Loading...
CCPC Agenda 09/15/2016 NN COLltt Et�IN Vt Nr1IN AGENDA SEVEt15, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., SEPTEMBER 15, 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: August 18,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTSDED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1 A. PUDA-PL20160001865: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD), as amended, by increasing the allowable square footage in the Industrial Commercial District by 166,000 square feet for a total of 716,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses and increasing the acreage from 41.6 to 49.90 net acres; by amending the Business District to increase the allowable square footage of floor area from 260,000 square feet to 292,000 square feet including from 200,000 square feet to 242,000 square feet of office uses and from 60,000 to 50,000 square feet of retail uses; by amending the Industrial Commerce District to allow parcels west of Goodlette Frank Road to increase the zoned height from 35 feet to 50 feet except for Tract 5 on the Master Plan which shall have a zoned height of 185 and actual height of 205 feet; by amending the Business District to allow Tract 9 on the Master Plan east of Goodlette Frank Road to increase the zoned height to 75 feet and actual height to 85 feet; by increasing the overall floor area ratio from .35 to .45; by reducing the preserve requirement and by adding a deviation to allow a portion of the preserve to be off-site; by adding a deviation to allow Tract 5 on the Master Plan to be eligible for the County's architectural deviation process. The subject property is located south of Immokalee Road and both east and west of Goodlette Frank Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 106 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager] B. PUDA-PL20150002550: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended, the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development (PUD), providing for amendment to the PUD document to remove 6.5+ acres from the PUD; providing for amendments to the legal description; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-256, which granted a parking exemption and providing for an effective date for property located near the Marco Island Executive Airport in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Eric L Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner] C. RZ-PL20160000382: 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 the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development zoning district to the Public Use (P) zoning district for property located near the Marco Island Executive Airport in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.5± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric L Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS A. PL20160000760: Applicant, Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC, requests a commercial excavation permit to remove 70 million cubic yards and haul it offsite for a period of up to 35 years on an 890 acre site located on the north side of State Road 82, approximately 1.5 miles west of State Road 29 in Immokalee, in Sections 6 and 7, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plans Reviewer] 2 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 3 August 18, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida, August 18,2016 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 a 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak ABSENT: Wafaa F. Assaad ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 40 August 18, 2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, August 18th 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. Before we do roll call, I did have Mr. Assaad contact me. He's had something come up. He will not be able to be here today, so it's an excused absence. So with that,I'll ask the secretary to please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that brings us to addenda to the agenda. We do have one item on the agenda today. It's 10B. It's a deviation discussion. Since that was put on the agenda--or requested to be on the agenda by Mr. Assaad, I'd like to suggest we delay discussion on that until he returns. Does anybody on the Board-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Commission absences: Our next meeting is September 1st. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting down to critical numbers here,folks, so I'm glad you're all going to be here. And with that,we'll move on to approval of the minutes. We electronically received July 7th and July 21st. We'll take them individually. Is there either a motion for corrections or a motion to approve July 7th? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve July 7th. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Stan, seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 2 of 40 August 18, 2016 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. The next item is July 21, 2016. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same motion maker and second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. BCC report and recaps. Ray, I doubt if you've got anything since they've been on vacation, correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report: We're just going to move right into things today, folks, so-- I don't have anything to spend any time on. Consent agenda: There's none from our last meeting, so the first advertised public hearing, and the only advertised item for today's hearing other than the RFMUD discussion under new business--and, by the way,the RFMUD, if any of you are here, it's a Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. That's Item 10A. That's an information-only presentation and briefing by staff. This board's not expected to make any--take any motion or any position on it today. It's strictly an update. ***So with that,we'll move into 9A. It's PUDZ-PL201500001945. It's known as the Vincent Acres RPUD,and it's on the south side of Davis Boulevard just west of the 951 intersection. Patrick,if you'll remain seated for just a minute. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll do disclosures from the Planning Commission, and we'll start over with Stan --or Tom, I'm sorry. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I haven't heard anything from anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've heard a lot from a lot of people. So I did talk with the people from Habitat. I've talked with two separate citizens groups who were trying to understand the process and the various application differences in Vincent Acres versus the other Habitat project on Whitaker Road. I see some people are here today that I spoke to, so we'll have that kind of input. And I believe--and,of course, I met with staff, and I've also looked at a lot of history in the files in the project. Diane-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, I'm sorry. I'm looking left and thinking right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was at the NIM, so I spoke to Lisa Lefkow and Nick and Patrick. I guess that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sounds good. With that, we'll move right into the applicant's presentation. Page 3 of 40 August 18, 2016 And, ladies and gentlemen,what we normally do is we get a presentation by the applicant;Planning Commission will ask questions as it moves along; we also have a staff report, and then we go to registered public speakers. If you haven't registered and given a slip to the gentleman over here, I'll still ask for anybody that would like to speak after the registered public speakers are completed. So one way or another, if you're here today,you'll have an opportunity to speak. And with that,Patrick, it's all yours. MR. VANASSE: Good morning. My name is Patrick Vanasse. I'm a certified planner with RWA. I'm joined here this morning by Nick Kouloheras who is the executive director for Habitat for Humanity. He is also the applicant. We have Derek Rooney with us, who is the land use attorney. He's with GrayRobinson;Norm Trebilcock,our transportation consultant; Mike Myers, our ecologist with Passarella; and from RWA, we also have Keisha Westbrook, who is the project engineer; and Ashley Caserta,also land use planner with RWA. So it's with great pleasure that we are here this morning to-- let me expand this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to hit slide show play. MR. VANASSE: Yeah. It's a little different than mine, okay. Slide show right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From beginning;there you go. MR. VANASSE: Okay. So as I mentioned, it's a great pleasure for us to be here this morning for two main reasons. One, we have worked with Habitat for many years,and we consider ourselves a partner, and we're very proud to work with them. We fully support/embrace their mission and their vision to provide decent, safe,quality housing for deserving people in Collier County. And we all know that affordable housing is a challenging issue, not just in Collier County but throughout the country. And no matter where you stand, I think, on the issue--and it's obviously political --we can all agree that housing costs in Collier County are significant and that there's a need for some kind of affordable housing, and what we truly respect from Habitat is this is a private, non-profit, nongovernmental entity that's identified that need,and every day they've worked towards meeting that need. So we believe that every day they help a lot of families and create better futures for families and the community in Collier County. So we're proud to be a partner. Second reason why we're happy to be here is that we think that the project that we're presenting today is an excellent project and incorporates many innovative planning concepts and some great design features. So before I go into those, let me go over where we're located and what--a quick summary of our request today. So we're located at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Market Street. The project site is approximately 17 acres. So Davis Boulevard is located to the north, and beyond Davis we have Saddlebrook, which is a multifamily residential project,and adjacent to that is residential --residentially zoned land,which is vacant. To the east of us we have Market Street. Beyond that we have a commercial strip center, some preserve, and some more commercial. To the south of us we have an FDOT water management pond on government-owned land that is zoned RMF-12 and agricultural,and to the west of us we have Cedar Hammock community, which is a residential golf community. And the portion that abuts us is their expansive preserve and, beyond that,their golf course. And as you can see from the exhibit here,the closest homes in that project to our project are over 900 feet away. So, generally,we believe that this location is a great location for a Habitat project. It provides easy access throughout the entire county for residents located on two major roadways, and with the existing use surrounding us and also the zoning on those lands, we think that this ensures compatibility with our project. So summary of what we are asking today: As mentioned,the project is approximately 17 acres. Current zoning is RMF12, so there's a"1" missing there. And in parentheses we have 10, which is the cap for density. So there's a maximum density of 10 units per acre which basically, by right, allows us, with the Page 4 of 40 August 18, 2016 current zoning,to request 168 dwelling units as the maximum density. However,we're coming in with a request to rezone to residential planned unit development. And as part of that,we are reducing the density significantly. We are reducing that from a potential of 168 to a maximum of 85 single-family detached units or the equivalent, from a trip standpoint,of 1 1 8 townhomes. The uses that we are asking for are single-family detached, single-family attached, zero-lot-line homes, and townhomes. And please note that we are not asking for multi-story, multifamily units. So with regards to just summarizing these innovative planning concepts and design features,as I'll show you,we have common open space throughout the project in the form of parks,central green,tot lot,that type of thing. We have an interconnected network of sidewalks. We are proposing a street tree program. All our homes are alley loaded with a compact community design. We are providing one garage per home and two at-grade parking. That will be at the rear of the house to create an attractive streetscape. We also will be providing something new for a Habitat community. Habitat wants to be a great neighbor and wants to be responsive to concerns and comments they received, and they're continually upgrading the product that they're providing. One of the things that they're going to be doing for this project is providing an HOA which is going to be responsible for all common-area maintenance. So in looking at this exhibit,the first thing you'll notice is that there's a lot of green space, and that was intentional. And one of the things that we've done is we wanted to take some of the open space that often is relegated to people's backyards, and we wanted to put that in common areas. So if you look at the center of the project,we have an area that's going to be the heart of the community. It's going to be common open space,central green. We're--and those areas are interconnected,which really allows someone to always--they can walk throughout the project from one end to the next and be in proximity to a green-space area or park area. Those areas are going to provide for recreational opportunities,places for people to congregate, people can socialize. And the intent is really to create that sense of community and to provide a cozy environment for folks. Coupled with that,what we're doing is we're providing a alternative sidewalk plan. Instead of providing sidewalks on both sides of the exterior loop road,what we're doing is we're internalizing those sidewalks. And we are interconnecting all the homes with the sidewalks that we're providing, but we're also interconnecting all the green space. So someone can walk from one end to the next and go to the park that's going to be right adjacent to the lake, and we can do that where you're within the heart of the community, within an attractive streetscape,and coupled with our streetscape program, with our sidewalk program, is we're providing a street