. Based on the 2014 AUIR, the subject roadway link has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project within the 5-year planning period. Staff also reviewed the project using the 2015 AUIR and also determined there is adequate capacity on Immokalee Road to accommodate the project within the 5-year period. I Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. e ANALYSIS: I Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria { upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to 3 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 i the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its 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 4 offers the following analyses: i Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD 1 document to address environmental concerns. A deviation from an environmental standard is being requested. The applicant is proposing to satisfy the entire (1.22 acre) preserve requirement off site. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County i x F I E PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 10 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC 1 1 1 3 t F' if 3 a Codes of Laws and Ordinances, this project requires review by the Environmental Advisory Council(EAC). , Landscape Review: Staff has reviewed the PUD document and Master Plan and recommends approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject 1 proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allow use intensities and I densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building I mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. x f While the project does allow for higher density than adjacent surrounding developments, the I proposed project does offer compatibility of buildings, structure heights, and open space similar in nature to other surrounding approved residential projects. Fronting both Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive, and having existing development around all four(4) sides of the proposed PUD i H boundary, Staff believes this use is reasonable and complementary to the surrounding land uses. I Deviation Discussion: 1 The petitioner is seeking eight (8) deviations. The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or . redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. i 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. . , 1 i `6 Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and has provided the analyses and recommendations below. I 1 i Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G regarding multi-family dwellings, which s allows parking spaces for recreation facilities to be computed at 25 percent of the normal requirements where a majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities, 1 to allow the parking spaces for the recreation facilities to be computed at 25 percent of the normal i PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 11 of 21 i DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC 1 i I 1 1 requirements for the entire development. Justification: The proposed amenity site is oriented away from the perimeter of the property to ensure compatibility with Bent Creek PUD. As such, the amenity is not within 300 feet of most of s the proposed residential units. However, the majority of units are within 500 feet of the i recreational facilities, or 1/10th of a mile, which is generally accepted as "within walking distance". Additionally, due to the relatively small size of the site, clustered development . footprint, and internal sidewalk system, the development has been designed to encourage pedestrian access to the proposed recreational area. Additional areas for guest/visitor parking have 1 been provided for in the master plan, thereby mitigating the need for additional parking at the amenity site. ti Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect in this deviation. The project is relatively small, proposing one (1) looped road with adjoining sidewalk Staff encourages less impervious area in support of other modes of transportation within the development. Zoning Review Staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum wall height of eighteen (18) feet along the Immokalee Road frontage, and a maximum wall height of twelve (12) feet 1 along Woodcrest Drive. 1 Justification: The proposed wall height will mitigate the noise impact from traffic traveling down Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive, and appropriately screen the site from the adjacent residential development. The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening between the proposed uses and the surrounding roadways, while ensuring a quality design aesthetic via screening of the wall by required perimeter plantings. A gate will be provided in the perimeter wall where the pedestrian interconnection is proposed to the Bent E Creek PUD to the south to ensure appropriate access between the communities. This deviation is consistent with the wall deviation approved for the Bent Creek PUD, and will thereby provide for design consistency with the neighboring development. S Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is I approved. Staff agrees that the deviation is necessary, adding additional buffering between the i proposed project and other adjacent projects. Staff also agrees that the larger wall will reduce road noise from Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive, making the project more viable. The Zoning Review Staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation 1 Deviation 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.8.3.e, which provides that a temporary use permit for a model home (occupied or unoccupied) and sales center shall be issued initially