tree program. So we're taking a lot of landscaping that, again,would have been on individual lots. We're putting that within the public realm adjacent to the sidewalks, so we're creating shade on the sidewalks, making it a more walkable, pleasant pedestrian experience. We're also creating a more attractive streetscape for people. And the added benefit of all these things is we're also creating a safer environment. Landscaping beside roads--and also we've got on-street parking--are ways to attenuate traffic speeds, slow down traffic,and create a safer environment for the pedestrians but also for the motorists. So another important feature of our design is we have tried to face a lot of the homes towards a common area public green. Again, creating a sense of community, putting eyes on the streets, on the community, creating a safe environment. Also we've located the lake,the large lake. Instead of doing typical design where you see a few homes that back up to the lake and creates a great amenity for those few homes, what we've done is we've located the lake in an area where it can create separation buffering from Davis, which is a very busy street, but also it's a way where we can provide access for all the residents to that amenity. So we've got a park area that's going to be bulk-headed where people can view the lake. We're also going to have a pathway system all the way around where people can experience and walk throughout their community. The next slide is a rendering of what is intended for the community. As you'll see, a lot of open space. There's going to be a common architectural theme. And when I say architectural theme, I'm talking Page 5 of 40 August 18, 2016 about the buildings themselves, but I'm also talking about the landscaping and signage throughout the community that's going to be unified. The architecture is meant to be a Florida--traditional Florida vernacular with horizontal siding and attractive homes. What you can note from these homes also is,currently,in the site plan that I showed you is our current development intent. Right now, concurrent to this zoning application,we've submitted plans and plat, and they are under review by staff. And barring any curveball from the reviewing agencies,that's what we intend to move forward with; single-family,detached homes,compact design. And one of the advantages of going with this design is we're providing homes that are attractive for people and desirable in the fact that we've heard and we know that people like having their own lots and would prefer single-family detached over the more traditional single-family attached that Habitat has done in the past. Also,what this allows us to do is everything from the front of the homes and all the common areas, all the public-realm areas, are going to be maintained, again, by the HOA to ensure that we're going to have an attractive community and well-maintained landscaping and a quality project in perpetuity. So that being said,the next two slides are really the master plan that's in your packet--that's the regulatory plan for the project--and we have the--a copy of the plat that has been submitted. As I mentioned, we do--we are requesting for several housing options, but barring any curveball from the agencies where we'd have to redesign our site,this is the design we're moving forward with,which is the single-family detached. Also,these homes are going to be two stories, and from a total square footage standpoint,these are bigger homes than Habitat's produced in the past. So, lastly-- I'm not going to go through all the development standards that we develop and the deviations we've requested. Staff has done a great job addressing those in the staff report with extensive analysis. So we've closely reviewed the staff report. We fully support their recommendation for approval, and we agree with them that we are consistent and compliant with the LDC and the Comprehensive Plan. And with that being said,that is the end of our presentation. We'd be happy to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Patrick. And we'll start with Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Minimum square footage of the homes is 1,300 square feet or-- I don't see it in here. MR. VANASSE: No. We don't have a minimum square feet, but homes will be a thousand square feet or greater. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thousand or-- MR. VANASSE: Yeah. At the very least it would be a thousand, but-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see it in the Development Standards Table here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can stipulate,yeah. Okay. Anything else, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. It was mentioned that they were going to be 1,300 square feet. MR. VANASSE: Do you have an exact number? MR. KOULOHERAS: I don't have. Good morning. Nick Kouloheras with Habitat. We don't have an exact number right now, but the plan that--this plan right here is roughly around 1,250. But I can't guarantee that right now because we're still tweaking the architectural design. But it will be a minimum --we committed to a minimum of a thousand square feet under air. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So that's, like, 500 on each floor? MR. KOULOHERAS: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's, like, 500 feet on each floor? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, roughly. It will be a little bit more on the upstairs, because the upstairs right now is intended to go over the garage. Page 6 of 40 August 18, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm okay. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We can put it in the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can stipulate anything we'd like,yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. MR. VANASSE: Yeah. And we'd be fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on the Planning Commission? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Could you put up the picture of the homes there? I have a question on landscaping. MR. VANASSE: The overall site plan or the renderings? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, where I'm looking at the trees, streetscape. Are the trees going to be on the inside of the sidewalk all the way along? MR. VANASSE: The trees will be--it will vary a little bit. In the areas where we have on-street parking,the sidewalk will be abutting that on-street parking, and the trees will be on the outside. In some areas we're going to have a separation between the back of curb and the sidewalk, and we're going to have some trees between the sidewalk and the street. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is that going to go over the utility lines? MR. VANASSE: We've had our architect and our engineer meet with Nancy Gundlach and also Dan,which is the reviewer for landscaping, and we've done everything we could to place the trees in areas where we avoid utility lines. And, basically, what you're seeing here is what we came up with,a typical of where those would be located,and that was discussed with those folks,and they fully support this design. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's my biggest concern, because the county is having problems with that now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a quick question. Is there a reason you divided that front lake in half? MR.VANASSE: Initially,our engineers and some of the district regulations with Harvey Harper called for different stages and the creation of two separate lakes. My understanding--and we can have Keisha address this in more detail, Stan, if you guys want to talk engineering jargon. But my understanding is the design regulations at the district have changed, and that separation is not going to be needed. So at this point we're not sure if it's going to remain or not. It might be one big lake or two separate lakes like that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Makes no difference to me. I just was curious. It just looked strange. MR. VANASSE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I noticed there's--out of the 500 pages I received, about 400 of them were environmental. You've been busy, Mike. A lot of exotics out here. Are they going to cut them and leave them or pull them out? MR. VANASSE: As you mentioned,there's quite a bit of environment from the standpoint of documentation and permitting. It's a little complicated, because there's quite a bit of history there. So I'll turn this over to Mike, and he can explain this a little better to you. But our current site was associated with the site south of us, and there were agreements in place for both of those sites. So, Mike, if you'd like to address that. MR. MYERS: Good morning. Mike Myers, Passarella&Associates, for the record. Good to see you again, Stan. The site itself,there won't be any on-site preserves on the property, so the entire site will be developed, and it will consist of landscaping. So all the exotics will be removed,to answer your question. And we've been involved with the project since 2005 on and off, so that's the reason for the volume of environmental. We've worked on this on three different occasions, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you have no--one of the exhibits shows that site to the Page 7 of 40 August 18, 2016 south, and you have no interest in that at all? MR. VANASSE: The site to the south is the FDOT pond,and you'll see that the pond itself has a little over four and a half acres of native preserve on it. And the intent of that was to have that as a credit to this site in terms of native vegetation preservation and wetland minimization for South Florida and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Patrick, how close is this to the CAT bus site? MR. VANASSE: Oh, I don't have an exact figure,but I -- MR. EASTMAN: Is it nearby? MR. VANASSE: It would be a relatively short walk away from this project. So, like I said, we're providing access to Davis where there's going to be a bus stop, so that will be right adjacent to our project, and that will be a benefit to the community. But the actual transfer station area is probably within a five-, 10-minute walk, which is also, I think, a benefit to the residents there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few questions. Most of them are a follow-up to what--when we met I told you some of the issues that I had concerns over. MR. VANASSE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In reading some of the documents, I did note that there was a required 10-foot setback for principal and accessory structures from south property line because of the FDOT pond. You were going to add that as a footnote. MR. VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that still something you intend to do? MR. VANASSE: We will do so and bring that back at consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The separately platting of the buffers and the LMEs,did you have any concerns over doing that? MR.VANASSE: Same thing; we'll add that as a footnote; bring it back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did talk about minimum square footage, and you heard Karen bring that up, so we'll have to--we'll be stipulating that. Your garages are how large? MR. VANASSE: Roughly 20-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't mean square-- I mean how many cars;two-car garages? MR. VANASSE: It's a one-car garage with two at-grade parking spaces beside that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with committing to a one-car garage as a minimum? MR. VANASSE: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your master plan-- MR. VANASSE: Mr. Strain, if I could just clarify,though. So if we do townhomes,that--we want to retain that option. I just want to make sure that the garage issue is not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's one car greater. Are you suggesting you want to go to carports? MR. VANASSE: And that's what I don't know if they've looked at that design and if carports would be more appropriate for townhomes, if that were the case. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You were going to do single-family. MR. VANASSE: So if we could, we'd like to keep the option, if we went with townhomes,to have carports rather than garages. But, again, as I said,the intent is--right now is to do single-family barring a curveball from the agencies where we have to redesign. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you are planning single-family? I mean, because everything we're looking at-- MR. VANASSE: Yes. And that's what's submitted and that's what's being permitted. The only reason we'd change that is if we have a major curveball from the agencies and we have to redesign the site. Page 8 of 40 August 18, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the past,this board has--before some of the people on this board sat here, we did have Habitat projects come in, and I'm thinking of the one off-- I think it's called Regal Acres where we worked to do a position where we had to have enclosed garages because people, when they have carports,tend to--they get collectable items there; items that aren't as appealing as a vehicle being in an enclosed garage. So before this meeting's over,you ought to seriously consider at least the one-car-garage option. I mean, we could still stipulate it, but it would be nice to know that you guys are agreeable with that path. I didn't know it was an issue till today. I thought when we talked,you'd shown them, so I didn't think you'd even-- MR. VANASSE: You know,Ashley's much smarter than I am, and she just said, hey, what if we do townhomes. So she--we hadn't even thought of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you do townhomes,you still could do one-car garages, so... Let me get the rest of the ones I have right now. By the way,the density and the preserve issues on this project were all the result of the prior developer and the deal he worked out with the FDOT to use those settlement ponds. And I noticed on the plat you seemed to have--instead of the accessway for those settlement ponds to be across the middle of the project,are you going to run that down the--down the main road and then out to the south-- it would be the southeast corner of the property through that shaded area on the plat? MR. VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was your intent? MR. VANASSE: On our master plan we identified the current access easement. We're modifying that, and we're going to be providing FDOT with access through our project on our roads to access their pond site. And just to clarify, I got confirmation from my client that we can live with garages for townhomes also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will help simplify things. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The issue of the traffic light at Davis Boulevard and Market Street, I saw correspondence going back and forth where there was a question about participatory sharing of that cost. I now understand you've agreed to that, because that is one of the conditions in the PUD. MR. VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just double-checking the rest of my notes here, Patrick, so... Are you paying impact fees? MR. VANASSE: We are eligible for impact fee deferral, and I think that depends on individual projects and individual homeowners also when they go through the mortgage process. And anything more, I have to defer to other folks on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I ask is that you had brought it up. It was a question at the NIM. And, basically, I think at the NIM it was stated that you're not a government-subsidized program. And Nancy Gundlach said,the impact fee doesn't go to Habitat; it goes to the buyer. I'm not sure what she meant by that;that's why I happened to catch that in the final notes that were sent to me. Our packet had missing one of the pages of the NIM report, so thanks to you-all, I did get it, so I appreciate it. MR. KOULOHERAS: Nick Kouloheras. I'm not an expert on the impact fee deferral program, but the way the program is set up right now, it is a percentage of the previous year's impact fees collected, and that goes into a pot, if you will. It's eligible to anybody making, I believe, 150 percent of the area median income or less. And what happens, on the community side like this, if the program is active--which it was just reactivated about 18 months ago-- it had been kind of put on the back burner for a number of years during the really severe dip in the economy. The Habitat for Humanity can apply for the application as the developer; however,the end lien and the transfer,if you will, all goes into the homeowner's name. So nothing comes back to Habitat for Page 9 of 40 August 18, 2016 Humanity. It's all a benefit to the homeowner in the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have not familiarized myself lately with that program. Just out of curiosity,how long is the deferral program for; do you know? MR. KOULOHERAS: The deferral --the deferral itself is forever. It goes with the property. So the property's ever--yeah, no. So if the property's ever transferred through title,then that fee plus interest has to be paid back to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only thing the deferral locks in is the benefit to the existing owner. Whatever the existing owner may decide to do five, 10, 15,20 years down the road, if they leave that home and transfer it to somebody else,the fees are paid; is that what it boils down to? MR. KOULOHERAS: Unless it is sold to another qualified applicant through the program,then the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd have to reapply for an impact fee deferral. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. Am I wrong on that, Amy? Sony, I don't mean to call you up here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She was here just to be called up. She would have been disappointed if you didn't. MR. KOULOHERAS: I don't want to put things in people's mouth. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record, Amy Patterson,director of capital project planning and impact fees and "stuff." The current impact fee deferral program is, as Nick explained, available to first-time homebuyers, and it does run with the property for the lifetime of home ownership,except for the loss of homestead, sale of the property,transfer, or refinance to pull equity out of the home. Currently, it is non-transferable. So once that original owner falls into one of those categories and the home goes to the next person, it's not transferable. The fees must be repaid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said for first-time homebuyers. MS. PATTERSON: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is that any first-time homebuyer? MS. PATTERSON: First-time homebuyers meeting the income requirements of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the income requirements of the program match up to what? MS. PATTERSON: A hundred -- it goes to moderate income. It's up to 120 percent of AMI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is about 300--plus $300,000, because 370- is 140 AMI. MS. PATTERSON: Well,the price of the home is less of a factor than it is that they have to be able to qualify for what they're--for what they're going into. So it's an income certification process and, obviously,through that they have to be able to afford the home that they're wanting to buy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I wasn't as familiar with that program. I appreciate your help. MS. PATTERSON: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just checking the rest of my notes before I finish up here, so just give me a minute. Make sure we haven't missed anything,at least that I've got down here. There's a 15-foot DE on the east side of the site. The conditions of the DE were that the piping had to be in before the buffer. Piping's in? MR.VANASSE: Piping is in. Piping is in, and there is--also, landscaping was put on top of that, and there is an existing wall along that boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I saw that on the aerial, so--or, actually, Google, I think. Google's great. You can see everything. Okay. That's the only questions I have at this time. I may have more later. Thank you. Anybody else have any follow-up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff report, Ray? I know Nancy's not here,and you got,at last minute,thrown into the mix, so let's just--whatever you've got will be fine. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the planning and zoning manager for the zoning services section. I have reviewed this project with Nancy. Is this loud? And I have signed off on the staff report. Page 10 of 40 August 18, 2016 Staff has found this project consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Staff is supportive of the deviations requested and is recommending that the Collier County Planning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. And I'll be happy to answer the questions that I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody at this time have any questions of any of the staff members that are here today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Ray, if you'll call the first public speaker,and then we'll move through those that are unregistered after that. MR. BELLOWS: Peter Greenberg,to be followed by Martha Cole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please come on up and use either microphone. And once you get to the microphone, please state your name. And if it's difficult to spell, spell it for the court reporter, please. Thank you. MR. GREENBERG: Good morning. My name is Peter Greenberg. That's with an e-r-g. I am a--along with my wife, a volunteer member of Habitat Collier County's selection committee. By way of very brief introduction, before I retired, I was a voting member of the International Credit Committee of a major Dutch agricultural lender with activities around the world. Having said that,the selection committee of Habitat for Humanity engages--and I would like everybody to please keep this in mind--in an unbelievably extensive degree of due diligence before any applicant is approved for a mortgage. Not only is employment verified, not only are three-plus years of tax returns required,proof of legal residence required, but overlaying all of that, Habitat sends people like myself and my wife into the current home of people who are applying for Habitat housing to"sniff out" potential partnership problems down the road with Habitat; evidence of gang bangers,drugs,alcohol, dissembling answers to very specific questions. And then that selection committee and senior Habitat staff meet once a month to review the entire application for yea or nay. We're aware from reports in the press that there's a lot of misunderstanding out there regarding the fact that Habitat offers a hand-up and not a handout, and it's very, very careful about who it puts into its housing. Thank you very much for your time and attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you leave,you hit on a subject that has been brought up to me by numerous citizens in the East Naples area concerned about Habitat's manner in which they operate their facilities after they leave. It is not a zoning issue as much as it is something else. So most of the information or meetings I had with these folks was just to hear their understanding of their concerns. So I'm going to relay them to you, since you're on the committee, and that is the follow-up that Habitat has after you leave a project. And they showed examples and pictures of conditions that were not typical what you'd see in a subdivision. Some of them were absolutely against code. MR. GREENBERG: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were against things that should have been done. I did get a copy--Nick sent me a copy of your deed restrictions. Your deed restrictions are written well. You've got excellent restrictions to fix all of the problems. And I think the concerns from the neighborhoods that I heard were,why can't these problems get fixed? Now,that is not a zoning issue for us today, but I'm relaying this to you because it has gotten a heightened degree of attention lately, and there are a lot of people concerned over Habitat because of your existing programs that are not being enforced; at least enforced from the documents I've seen,they could be. You have I mean, parking dumped one place and, I mean, it was a pretty vivid example; dump truck parked in the front yard. I mean,those kind of things we don't even leave--allow in the rural area. So I think your efforts are -- I applaud you for the work you do, but I think you need to go one step further and do some better policing of your facilities to get the community more on the same mindset with some of your projects. It would be helpful. MR. GREENBERG: May I respond? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Page 11 of 40 August 18, 2016 MR. GREENBERG: In addition to working with Habitat on a selection committee,my wife and I--in lmmokalee,which is where we focus our work for Habitat--teach a homeowner's course. Each and every concern that you just detailed is addressed very explicitly up front before anybody gets a key to a new home. Secondly, Habitat forces people out of homes for breaches of major covenants, not restricted--not only failure to repay mortgage obligations, but also running businesses out of homes,drug use,et cetera. People are actually forced out, and they know it. Again, it's not a perfect world. But, again,you know, it's not a perfect world, but Habitat for-- Habitat for Humanity fully understands its citizenship requirements in the overall community at large and does everything that it possibly can to maintain the integrity and safeguard the quality of life in the larger communities in which it operates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and just so it's clear, nobody complained anything about the Habitat programs in Immokalee. All the program complaints that I received were here in the urban area. Again, I would love to see where your group and the citizens and neighborhoods that are concerned got on the same page. Everybody would benefit from it. So all I'm suggesting is you've got some input. It's public record. Please go to that extra length and maybe do the program you're doing in Immokalee in the urban area. MR. GREENBERG: We do. The standards are applied uniformly. But your point is-- I'm certain Habitat executive staff will take it on board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. GREENBERG: Respectfully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Martha Cole. MS. COLE: Good morning. My name is Martha Cole,C-o-1-e. I've been a volunteer building houses for Habitat for Humanity one day a week for over 23 years. During this time, I've had the privilege of working alongside literally hundreds of prospective Habitat homeowners,and here are some of the things I've learned about them: They're all here legally;they all have jobs;they all pay taxes; none of them has a criminal record;they all have good credit ratings;they're all very family oriented;they're all highly motivated to improve their lives;they have all pledged to live together peacefully in a multicultural neighborhood. I just want to say that permitting these people to join our neighborhoods is not making a mistake. They have not ever owned a home, and they have not yet learned some of their responsibilities, but Habitat is--the Habitat staff is working and will work even harder to make sure they learn their responsibilities and fulfill them. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Ray, are there any more registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No,there are not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any members of the public who have not spoken who would like to speak?Yes, ma'am. You'll need to identify yourself for the record. MS. KELLY: Hello. My name is Michelle Kelly, and I live in the East Naples area. And I'm not a big promoter of oversaturating the area with Habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you-- Stan just-- I don't know,were you here earlier when we asked everybody to stand and -- MS. KELLY: You said that--yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --get sworn in? MS. KELLY: And I didn't fill out a paper.You said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But were you--that's okay. Were you sworn in earlier? Did you -- MS. KELLY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Stan. I didn't catch everybody who may or may not have been Page 12 of 40 August 18, 2016 here. Will the court reporter please swear the citizen in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. KELLY: Ido. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. KELLY: Thank you. And I appreciate you letting me speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way,anything you show us has to be made part of the record. MS. KELLY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you don't want those back,that's okay. MS. KELLY: It's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MS. KELLY: That will be fine. And I think everybody should have an opportunity to lift themselves up, live in a nice place,take care of everything and be part of a community. I think they should. So I'm not being a curmudgeon, if you will, about having Habitat for Humanity in my area. I am a little bit concerned about the fact that there are a number of them,and they're oversaturating our area to the point where the community is hurting. We have businesses that are out and gone. I have pictures of those, and I'll give them to her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. She'd be fine,yeah. MS. KELLY: Would you like to see them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray will put them on the aerial,and then we'll make sure the court reporter gets them for the record. MS. KELLY: Take those. You can have them all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, besides your position on Habitat--remember,this is a discussion about Vincent Acres and PUD proposal. MS. KELLY: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got to get to that point. MS. KELLY: Okay. That's fine. I mean,the oversaturation and talking about the need for it--and Habitat is busy building them as fast as they can. I mean,we don't just have Vincent coming up. We have four or five others in the area,of which Regal Acres is not completely filled. In driving through there,there are many of them that are empty. So I fail to understand the need for consistently building them. The picture up there is pictures in the local area on Rattlesnake; Rattlesnake. I mean,you had a thrift store that went out of business. I mean, I sometimes shop the thrift store, and I'm sure that's pretty beneficial for people who are trying to save money. We had a thrift store go out of business in one of the areas that's very close to other communities. Now,the devastation that's occurring in that area where you're building Vincent Acres,there's a whole big complex right there at the corner of Davis and 951 that never got off the road. And, also,as far as the communities that are being built and the consistency as far as--you're putting in three parking spots. That's not going to do it. You're going to need four, because that's the minimum in those places. There's covenants. There's deed restrictions,and everybody has to adhere to them. I live in a community. I'm the president of the board. Those people drive me nuts. They won't adhere to the thing, so I have to go out there and police it. It's not fun. I'm not well-liked, but, you know what? I like my community, and so I do it. But I have not seen any consistency with the areas being policed. There's the truck right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Weren't you --didn't you come to my office and we talked? MS. KELLY: I did, Brian -- Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one thing I mentioned, if you've got issues like you had expressed to me then, and your photos certainly show some of them, someone needs to call Code Enforcement, unless you want to call Habitat's office. MS. KELLY: We did that. Page 13 of 40 August 18, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean,that's not an item for this board. I remember I tried to keep that separate. Your issues are not all related to the zoning action in front of us today, so... MS. KELLY: But you've got three parking spots per unit, right,for these new homes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's what they said. MS. KELLY: So they're anticipating three cars at least, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's-- I mean -- MS. KELLY: What happens if there's four or five now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happens in your development if there's four or five? MS. KELLY: There isn't four or five. We police them, and they go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're sure that that's going to--they're not going to stick to the three that are allowed for them in this project? We can't--we can't say no to someone because they may do something wrong,just like we can't say no to your development because some of your people may have a party one night and may have more cars. That's not part of--that's not part of this board's purview. Our zoning staff will check to make sure there's a proper number of required parking spaces per unit. And, Ray, do you remember what the number per unit is on a-- I don't mean to--I know you weren't prepared for this. I didn't know if you knew it offhand. MR. BELLOWS: The number of required parking spaces per dwelling unit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: I'll look it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you get a chance before this meeting's over, it would be helpful. MS. KELLY: For a two-bedroom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they will have--what they're showing is at least the minimum, if not more,and we don't allow anything else. They're not asking for a deviation from the code. So the same code that applied to your development is applying to theirs. MS. KELLY: Okay. All right. So it has actual zoning. Because in my neighborhood, it's only, like, two cars per unit; if you have a guest,we have guest parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it may be that way for this particular project. If it is and they have more cars than can fit on their property and they're not parking them properly,that really is either the Sheriffs Office or Code Enforcement, and that's something that would have to come later on based on how they react to their zoning. MS. KELLY: Okay. Well, my concern is that it's going to be over-inundated with people,and there's going to be concerns with that. I mean,you've got a thousand square feet and a garage.The pictures that are in another subdivision have four, five, six, seven cars. That's a two-bedroom with a garage, and they park them all over the place,and you're going to have the same thing. They'll just be in the back,and then they'll use the streets, because they use the streets,too. I mean, moderation, please. There's got to be some moderation. We do not have moderation in East Naples. We are saturating the area. It's one subdivision after another, and it's too much. It needs to be spread around. And East Naples is being decimated based upon the people coming out there and the increased traffic,the increased pollution,the increased--I mean, it's just not right. And that's our--that's our--that's our argument. Our argument is please,please do some moderation in this. I mean,we're not the Habitat for Humanity community only. And I do appreciate it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Is there any other members of the public who would like to speak who have not spoken yet? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything from the applicant's side that they'd like to either offer for rebuttal or discussion? MR. VANASSE: No, we're good;thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, let me run through some of the notes I made in regards to the Page 14 of 40 August 18, 2016 project. You're going to stipulate to three parking spaces per unit,or you did in the document we saw here. Do you have any problem with that? MR. VANASSE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum square footage will be a thousand square feet. MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to separately plat your buffers and your maintenance, lake maintenance easement,your LMEs. MR. VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your minimum setback from the southern property line will be 10 feet. MR.VANASSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to stipulate to a one-car garage as the minimum. MR.VANASSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any other notes. I didn't know if the Planning Commission had any; anybody else here have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion from the--any one of the planning commissioners. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'll move to approve Petition PUDZ-PL20150001945, Vincent Acres residential RPUD, as presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the stipulations just previously read? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? I've had a lot of input from neighbors and people concerned over the Habitat project aspect of this,and I've told you all that that is not an issue for the Planning Commission. We are a zoning board that we oversee the Land Development Code,and that is strictly how we have to weigh our decisions here today. I've gone through 498 pages of information supplied by staff to review this project. It's more of an isolated project. I think the nearest project to the south is 900 feet away, and there's one across the street,an apartment complex. But from an aspect of other residential communities,the nearest residential elements are quite a ways away. It's a--everything that I was able to find that needed to be questioned I have asked the applicant of. They've stipulated to conditions to other Habitat projects that we similarly have reviewed on this board. So from the context of the Land Development Code, I see nothing wrong at this point. From the frustration of the neighborhood and other things going on, I think that's a policy decision that Habitat needs to understand and start to work closer with the neighborhoods. And I would suggest you sit down and meet with them, because you're doing a good thing for all of our community globally, but the impact on the--that's being felt by some of the people in East Naples is beginning to rise to a level that is going to be a concern every time Habitat comes forward. You don't need that. None of these boards do. We all need to work in harmony with one another. So if there is some way Habitat can reach out and try to work with your other neighborhoods-- I know you try. But it looks like we've got to go a little bit further effort. We should never have to see pictures like that without someone calling either Habitat or Code. And I would suggest you work it out so Habitat has a hotline and a citizen can say, look it, I went through it,and I've seen this. And you could check it out first. But try something, if you can. But from the aspect of the Land Development Code, I see nothing wrong with this particular project. Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion's been made and seconded. All in favor, signify by Page 15 of 40 August 18, 2016 saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you all for coming for the Vincent Acres PUD. Appreciate it. And Ms. Ebert has suggested we take a 15-minute break now before we get into the other one so we can just move right through it. We will do that. We will resume at 10 after 10. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You don't have a quorum. Oh, now you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do have a quorum. Stan's here. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sorry. He was just hiding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,just so everybody in the audience knows,we will be losing Stan at 11 o'clock, and at 11 o'clock we will be losing our quorum, so we are done. Now, in order to expedite what we're going to hear,this is a briefing, mostly a progress update as to how Kris and his team are handling the replanning areas,or the area. We're not taking any action today. We'll certainly entertain any discussion the public wants to have. Depending on the time frame, I may or may not make any comments from the reading I did,and so might the other commissioners. We'll do our best to hear as many as we can by the time we have to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So if you're not taking any action,you don't need a quorum, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't-- I don't even know if we can hold a meeting without a quorum, and that's a question for Heidi. I know we can't vote on anything. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,you can't take any action so,technically,you know, if you--if you wanted to stay,you'd still have to comply with the Sunshine Law and you could hear, I guess,from the public, but the official meeting is over when Stan leaves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'd have to adjourn when Stan left so we have enough people--and then we would continue--but then would we be able to retain a court reporter? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No,you can. You can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, we have done it with some of the less visible advisory boards, so I'd prefer that we stay within the 11. But if you have a few questions or something that you want to ask, as long as most of the official business is over;you're just gathering information. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If we only have five board members, isn't three the quorum? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Quorum's based on the full seven. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We don't have seven. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You have a quorum because you have four out of the seven. You could not have less than four. Tom is a nonvoting member. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But we don't have seven board members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,we do. It's just that two have gone off to run races. It's nothing that changes the quantity that are normally on this board. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. By your ordinance, it requires four of you to conduct business and then a majority vote of the four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, without any--thank you. Without losing any more time, Kris, let's turn it over to you. MR. VAN LENGEN: Thank you. Mr. Kris Van Lengen, planning manager for the community Page 16 of 40 August 18, 2016 planning section. One idea we just had,whispered in my ear, if it pleases this commission, if it's any help to get public speakers first, we'd certainly be willing to do that. Our purpose is to make a presentation, but part of that purpose is also to continue the community dialogue on ideas that we think are the big ideas involved in the restudy, our first restudy of the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that's a good idea. We've all got the packet. I'm sure we've all read it. I'm sure that the people who are here are here because they've read it. So why don't we all who have read everything hear from the people who don't have an opportunity to speak like we do. So if you don't mind, I think that would be a good idea. And we'll start with the registered speakers and move to those that aren't registered and then follow up with the final comments from you and this board. MR. VAN LENGEN: Very good. MR. BELLOWS: The first public speaker is Bruce Anderson,to be followed by Bob Mulhere. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Five. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And they all have limited time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Everybody's limited to five minutes, and if they need a little more, we'll grant it, but we're not going to get carried away. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You heard that, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: I did. I'm going to be very brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's impossible, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: You-all were the ones that were just carrying on like a bunch of lawyers. Good morning. My name is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo, and I represent a group of rural fringe landowners who organized themselves as the Rural Fringe Coalition, Inc.,to participate in the Rural Fringe Restudy. The coalition recognized that reforms were needed to realize the broad goals of preserving environmentally sensitive lands, fairly compensating owners of those preserved lands,and to direct new development to already impacted lands. The coalition conducted a study involving land planners,an attorney and an economist,and submitted a report to the Board of County Commissioners in January 2015 with recommendations and suggestions for changes to the rural fringe program that ought to be considered. The overall recommendation was that for the goals of the rural fringe to be successful,the changes had to be fair, realistic, responsive to the economics of market demands, and incentivized. The coalition generally supports the staff recommendations,although we do have some questions on a few of the specifics so we can better understand the basis for those recommendations. The coalition sent a letter of support and questions that it had based on the early July draft of the report that others commented on as well. The coalition's letter of support is in the appendix, Pages 55 through 59. Bob Mulhere,one of the planners for the coalition, has some specific comments about rural villages, and I will defer to him on that issue. Lastly, I want to compliment and congratulate county staff on an exemplary, well-attended public participation process,their exhaustive research and analysis, and the thoughtful white paper that ties together and brings the various components of the big picture into better focus. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Bob Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes, also here representing the Rural Fringe Coalition. And I,too, will be brief. I think Bruce covered,really,the issues from the Rural Fringe Coalition perspective. I want to also congratulate the staff. I think they've done a really great job of keeping things moving in an expeditious way and that's, I think, very important with all of the work that they have on their plate with Page 17 of 40 August 18, 2016 the four major studies. We generally support most of the recommendations that staff has made. There are a few that we do have questions on, and I think that those questions may be answered as we continue to look at the research and the data that some of the consultants have not fully provided at this point in time. One specific concern is there's a recommendation to require a mixed use and a minimum density, I think, of four units per acre for all projects 300 acres or greater. And while I understand the intent behind that, I'm a little bit concerned that that will put us in a position where we may not have a market for mixed use on a smaller project, 300, 350 acres,400 acres. So, I mean, because it's clearly going to depend upon what else is happening in the vicinity of that project as to whether or not there's really a market for that. lncentivizing it, great; allowing it, great; requiring it, I think we need to take a look at that issue. I thank you for your time. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. Next registered speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Nancy Payton. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you normally hide from us. I haven't seen you for a long time, Nancy. It's good to see you again. MS. PAYTON: I don't get into a lot of detailed things and specific projects, so I only come when I have something to say. Hope you'll listen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. PAYTON: We're here to support the white paper. We think it has some excellent concepts that need to be pursued and discussed in greater detail to see if they, indeed, can be translated into acceptable amendments to our Growth Management Plan. Staff has done a superb job in handling their workshops. The website's very resourceful and handy--is a great resource and very handy, and they have also been very accessible, and they've reached out to people as well to make sure that everyone gets equal consideration and opportunity to participate,which is a very important role in this planning process. There are several areas that we look forward to discussing in greater detail. That's the regional off-site mitigation proposal,and the opportunities that that may complement some of the other programs of the county, like the Watershed Management Plan and habitat connectivity goals. Ag credits,TDR credits,we like that idea and look forward to putting some detail to that proposal and where and what level of agriculture might be allowed -- Preservation in receiving lands. That has some opportunity. Depends on location and how that is, again,translated into amendments. But these are all good things for us to continue to discuss. And,again, I appreciate staff compiling all the information and ideas and concepts that came through the public-participation process thus far. And if they've done as well in the future as they've done in the past, we're going to have a great document, and I'm sure they will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And most of your comments I think we're probably on the same page.The devil's in the details-- MS. PAYTON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and there's not details yet. So as soon as those details come in, I think we'll have an opportunity to sink our teeth into this a lot better than--but I do appreciate the briefing. And so thank you. MS. PAYTON: Right. But we need to get through this step to get to the next step. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, I agree. MS. PAYTON: And we're going in the right direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next public speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Nicole Johnson. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record,Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy Page 18 of 40 August 18, 2016 of Southwest Florida. And I want to echo Nancy's comments about staff. They have been tremendous. The public workshops have been difficult on certain levels,and they have handled things just beautifully. So we really appreciate their desire to hear input from the public,their time that they have spent,their draft white paper, which was 29 pages long. We had a 17-page comment letter on that, and they sat down and gave me, I think, about three hours of time, and we went through things. So that has been really excellent. In looking at the white paper that you have--and, by the way, if you got to Page 105 of your PDF, then you saw the Conservancy's comment letter to staff. There are lots of good concepts in here. I think the Conservancy's a little concerned about calling these recommendations at this point. Some of these things are no-brainers, such as removing the$25,000 minimum for the first TDR. Others are much more complicated. We do have concerns about how incentivizing agriculture and agricultural clearing that goes with that is going to be consistent with sending-land policies. That's something that we talked extensively with staff about, and we still have a lot of outstanding concerns. The idea of the regional off-site mitigation area,the mitigation banking; I think after the white paper was released, we had probably 10 times more questions than prior to the release of the white paper. So there are a lot of concepts that really need to be further vetted before they're recommended to be taken forward to Comp Plan or Land Development Code language. So the one thing that we would suggest is that after additional information has been put forward,and after this goes to the Board of County Commissioners, it might be good for all of that to come back once these concepts have a little bit more flesh on the bone; come back to you for the input on some of the specific concepts at that point. Hopefully they'll be true recommendations. So that would be our input, and we look forward to having some really good things come out of this process. And, again,thank you to staff. They've done a tremendous job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Neville Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Thank you. My name's Neville Williams,and I'm also speaking on behalf of Charlette Roman and the Collier Citizen's Council. It's a group of 30 civic leaders. I'm not a civic leader, and I don't really have any credentials other than the interest in this living out in this part of eastern Naples. The other credential is I lived --before coming here seven years ago, I lived for seven years in America's largest new urbanist community and saw what a county can do when it works with developers, works with landowners, works with architects and builders and really creates something that is extraordinarily popular. And we've proposed--so anyway, we--our agenda's kind of looking at that,that sort of argument. Smart growth, new urbanism gets put into the planning,the process that's just developed. And we attended a lot of these workshops. And I'm going to read from our piece we had in the paper last week, "Smart Growth Vision for Eastern Collier County." The workshops revealed a nearly unanimous rejection of gated communities, more golf courses,and of sprawl. It was clear the public doesn't want more cookie-cutter gated communities oozing across the rural lands. Responding to this input,the county staff has begun to consider the smart growth concept which features village development,town centers,walking, bike-able communities, concentrated residential density, mixed commercial-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might slow down a little bit, sir. She has to type as fast as you talk. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I talk fast. I read fast. --mixed commercial uses, accessible public transport,environmental protection, integrated open spaces, and a range of housing and options for all income groups. Communities around the country have used smart growth, also known as new urbanism, with great Page 19 of 40 August 18, 2016 successes, and developers and builders have benefited economically by putting more people on less land. And so the Collier Citizens Council endorses these recommendations about to be--and maybe as Nicole pointed out they're not real recommendations yet. It's just the first step, but we think it's a very good step, and we do commend the study group and the people who put this together at the Growth Management Division,the Growth Management Oversight Committee, and Kris Van Lengen and Anita Jenkins and their staff for doing such a great job. So we--you know, we feel strongly that they've talked about planning sustainable, walkable communities with healthy lifestyles and incentives for energy-efficient design,rooftop solar, and affordable/workforce housing. And these are all positive steps, so I think it's all going in the right direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next public speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last registered is Joe Bonness. MR. BONNESS: Good morning,Joe Bonness; represent several different parcel owners that are on there, myself. And one of the items I'm talking about is going to be--has more to do with some of the details that are going on in this. In the sending areas,you know, I represent some of the areas that we have multiple parcels where you can conglomerate in together and have maybe 100, 160 acres, several different tax parcels. We reserved a few parcels to be--or a few units to be able to build on them, but we run into the problem that we can't do clustering in the sending area. It's kind of micro-clustering. You're talking maybe three or four units that are going to be on 160 acres or you've got a 100-acre parcel that's got eight tax parcels in it, but we're not able to go and locate the units where we'd like to, kind of forcing us into building in areas that are less suitable than if we had the ability to be able to cluster. That's something that you're not allowed to do in sending areas. You're kind of required to be able to-- if you're going to reserve rights to be able to build,you have to keep them in that individual tax parcel. So you may own 160 acres,and you may have 20 acres that's suitable to be building on, but you can't build in that 20 acres at that point. So that's something I'd like to see as a consideration as we're looking at this at the possibility of being able to do some clustering in the sending areas when it comes to building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, have you attended the-- I've not attended the public meetings. Have you attended them? I mean, has this issue been brought up and then turned down, or have they just haven't responded? MR. BONNESS: No. And the problem is,you know, it's one of those things that's kind of hitting me in the last couple of weeks, and I hadn't brought it up at the meeting. So I just wanted to be sure that that idea was tossed in there and vetted. It's probably a new one coming in to mark. It's something that--or in to Kris. So I just wanted to bring it out into the public's attention to do anything about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you did it at the right forum. MR. BONNESS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: That's the last one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody who has--wants to speak on this who has not already spoken? Gary? You'll have to spell your name for the court reporter. Not the first name; the last name. MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garrett FX Beyrent. Beyrent, okay. The reason I'm here is I read the study; it's voluminous. And what caught my eye-- I also went to all of the meetings except one out on Immokalee Road. And, basically, I was wondering whether or not the study worked or would work relative to upland mitigation of preserves areas. And it was mentioned in the document that the ideas that were promulgated in a document could also be applied to the urban area. And I thought, wow,that's a great idea. And, particularly, I thought it's a great idea relative to golf courses, because everybody knows, apparently,golf is Page 20 of 40 August 18, 2016 dying. And in the past, some developers walked away from the golf courses after they were developed. And one in particular that I was involved in was with Lakewood. I had sold both of my golf courses in the Glades subdivision to the condo owners. But in the case of Lakewood, I sold Lakewood-- U.S. Homes the property. They developed the Lakewood subdivision, and they walked away from what's now--or was called the Ironwood Golf Course; literally walked away from it. I thought that was a little odd. And they said, well,it cost about,at that time, $2 million a year to maintain a course. And I had the experience to know that was true. Golf courses are losers all the way around. You don't--from a financial standpoint. That's why at this point in time we still don't have a public golf course. We might get one through attrition. But long story short,what I wanted to do was I wanted to add to the rural fringe element because they suggested that you could adapt some of these attributes to our existing situation. And I came up with--I spent almost 15 minutes drawing up this plan here. And what it is is--and I addressed it to somebody-- I have no idea who this woman is,but apparently you would. This is Kris Van Lengen. MR. VAN LENGEN: That's me. MR. BEYRENT: Oh, it's a guy. See,that's what happened. I thought, I never saw that girl before. But anyhow,this is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Her hair gives her away, right? MR. BEYRENT: Thank you very much. And what I did was I drew up a-- it's not too long. It's only two handwritten pages, because I'm not Mark Strain. I hardly ever look at a computer. But let me read it to you; it's very brief, and pretty much wraps up-- if I find some glasses here. Okay. Should I look at it when I'm reading it to him? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,that's okay. MR. BEYRENT: Okay. It says, Dear Kris Van Lengen,juris doctorate,AICP,Community Planning Manager,Zoning Division, Collier County, I'd like to add language to the Rural Fringe Mixed-use District white paper to allow the following: Given that the intent of the Transfer of Development Rights in the rural fringe area was to protect and preserve the pristine environment from destruction brought on by urban sprawl, it is only logical that the same regulations should be applied to the urban area. Through the creation of offsite upland mitigation bank land, lands that currently serve as open green space, such as golf course,can be returned to their original native state when they outlive their usefulness. This plan could also function to expand existing county park and recreational facilities and provide for more functional use of our shrinking natural habitat. The current plan of providing token trees and phony forests could be eliminated through the process resulting in the achievement of the original preservation intent. And I signed it. So I just hand it to this guy, right? It becomes an ordinance tomorrow, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Actually,you give it to her,the court reporter-- MR. BEYRENT: Oh,the clerk, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and she'll have it recorded. And when Kris needs to access it, it will be part of the agenda item backup documents. MR. BEYRENT: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Gary. MR. BEYRENT: And that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your-- MR. BEYRENT: And he's a guy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way you talk was probably well appreciated by the court reporter, so thank you. Is there anybody else who has not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) Page 21 of 40 August 18, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Kris, I might make a suggestion. Why don't we get any comments from the Planning Commission first and then any closing comments you want to make, is that okay? MR. VAN LENGEN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll start with Tom at the end, and we'll work this way, if that's okay. MR. EASTMAN: No comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: For a while, I thought we were all going to stand up and sing Kumbaya. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: My generation. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Kris, it's so neat hearing so many good things that were said about you and Anita today. It's really a pleasure,and I know you've worked very hard on this. The only thing I have to ask you is,when are Anita and I going to go up to Lake Nona? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris, I know you did a good job. I can tell by the way it was laid out, and it was one of the better thought-out documents that we've ever received, so I certainly appreciate that. It's good to hear the testimony from the public meetings. Those are most important to this board to understand that everybody had time to vet. I do have some overriding concerns. There are some of these items that I am concerned about on a point-by-point basis, but I'm not going to get into those at this early stage. I'd rather wait till the details come out. And I certainly, between now and then, can express some of those concerns to you separately. But, overall, I would want to make sure that any enticements we do to encourage people to develop is consistent on the concurrency. Now, I know that concurrency has to happen with an approved development. But what happens now is we approve development guaranteeing that within five years we'll be there. I would rather us not put ourselves in that box again so that the development has to be contingent on the concurrency available when the taxes are there to cover it or the impact fees. And I know that seems to be standard, but I'd want to make sure we don't do what we did with the Rural Land Stewardship Area where we have a town that basically took impact fees for Oil Well Road from the general population for years. I'd like to see those scenarios avoided. Mike? You're walking up for a reason. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi,planning and zoning director. Just to remind you that the State of Florida has mandated that each locality/jurisdiction has a proportionate share cost component. A project, as long as they pay their proportionate share,cannot be stopped by concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. That's what I'm trying to avoid is saying,here,you can build a town here. You pay your impact fees,and we'll guarantee that concurrency's there. Let's not go to that level before we know we can afford to match up their approval with anything that we can bring to them. That's all I was trying to say. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: An encouragement. I notice the program does a lot to encourage development of our agricultural areas that are--well,currently agricultural areas. And that's good for whatever point in time it's needed. But we haven't done the best to develop our urban areas yet. Our urban core is woefully underutilized. And I would be careful how much we're encouraging spreading further out before we build to the intensity we need in the urban core area. Overlap: The biggest part of the replanning effort was to have overlap between the various programs. There's four of them. And before this one, it would seem, could be even thought of being too finalized,the overlap with the Estates group and the RLSA would certainly have to have that input taken into consideration. And I know those-- I know the Golden Gate one has just started, so the overlap may be just Page 22 of 40 August 18, 2016 beginning. One of the things that bothered me in here was the--and I'll speak about it as a specific item instead of generality is the simple-majority vote aspect of it. That was brought into the Rural Land Stewardship Area in a manner that was not recognized by everybody. And that isn't something I've just stated on my own behalf, which it certainly was, but we had to go to arbitration to settle that little bit. I'm not sure that's the right idea to do it again. Maybe there's a way to do it. I just wanted to let you know and I'm--that's a concern I'll have when the language comes through. And I just heard Joe's argument about clustering. It might be a good idea. So if it hasn't been looked at, maybe it's something that should be. I think if we cluster residential,we reduce the concurrency impacts needed and, at the same time, by clustering we could produce a lot more preservation and open space without encouraging higher density. That might not be a bad thing either, so it's something to consider. But those are the general comments I have on the program as a whole. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to get a snapshot of this on an early basis. And with that I'll go to Karen. Did you have anything? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then it's yours, Kris. We'll probably want to try to break around five of eleven to give us time to adjourn this meeting before Stan leaves and see where it is at that point. MR. VAN LENGEN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure, perhaps, some of the comments we have might engender more questions. We had a PowerPoint with no less than 60 slides. So we probably envisioned taking a little bit more time than we have today. And we may use some of the slides, or we may just skip over them altogether. I'm not sure. But the first comment I would like to make is that I always enjoy a little bit of fun about my hairdo. And I think that that's always great,but what breaks my heart is when I hear someone say that golf is dead. That's just a personal comment, but I hope that golf is not dead. I hope it's just slowing down a bit,and that's probably a good thing. I appreciate all the kind words that the various stakeholders have provided to Anita and myself. I think we'd really like to return the favor, because all of these folks,all the stakeholders and residents came out in full force, really,to help not just support the program but, really,they were innovative,thoughtful ideas, and they were patient, and they sat through a lot of meetings. And I think that as we go forward, we'll continue to refine our ideas and get more input. As has been stated, we really did want to start with the bigger ideas and,yes,the devil's in the details, but we don't feel like we can get to the details until some of those bigger issues are resolved. What I'd like to probably focus on--and I might just skip the white paper--excuse me--the PowerPoint altogether. I want to go to two different concepts from my point of view, and perhaps Anita will speak a little bit about the density components in the receiving areas. But as far as the credit system and the sending areas go,we have two, I think, big ideas, big, big issues that, although they're not decision points at this point in time for this board,we do believe that the Board of County Commissioners needs to give us, and we'll be asking them at the next meeting and probably the meeting after, for direction on these bigger ideas. And number one would be the idea that the county takes some ownership in the absence of any other state agency taking ownership of lands that do not have the opportunity for that kind of public stewardship of taking care of those lands. There are some folks who believe that environmentally sensitive lands can take care of themselves if we keep humans out. That may be true in certain parts of the world, but certainly in Southwest Florida we know that exotics and the importance of fostering protected species,certainly,that's really not the case. So we need some level of stewardship,and right now we have that in South Belle Meade. We do not have it in North Belle Meade. So the idea that 60 of our sending areas do not have--the owners do not have the ability to achieve the fourth TDR, which is the conveyance TDR, so that's a disincentive to participation. The lands, if we never get a steward to take care of those lands,we'll never have the ability to really take care of those lands properly. It would just be pushing the problem into the future where expenses get much higher in terms of maintenance. Page 23 of 40 August 18, 2016 And so this is a fairly big idea, and there are different possibly solutions to it. But the one that we've probably hitched our wagon to the closest so far, because it seems to make the most sense,is the idea of creating a mitigation bank for the benefit of the county. And we call it a ROMA, a regional offsite mitigation area. And a ROMA--and it's--that's shorthand for ROMA/in lieu fee arrangement. It would satisfy both state and federal mitigation requirements for offsite projects. It would apply only to county projects, so it would be a county project/county mitigation bank. It provides a lot of advantages. It provides the ability for the county to take ownership and say, okay, we have a way to take care of this land because we have the funds to do so. It provides a solution for those sending-area owners who have no place to convey their lands to and, potentially--and this is part of our Phase 2 that we want more direction to pursue-- it provides the opportunity for the county in the long run to save significant dollars in terms of their mitigation costs, because right now they go to private mitigation banks. It's quite possible