for a period of three (3)years. The requested deviation is to allow the model homes and sales center to remain in use up to five(5)years without requiring a conditional use. 1 i Justification: The developer requests the ability to maintain model units and a sales center for an extended period of time without having to go through periodic Conditional Use permitting. The 1 T I PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 12 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC s 1 1 I i i I I proposed timeframe is reasonable based upon the number of proposed units, and introduction of a new multi-family community in this portion of the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is c approved. Zoning Review believes the applicant's justification is reasonable and staff i' recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. l Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, # y p pe p q ght, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, subject to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 90 days per calendar year. This deviation will remain valid until 90 percent of the units are sold. At such time,the deviation will be void. Justification: The requested deviation will allow for a banner sign announcing the project's grand opening and/or available unit sales, at a scale that has been previously approved for other residential communities within Collier County. The deviation will provide additional signage area 3 to assist in marketing efforts, while protecting view sheds from Woodcrest Drive and Immokalee t Road. The sign will be temporary in nature, and will undergo the requisite temporary sign permit process in accordance with Section 5.04.06 of the LDC. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is a approved. Zoning Review believes the applicant's justification is reasonable and staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of roadway, to allow for on-premise J direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5 feet from private, internal roadways within the PUD. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. 1 i i Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for the development of appropriate directional signage internal to the RPUD, which is integral to way finding in multi-family developments such as this. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the master-planned developments throughout Collier County. i. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning Review believes the applicant's justification is reasonable and staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. Deviation 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, which permits two (2) ground or wall signs per entrance to the development with a combined sign area of 64 square feet, to allow for two(2) ground or wall signs at the project entrance with a combined sign area of 80 square feet. I 1 Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for additional design flexibility and ensure visibility of the community from adjacent roadways. This deviation request is typical of similar PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 13 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC 1 i i i : t master planned residential communities throughout Collier County. The proposed signage will undergo the requisite permitting prior to construction. Staff Anal y sis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved Zoning Review believes the applicant's justification is reasonable and staff 1 recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. 1 Deviation 7: Deviation 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 street. The sidewalk must be w located on the side of the street adjacent to the residential dwellings unit and shall be 6 feet in width. Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility within this infill parcel. As indicated above, the proposed project has considerable site constraints, including a large stormwater management pond. The proposed roadway cross section will support bicycle and pedestrian movement throughout the property with connection to Woodcrest Drive. Additional sidewalk width is proposed to facilitate pedestrian movement within the project. Therefore, approval of the proposed deviation will allow the project to be in substantial compliance with the LDC,while protecting public health, safety and welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The applicant is asking for a deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 which requires five (5)foot sidewalks on both sides of the road, when the actual deviation is from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.4.b., which allows a sidewalk on one side of the street as long the width of the sidewalk is ten (10)feet wide. Although Staff agrees sidewalks are only needed on one (1) side of the street due to a single loaded looped street configuration, Staff believes the higher density of the project should require the ten (10)foot wide sidewalk I encouraging multi-modal transportation within the development. Staff recommends DENIAL of x 1 this deviation. l Deviation 8: Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i, which limits satisfying native vegetation off-site to less than one (1) acre, to allow for 1.22 acres of native vegetation to be 1 satisfied off-site. 1 I Justification: The Property is an ideal location to utilize the off-site mitigation provisions set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. for several reasons. The site is an infill, high-density k development within the Urban-designated portion of the county and within the density bands of 1 an activity center. Maximizing the project's density will result in