that money could be saved over the long run, and we need to do that analysis through a dedicated mitigation area, which would be a ROMA probably in North Belle Meade. So that's the one big idea, and we want to present that to the Board of County Commissioners to get a green light on moving forward with Phase 2 to get a higher degree of confidence. Right now we think it's reasonably likely that it would be acceptable. We want to go beyond a reasonable likelihood to a 98 percent likelihood, if that's at all possible. So that will involve various things, including meeting with the permitting agencies,having pre-applications with them, developing finer tools and groundtruthing and, again,doing a financial analysis. The other big idea, and we want to get direction from the Board of County Commissioners on this as well--and this might be a little bit tougher, but the purpose would be a mitigation bank. A mitigation bank is a completely different kind of bank than -- I'm sorry,a TDR bank. See, I'm confusing myself. TDR banks are completely different than mitigation banks. What we're talking about in terms of a TDR bank is having an intermediary, being the county or a county-sponsored agency, buying the TDRs from sending-land owners, selling them to developers. Why is that good? A lot of the stakeholders had recommended it. The majority of them agree with it. It would be a parallel system to the direct market-driven purchase and sale of credits. But the reason we need a parallel system is that we perceive a great time lag in between the ultimate use of TDR credits,which aren't really applied or needed by development interests until they go to plat. That could be, in some cases,five, 10 years; in other cases, 10,20 years,even 25,30 years. It's going to take a long time to build out the receiving areas. On the other hand, if we supply sufficient incentives--and we want to show you a couple of slides toward the end of our presentation that give some information that you don't have in your package-- it's kind of hot off the press from our economist--and give you an idea of what it means to provide more TDR credits to sending-land owners. It gives them a more immediate incentive to provide to the county or some other agency ownership of those lands by providing more TDR credits,and that will give them more return,more incentive. It gives developers greater opportunity to procure those. In the short run,their issue will be, as with sending areas, in the long run. So those are areas we'd like to address, and we think the bank is an important way to do it. I hope I've described that adequately. I'm not sure if I've connected all the dots there. But it just seems to me that it's going to cost the county some amount of money because of the time value of money. The value of those TDR credits in the bank ultimately get paid back but,again,with the time value of money, it's going to cost the taxpayers some money. So the idea in going to the Board of County Commissioners to ask, look, is this something we should put in front of the public in terms of a referendum in order to decide that? Should we first do some sort of polling exercise? We'd be happy to go through it step by step, but we think that a TDR bank is,in fact,a very important component. So those are the two big ideas in our white paper. We have a lot of other ideas. And then from all of those other ideas, we'll derive more specifics once we get some of those big ideas down. But until we do, we really can't get to all of the detail of the recommendations that we would like to because we need that basic Page 24 of 40 August 18, 2016 direction in terms of whether the county wants to do that. So those are my initial comments. Anita might want to make some comments about the receiving areas and development in those receivings areas,and then, ultimately, I think, because no one's seen them yet, I would very much like to have a chance to look at a couple of slides that relate to work product that was delivered from our economist who's a well-known economist in the TDR field. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we can stay here after Stan leaves to the extent the other board members wish to stay. I mean, it's just a matter of not being able to officially have the meeting going. MR. VAN LENGEN: Okay, great. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Kris,you're welcome to stay up here. Good morning, Anita Jenkins. I'm a planner with Kris's team, and I'm happy to be standing here as not a consultant this time but the first time in front of you as one of your staff members, and I'm very pleased to be working on these very important restudies. This is important to our community, and growing out is important for us to look at these changes that we can make improvements to. So I would like to talk to the density issue. And what I'd like to do is just skip to the end of our presentation and show you some information that wasn't included in the white paper, because we got it after the white paper was published, so we didn't really have a chance to really vet it with you through your white paper and your reading of that. So I'd like to just show you what our economist--some of the information that he provided to us, and it speaks to the density issue,we think. And some of the objectives that we're trying to meet in Collier County--and through the restudy, you probably picked up in the white paper that we did a lot of research and analysis on economic development,what's going on with Opportunity Naples. We met with the Chamber several times. We were looking at transportation,what's going on with transportation planning,what happened in the Master Mobility Plan, and how these all converge with land use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. So in trying to meet the objectives of a lot of those reports, we asked our economist to run three scenarios for us, and I am going to try to figure this out. Ray, can you help me with this? How can I get to the slide so I can just go down to the bottom so we don't have to go flipping through all these? Is it just"escape"to get out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, "escape"will get you back to the left-hand side. MS.JENKINS: Perfect,thanks. So this is the end, Slide 59. And what we did was we asked the economist to run three scenarios. He built an entire model on both the sending and the receiving areas. And so we were evaluating a pro forma, actually, on three scenarios and then how that related to the TDRs and the liquidity of those TDRs and how sending-land owners may be willing to enter the program based on these factors. So what we did was ask him to run the scenarios on the baseline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you trying to run this PowerPoint from this slide to the end? Because if you want to do that, hit the second icon from the left where it says from current slide. There you go. MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mark. So the baseline scenario is what is available today. Today we can do three different options if you want to develop within the rural fringe. You can do one unit per five acres. You can do clustering, which is use of TDRs to increase density up to one unit per acre,and that's what's happened to date pretty much in our western receiving area with La Morada, Golf Club of the Everglades. Those-- several projects in that area. So you can do that or you can do a village,which is up to three units per acre,with the use of TDRs. So we asked him to run that baseline,and we gave him, based on the data that we have in our GIS system, we were able to aggregate acreages based on common ownership. So what we said is that if the idea that came out of our public workshop was to eliminate the 40-acre minimum that you have to have to cluster, so we said,well, let's use that test and see what happens. So what we did is we said that any acreage of 10 or more, let's see what that looks like as a cluster, and then any acreage of 300 or more, let's see what that looks like as a village. So we used those standards throughout these scenarios. So 10 acres-- up to 300 acres would be cluster. There are some-- if you're under 10 acres,we said those are large lots, so we'll leave those at large Page 25 of 40 August 18, 2016 lots,and then 300 acres or more; 300 acres is the standard right now for a village in the program, so that's why we used the 300 numbers. So in the mid-range scenario,we used the same basis. We increased the density on the cluster to two unit per acre, and we increased the density on the village up to four units per acre. And in the high range, we increased it to seven units per acres on the village. The other two stayed the same. Each scenario has--includes affordable housing at 10 percent. So that's the basis for the next few slides. So what does that look like? In all,what it looks like is the north area, what we--you may know as the 846 Trust. It's been commonly referred to as that,but it's the north area of the receiving areas. And let me go back and remind you that we have four receiving areas,about 28,000 acres in those receiving areas, but half of that has already been developed. So we're looking at how do we plan for 14,000 acres in the rural fringe that is largely surrounded by Golden Gate Estates? How's it going to be complementary? How is it going to drive economic development? How are we going to work with the transportation system? So in the north area,that's under one ownership,and so we assumed that that would be a village. The west area is nearly built out. There's only about 500 acres left there. There's some acres that you can aggregate and would be in a cluster, and then you can see the orange is the large lot left over. The Belle Meade receiving area, which is the receiving area right in the center of the rural fringe, same. There's some opportunity for cluster. There's a lot of opportunity for a village development, mixed-use development,and then there's some that would be large lot,what we assume. And then the south one,very large land ownership parcels in that area. So you can see that the village concept would work very well there. So what does this mean to housing? And this is where we get into density. You can see under the baseline scenario the green,the orange,and the brown represents units that are not single-family. So these might be condos,townhouses, apartments, affordable housing. Affordable housing could be in single-family as well. But you can see under the baseline when we're talking about up to one unit per acre,the majority of the housing that we can achieve through the baseline is single-family, and that's pretty much what we have now. And that--so if the standards are the same, we could imagine that the same development is going to occur in the remaining 14,000 acres,to some extent. Now, if we increase that to four units per acre,you can now see that the density's changing and so are the mix of uses. So you have an opportunity for more multifamily, more affordable housing,and more condos or townhouses. And in the high range, it gets even more dramatic. So you're really hitting the targets of addressing the affordable housing needs that we have here in Collier County in apartments and condos and townhouses as well. So that is how the scenarios played out. So one of the reasons we wanted to test this is because I wanted to look at a pro forma to see, is it going to actually work for the developers? Because we don't want to make recommendations that is not--they're just not going to work. It's not going to be feasible. We recognize that the market needs to be there, but we also recognize, based on our research in Opportunity Naples, is that we have a derth of population between the ages of 25 and 44, and we need to start replacing all the people that are going to start retiring, right? And so I said,well, how do these people want to live? How do the millennials,the new people, want to live? So we looked at that, and we found that,you know, 80 percent of the millennials that have been polled want to live in a walkable,compact mixed-use development. Also,AARP did a study and found that the majority of the seniors wanted to live within a half mile of mixed use as well. So can we achieve that through these densities and through these scenarios? So what we found was that, in fact, as you increase density, so does your gross sales value increase over the cost. So that's just one--a snapshot that says, it is feasible, and that's what we were checking on all these; is it feasible? This shows you a residual land value. And what the residual land value is is it tells you when you run a per forma how much can you pay for that land. And you can see that when you're in the baseline scenario,that low density,you're not able to pay the landowner as much for the land to get that return on Page 26 of 40 August 18, 2016 value. And you can see that in the high range,the residual land value and the amount of money that the developers are able to pay a landowner is much greater. This just shows the TDR credits that they ran as well. Kris, I don't know if you want to speak to this, but-- MR. VAN LENGEN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way,this PowerPoint, is this something that you can supply to us-- MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in an electronic format or whatever format? But just do it through the planners or Ray or somebody; that will be fine. Thank you. And, Stan,did you want to make a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, I was just going to leave. Should 1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I move to adjourn the formal meeting,and you guys can continue without me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, Stan. And we'll continue on.Thank you. MR. VAN LENGEN: We will have this PowerPoint as well on our website. Again, it's an illustration. It's not necessarily what we're recommending, but it's based on some initial recommendations, what we call initial. And so we want to make sure that it's available to the public. We've had requests for the underlying tool that was used to develop these things, and since that's public information,we'll certainly provide that to whoever would like to have a crack at using it. We can --there are a myriad of inputs,a lot of different ways to look at it. The slide you're looking at right now kind of goes full circle. It's based on what Anita was talking about in terms of what if we go to the villages of a mid