a compact and contiguous growth pattern in an ideal location for new development based upon the available infrastructure and services available to accommodate population growth. Additionally,the native vegetation on- site is lower quality vegetation with a relatively high percentage of exotic infestation. I Furthermore, the existing on-site native vegetation does not border any off-site preserves on adjacent properties or flow ways that would result in a contiguous network of habitat. Y 1 S J i i 3 PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 14 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC i 1 ti Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning Review believes the applicant's justification is reasonable and staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation. FINDINGS OF FACT: 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 1 show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font): 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 amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant and staff's recommended stipulations should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 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 property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning and zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element. PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 15 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC • 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. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses. Staff supports the wall deviation consistent with the Bent Creek Preserve PUD. Staff is of the opinion that the uses are compatible. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of usable open space meets code even though the applicant is asking for a deviation to remove 1.22 acres of required preserve off-site. Currently, Staff supports the deviation. 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 is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). The applicant has committed to pay their proportionate share contribution toward the installation and maintenance of a traffic signal at the intersection of Woodcrest Drive and Immokalee Road; and, provide a fair share contribution toward the installation of a third westbound turn lane at the Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection, if warranted. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 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. The petitioner is seeking approval of eight (8) deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval for all except"Deviation 7",which is asking to reduce the width of PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 16 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC 3 the sidewalk on one(1) side of the street from ten(10)feet wide to six(6)feet wide. 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): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with adjacent neighborhood development. Comprehensive PIanning staff finds the proposed PUDZ application consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The petition can be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. } 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 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 surrounded by land zoned PUD with similar approved uses. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries. 3 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. 3 The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such an amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing zoning designation of Agriculture. PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 17 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC 1 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; i Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant and the stipulation offered by staff, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The k project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address ry 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 1 or p o j ected types o f vehicular traffic, includin g activity durin g construction o f the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project at this time.The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan(SDP) or Subdivision Platting(PPL)review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. 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 insure that light and air to adjacent areas will 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; 1 The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 18 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan 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; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning I designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. 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; 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 the Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the PUD development standards and commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. s The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the proposed GMPA and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting 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 Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as PUDZ-P120150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 19 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC 3 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. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on May 14, 2015, at Greater Naples Fire Rescue Station Headquarters (Station 73). No one from the public attended. Please see the attached NIM summary provided by the agent. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on February 16,2015. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward PETITION PUDZ-PL20150000204 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval with the following condition: 1. Remove"Deviation 7"regarding a deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.4.b (Sidewalks,Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements)reducing the width of the sidewalk on one (1) side of the street from ten(10)feet wide to six(6)feet wide. 2. Revise the"zoned height"for recreation uses in the PUD development table from { 50 feet to 35 feet. Attachments: Attachment A: PUD Ordinance Attachment B: County Manager—Affidavit of Consent for County property PUDZ-PL20150000204;ABACO CLUB PUD Page 20 of 21 DECEMBER 21,2015 CCPC PREPARED BY: 1 ' /2)13 /j5 DANIEL JAMES SMITH,AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RA ••; D . BELLOWS,ZONING SAGER DATE ZONIN DIVISION MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: f 7- / S'" MES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 401 to / IZ� $/ DAVID S. WILKISON, P.E. DE' •u'TMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT M1 ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURE (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ABACO CLUB RPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 104 • RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND WOODCREST DRIVE IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 15.9 +1- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20150000204) WHEREAS, Rock Development Group, LLC, represented by Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering,P.A.,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 26, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,is changed from a Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as the Abaco Club RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 104 residential [15-CPS-01430/1229027/1161 Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-PL20150000204 12/16/15 Page 1 Attachment A dwelling units, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by • reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: 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 ,2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: I ,Deputy Clerk ,Chairman 1 1 I Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan t • 1 Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC 1 Exhibit F: Developer Commitments $C4 I l 5-CPS-01430/1229027/1161 i. Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-PL20150000204 12/16/15 Page 2 i EXHIBIT"A" LIST OF PERMITTED USES ABACO CLUB RPUD Development of the Abaco Club RPUD shall be In accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. PERMITTED USES: 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 and Structures: ) 1. Multi-family dwelling units. 2. Townhouse dwelling units. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code(LDC). B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports,garages,and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks,walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board ti courts. 3. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 4. Entry Gates&Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Water management facilities. 7. Walls,berms and signs. 8. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos,park benches,and walking trails. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code(LDC). Abaco Club RP U D—P UDZ-PL20150000204 Last Revised:December 15,2015 Page l of 8 I C.Design Standards The RPUD will contain a unified architectural theme and private amenities.The RPUD shall include, but is not limited to the following: • Swimming pool • Community building with bathroom facilities and concrete tile roof • Mail kiosk • Access control gates D.Development Density I A maximum of 104 dwelling units shall be constructed within the project. The gross project area is 15.9±acres and the residential density maximum shall be 6.54 units per acre. 1 1 1 1 t S Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-PL20150000204 Last Revised:December 15,2015 Page2ofa E 1 kG EXHIBIT"B" DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ABACO CLUB RPUD Ik Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Abaco Club RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, fences, walls, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project's entrance are permitted and shall have no required setbacks; however such structures cannot be located where t they create vehicular stacking or sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians, and cannot I exceed 35'in actual height. i TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSi1} i PERMITTED USES Townhouses Multi-Family Recreation i ( AND STANDARDS Dwellings ( Min.Lot Area 1,400 S.F. N/A N/A ( Min.Lot Width 16' N/A N/A Min.Lot Depth 100' N/A N/A 1' SETBACKS i Fronti21 20' 15' 20' i Side 5'/0' 7.5' 10' 4 t i Rear(Principal) 10'from Perimeter Buffer 10'from Perimeter Buffer 10'from Perimeter 1 or 0'from LME or 0'from LME Buffer or 0'from LME s i Rear(Accessory) 0'from Perimeter Buffer 0'from Perimeter Buffer 0'from Perimeter Buffer or LME or LME or LME or Bulkhead x t Water bodyi3i 20' 20' 20' j k. Min.Distance Between Principal 10'/0' 20' 10' Structures(4) i Maximum Height 45' 45' 45' Actual ( i Zoned 35' 35' 50' t 1 Minimum Floor Area 1,000 S.F. N/A N/A I (1) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. / (2) Front setback is measured from back of curb,or edge of pavement if not curbed,for private roads.The ( minimum 15'front setback may be reduced to 10'where the unit has a recessed or side-entry garage. (. I Front-loading garages shall be setback a minimum of 23 feet from the edge of sidewalk for private roads. i (3) Waterbody setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the water body. ) (4) The minimum distance between buildings may be reduced to 0'where attached garages are provided. 4 i Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-P120150000204 5 Last Revised:December 15,2015 , Page3of8 i I c i 1 • i EXHIBIT"D" LEGAL DESCRIPTION ABACO CLUB RPUD ( { PARCEL A: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 26,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET THEREOF PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION TAKEN BY COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3302, PAGE 3228,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION TAKEN BY COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN THAT CERTAIN STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4366,PAGE 789,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. kyy LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL(PER O.R.3252, PAGE 572): THE WEST 200.00 FEET LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 88.92 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,OF SECTION 26,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF,AND EXCEPTING THE NORTH 100 FEET THEREOF PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. PARCEL B: ( THE WEST 200.00 FEET LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTHERLY 88.92 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,OF SECTION 26,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF,AND EXCEPTING THE NORTH 100 FEET THEREOF PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. 4 Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-PL20150000204 Last Revised:December 15,2015 Page 5 of 8 } EXHIBIT"E" LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC ABACO CLUB RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G regarding multi-family dwellings, which allows parking spaces for recreation facilities to be computed at 25 percent of the normal requirements where a majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities, to allow the parking spaces for the recreation facilities to be computed at 25 percent of the normal requirements for the entire development. Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum wall height of eighteen feet (18')along Immokalee Road and twelve feet(12')along Woodcrest Drive. Deviation 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.13.3.e,which provides that a temporary use permit for a model home (occupied or unoccupied) and sales center shall be issued initially for a period of three (3)years.The requested deviation is to allow the model homes and sales center to remain in use up to five(5)years without requiring a conditional use. Deviation 4:Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height,to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height,subject to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC.The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 90 days per calendar year.This deviation will remain valid until 90%of the units are sold.At such time,the deviation will be void. Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.5,which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10'from the edge of roadway, to allow for on-premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5'from private, internal roadways within the PUD.This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. Deviation 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b,which permits two (2)ground or wall signs per entrance to the development with a combined sign area of 64 square feet,to allow for two (2) ground or wall signs at the project entrance with a combined sign area of 80 s.f. ) Deviation 7: Deviation 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 street. The sidewalk must be located on the side of the street adjacent to the residential dwellings unit and shall be 6 feet in width. ) Deviation 8: Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i., which limits satisfying native vegetation ( off-site to less than one(1)acre,to allow for 1.22 acres of native vegetation to be satisfied off-site. 9 Y Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-PL20150000204 Last Revised:December 15,2015 Page 6 of 8 3 4 1} 1 1 EXHIBIT"F" DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS } i ABACO CLUB RPUD i 1.PUD MONITORING i 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 Rock Development Group, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring 1 and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding i 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 • i 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 - 0 i 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 ft the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD fi is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and i fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2. TRANSPORTATION 1 A. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 62 two-way unadjusted PM Peak Hour Trips. a a i B. The owner,or their successors or assigns,shall provide a bicycle/pedestrian interconnection ft to the Bent Creek Preserve PUD to the south as shown on the PUD Master Plan. ) C. If warranted, the owner, or their successors or assigns, shall provide a fair share 1 contribution toward the installation and maintenance of a traffic signal at the intersection of Woodcrest Drive and Immokalee Road. ft. i D. The owner,or their successors or assigns,shall provide a fair share contribution toward the i Installation of the third westbound to southbound turn lane at the Immokalee Road and ft ( Collier Boulevard(CR 951)intersection. E, If the gated entry is placed such that the entrance road to the project from Woodcrest Drive does not meet the 100' throat requirement set forth in Section 111.C.6.c(3) of the I Construction Standards Manual adopted by Section 110-28 of the Collier County Code or 1 Laws and Ordinances, or owner does not provide a vehicular interconnection to the t property to the South,currently the Bent Creek Planned Unit Development,then the owner, or its successors or assigns,shall design,permit and construct right and left turn lanes,each t a minimum of 145 feet in length, into the project from Woodcrest Drive. The first Site Development Plans or subdivision plat must also provide a turnaround to accommodate an American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,single unit truck 30-foot i length (AASHTO SU-30) in front of the gated entry. Owner its successors or assigns shall €. convey to County road right-of-way up to the width, length and size of any County right-of- ' way used by owner for its right and left turn lanes, to compensate for owner's use of the , County's road right-of-way. Owner will convey the road right-of-way to County at no cost to 1 ) Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-PL20150000204 ft Last Revised;December 15,2015 1 Page 7 of 8 ft 1 95 i } i County free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, prior to the first subdivision plat or site development plan approval. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL rt A. The subject site contains approximately 8.11 acres of native vegetation, of which 15% (1.22 acres) is required to be preserve. The native vegetation preservation requirement will be satisfied off-site in accordance with Section 3.05.07.11.1 of the Land Development Code, See Deviation No.8. 4. UTILITIES A. Wastewater connection will be made at a point south of the property along Woodcrest Drive. 5. MISCELLANEOUS A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations Imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. C. No building permits will be issued for development within the RPUD until the stormwater management tract is deeded from Collier County to the owner, or their successors or assigns. Abaco Club RPUD—PUDZ-P120150000204 Last Revised:December 15,2015 Page 8 of 9 1 i. 1 1 i 1 AFFIDAVIT OF LEO E.OCHS,JR. k 1. 1 I 1 ie STATE OF FLORIDA x COUNTY OF COLLIER I,LEO E.OCI-IS,JR.,County Manager for Collier County,Florida,do hereby affirm and state as follows: i 1. Collier County is the owner of the pond site property described in Exhibit A (attached hereto and made a part hereof). Collier County does hereby consent to the rezone of the herein I z; • described property under application number PUDZ-PL20150000204, subject to the following f conditions: a. The retention pond may not be relocated without a replacement drainage • easement acceptable to the County as to size and available capacity, and an access • • easement providing for access by government vehicles and/or agents to the relocated • pond site. • b. The retention pond may not be relocated without a developer's agreement • between Collier County and Rock Development Group, LLC, setting forth the details of i i. the pond relocation. 2. This consent is limited to an agreement that the applicant may request a rezone of the property. The decision on the rezone is solely a decision of the Board of County Commissioners, and this consent does not in any way alter or influence the Board's decision making ability. i -, i - !, . • Leo` Ochs,Jr.,County M.•e1'er a t • i; Attachment:Exhibit A—legal description i I i 1 i. 1 i l Y (1 5-CPS-0143011224387R)41 3 i Abaco Club RPUD,PUDZ-PL20150000204 i i :f, 1 Attachment B 1 i I t. • ON 1f01>1k8, ****31.1ri.o.*wKa"w!7,ar'o•*yM•O .airy Dia, JOINIUOttlifil .. J1 tMOO�8�00 l'�rn0iZ ,�•••,, • � OW ••a yawl • QOM re ontsi wavy(air vitamins o3staon . V001014 w!O 10116 03Sb%'0140100 310. WV MMUVNOI$314i 1100,14.011110 ON' g cmill 7141, •• • • „,J 7 a -'11001 ,1p drout mica gzr, gsgWt�;ua % •+�"t•la•:i4dN Pow .P!1o?1pap Altn3 ,d : 4• 'joo la4l•Oa/ 001 41JDu 1141 Dul%Gs0j41. pup 'loa.»yl ' iaaj ot~, lQD3•.a41 oSo,isso puss Jsee itor■-lo-i'46#i pgacDDJ Jo; w.wesao ua of 1p.f qna ,IpIALI 'A1 unoo Ja1 / CU 104. •1z3.9Z a8UPg%•4inaS 04 d qou of 'aZ.ualiaaS'to '4 i J _ . ' ' i a4Patr poi to '4/l. it°4icN'pil to Tit loll] Mil. •l !4y i..doJd paglaaoap BWmollo�Wl to 1001 Z8'84 ! ' . �ttoit la,N pI4 •id0000 MO o001 looj 06'002 lopM pttj. . Notidlto'S3ti i. . - . . f •sie/)'\"\'' • . 1 :V , , . 1 ♦/1.714 3141- .40 IVI ]t1 �`� - •I'40.31 fl Wirt , . /// r I ;VV t+4• •• i •y I II 4!11%.:..1 fa•4+4{f••*•••• 11 4<f4ti•ii _ •f t 4 O t t! _ �ttftt itc• !1441+4+:::::: �•t tO/1RIrC wil sits► JOKI'1UM 1 t iii i t'.+..+f! 411 p 4514 Ilse 44.•,!11!!. AI. i{ titUj M NO 4+.0•.t••ata"•ti 4f4{slo11t 111•♦♦4.411 • AP slaipllS +lipt5t+5fV Moo �� t.•..•... uoti ,a to U0p0Aa�.0 !II•sh41 1, I f•.4.+4�e •:•i ' }f 4 f f f r f! • ♦.11.44 Yt{ *:0* ••♦ ►.111..4.♦ . 1p oua(ia ■ta no Yu9gaRloodt ' h ►1111.'.'.f•.•4•• ' �i,Ji...11 4 441• • 1 'slowest* a; loa�gllg'l4 I !••t:• 11111!!!!4-• 1 1•ttt+i••. !1t{♦off• • •�y $r( y♦tt+144 $ a I :::::.*:$:-:::;t .Acuria 0 lau fl situ. 't � �` +•:ti�4••i i~1144 . .id i ttf♦f••t1 - :01!< _. ::::::::::::::::$ Il 1:.11!:4.♦ •ff•l114i' ' : I ` .ff 411sws f. SIR.' 4.4 4.14�4 444•.44.. f11ftf44f, + 'I 14••.4 4••1� ` i.t4`{X4411 31YOS 01 1QN•: 1 f4� 'i* :+: 11' 41..4 .. 1 i.{.. 44.11 1{144..{f ,, I 4 f�+ft•+ttt tt�•+tf }� fev•!{•!! i 11 11 t{t i 1 11 1 }1114..11♦�}{ t•11••4•f 4 t )•• ..1{114411.41.4• • • ' II �O44Rfl4it.•�141 "..,..4... • • • • r - Sri.�: f. � • .l •N '1931431141 1•• n9 ' avo�3�I■ w' oZ e4 3Hn Rt4ON • 1 • •, —any x✓a AO t,. r