range of four units per acre,a high range of seven units per acre. And what you have is a TDR demand that's far in excess of the supply, and that's without changing the supply today. So the baseline is really what we have today,very similar to a slide we used early in our presentation in terms of the percentages. We--the staff did a study and found that based on a number of assumptions the likely supply to likely demand was about--the demand was about two-and-a-half times higher than the supply. Here our economist uses theoretical maximum to theoretical demand,and that's his methodology that he feels is tried and true in the TDR program. It ends up being very close in terms of the ratio involved. Here demand under baseline is 2.9 times higher than supply. So if we did nothing in terms of density in our program, we're still woefully short of supply. If you look at the mid range and the high range,those are a difference of 3.8 times higher demand, and the high range is three times higher demand. And I don't know if that was well understood in terms of why that goes down, but it's a bit of an anomaly in the way that we've designed and incentivized higher densities. We're incentivizing higher densities by providing a little bit of a break in terms of multifamily dwelling types of structures. So anything that's multifamily would consume not one full credit but three-quarters of a credit, .75, and affordable housing would consume zero credits. Page 27 of 40 August 18, 2016 So as it turns out,the higher density village literally consumes fewer credits than a mid-range density scenario. It's a little bit counterintuitive,but that's the way the math works out. This shows--this shows what we've done in terms of taking our first crack at what if we provide additional incentives to sending-land owners through additional credits? And, by the way, let's have some credits left over for some of those other goodies such as incentives for either agriculture or excess preserve; what about Golden Gate Estates if we want to tie in some of Golden Gate Estates in terms of flowway. We don't know if we do. It's not a recommendation that we do. It's just simply a recommendation that we keep enough room in our program to accommodate if that's what the CWIP Committee--if that's what the Board of County Commissioners feel is an important way to go. So we feel we have room to do that. What you see here--represented here in terms of mid range and high range--and these are recommendations in terms of density. We would increase the credits allowable to sending-land owners, literally doubling them; in other words,we would have four additional credits going to sending-land owners in addition to the four credits now. Now, how would we divide them up? We think probably two on the front end as additional base credits,two on the back end as additional credits once conveyance takes place. We've also made room for a fifth credit, and that would be allowable to go directly to the county to put in its bank or its trust to use at an appropriate time. There would have to be limitations on that so it doesn't get into the marketplace. But we wanted to create room. And even with creating that much room and room for those external TDRs,we find that those ranges --at mid range it's about a 71 percent excess demand than supply, and at high range it's about a 32 percent excess demand than supply. The economist feels that those are probably really good benchmarks for a program, because as Dr. Nicholas said 12 years ago, 14 years ago,you always want to have more demand than supply. It makes the programs become much more vibrant and viable if you do that, but not to the extent that we have them now. Right now we're woefully short of supply. So this is a good thing because it provides us the opportunity for more incentives for sending-land owners and,at the same time, it assures liquidity over the long run. So that's what we've got right now. It's derived from some interesting tools that were developed by our economist. Those are available to those who want to contact us. We'll be working with him for additional types of scenario testing in the future. But we just wanted to show you this as kind of a first time through and tell you what's possible in terms of this program and how we can help make it better. We think by making supply more available to sending-land owners, it incentivizes their interest to a great degree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris, if you don't mind-- I don't mind. I don't know if the other two members here have any concern--could you go through I through 58. MR. VAN LENGEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we're here to understand this,and if you've gone to the trouble to create it, I'd sure like to make sure we get the benefit of that. MR. VAN LENGEN: Okay. And I will --because we've talked about some of these things, I'm sure that we'll be able to--how do we--there we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hit up--see where it says "from beginning" up on the top left-hand? Hit "from beginning," way to the top left-hand side.There, now you're there. MR. VAN LENGEN: Good. Learn something every day. Okay. So this is simply today's presentation.This is kind of blown up by now because we're going in a different order, so some of these slides I'm just going to breeze through them, but some of them we'll hover a little bit. This is a look at our four restudy areas and how they fit together. We think, as the Chairman has mentioned,that the Golden Gate Estates and the rural fringe are very, very tied to each other in so many ways,both economically and environmentally,and we want to make sure that that happens. I think we're making sure that happens in a number of ways. But to continue with the Chairman's comment about having started that program, we're resuming those public outreach meetings in October. We'll have those on the website. I think October 6th is going to be our first scheduled meeting for the rural estates;that will be at the IFAS center, and then on the succeeding weeks,the 13th and 20th,we'll have meetings with Golden Gate City and the western estates respectively, Page 28 of 40 August 18, 2016 and that will be at the community center. Anyway, it's important to note that there is a lot of--there's a lot of interaction between these areas, and all of the things that we talk about,these are things that we talk about both within and without each studied area. So complementary land uses,transportation mobility,environmental stewardship,economic vitality,these are key not only to each individual restudy, but these are elements that we want to look at as we look at the interrelationships between the different studies,and we want to make sure we do that. Just to let--this is just to let you know what the white paper review schedule is. I think we talked about that. We'll probably look to go to another Board of County Commissioners when the 2017 board is seated,but then we're still trying to stay on track for schedule completion of Growth Management Plan amendments by next September. That might be a tall order. But something close to that would be--would be desirable. We have a Growth Management Oversight Committee,which I'm sure you're aware of. They were appointed October 2015. They meet quarterly. And they're a fairly high level of scope. They're non-granular, but they want to make sure that our public involvement is robust, and mostly that the plans are consistent with each other and that they use those other parameters to make sure that we've considered all the different elements within each plan and that they work very well with each other. You've heard the historical goals of the rural fringe probably more than once. It stems from the final order,and the State required programs to be designed to protect wetlands,protect agricultural land, direct growth to appropriate locations,utilize creative land-planning techniques. Those were done in two different ways. Obviously,the RLSA is one of them. The RFMUD is the other. Two different programs, and probably for good reason, because the characteristics of those areas are quite different. So as part of the restudy,our objective really is to retain those initial goals,the initial design of the program, and retain the boundaries as well. We're kind of constrained by that boundary issue. But other than that,the three major prongs are improve the TDR credit system;we talked a little bit about that. Identify entities for sending-land ownership. We'll be asking the county to step forward, if at all possible. We've had a great deal of difficulty finding any state agencies who are willing to even entertain the idea of stepping forward and taking ownership of any of those sending lands. And then improve the development pattern through smart growth, economic development, sustainability, and I think we'll have some very, very thoughtful and very interesting ways to do that. And this really also goes to the correlation between this area in the Golden Gate Estates in terms of economic development opportunities for not only goods and services, but employment and reverse commutes and better mobility. So this was-- I can skip over this. I was going to ask for your patience in going through this and flexibility in terms of the long run, because it is a complicated program. We want to do it step by step. We have to look at the big pictures first,and I think we've covered that point. This is a map. I'm sure you're familiar with what the rural fringe looks like. This is a map to try to get some common language,common denotations of the different areas. So the sending areas from north to south we call the North Sending. We called North Belle Meade West,North Belle Meade NRPA,and South Belle Meade,and then the receiving areas north to south we've got the north area,the west area,North Belle Meade, and the South Receivings Areas. And we think that it's not only important you have the language correct, but just in terms of analysis, there are a lot of reasons to analyze these areas somewhat differently. And so at the end of the day, if some of the growth management plan or LDC outcome of the restudy suggest different rules for different receiving areas I don't think that that's a bad thing. That may be a reflection of how different they are in character at this point in time. For numbers people, I brought this in mainly because--just to focus on the fact that the sending lands really are relying on 17,000 acres of private ownership. There are a lot of government-owned lands in there. They can't sever TDRs, so they're not going to be part of the program. And then, as Anita mentioned,the vacant land,we're starting with that as the analysis for future development of villages and cluster development. So--but, again,the challenge,when you look at those two numbers and those acreages,there are Page 29 of 40 August 18, 2016 over 3,000 parcels involved, and so that makes it a difficult program in terms of communicating with folks, getting people in to do--a lot of small landowners, so the burden is high on small landowners to go through a program that's both confusing and, in some respects,expensive. Densities; you may know that before the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District came into effect, it was essentially an ag density of one unit per five acres or smaller legal lot. After the plan adoption down-zoning to one home per 40 acres or one home per smaller lot in existence before 1999--and the credit system was designed as the compensation for that--for that down-zoning. We've reminded the residents or the owners of those parcels, because there was great confusion to begin with,that first of all eminent domain is not part of this program and that, secondly,they have every right to keep a smaller parcel if they wish, any parcel that they wish. But there may be incentive in certain locations where there's access. Smaller five-acre parcel, individual says, look, I don't want to enter the TDR program. I want to keep it. I want to develop it. If they have that development right, if it was a smaller lot in existence before 1999,they may do so,and we wanted to make sure that they understood their land-use rights as far as that goes. The types of credits: This is an unusual program compared to other programs nationally. We have four different types of credits. The first two go together. It's just a severance of development rights that creates those base and early entry. We'll probably just call them base from now on. The other two are more difficult to obtain,and I think we referred to that in looking at the difference between south and -- South Belle Meade and North Belle Meade. In fact,we'll look at that right now. But restoration maintenance was originally conceived as a-- as a prerequisite for an owner to obtain conveyance credits. One had to restore and maintain for a certain amount of time, under a land management plan,their property before they could convey it to a governmental agency. What happened in South Belle Meade, which is probably a good thing--that's the photo on your left--and where you can see a lot of state ownership. Those orange parcels are parcels that went all the way through the conveyance process. And what happened was that the county recognized that it was certainly more efficient and more effective and made a lot of sense to put those parcels under the State's and Division of Forestry's land management plan, which is what happened for those parcels. They were able to simply convey them and get those two credits in one fell swoop. But in doing so,they were required to provide some form of endowment as determined by Forestry. So that's the preferred model, if you will, because it's just so much more efficient,from both a restoration and a management standpoint,to work on areas and on a landscape scale than to do it on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The map you see on the right is North Belle Meade. You can see a lot of interest in the program but nowhere to go. There just is no agency willing to take ownership at this time. We've been unable to locate one. We are recommending that the county consider becoming the owner and finding a creative way to pay for it. So that would --if so,we would also encourage the idea that conveyance and restoration and maintenance become essentially one process;that one doesn't necessarily pre-precede another. To date,about 25 percent of the maximum --of the credits, maximum potential credits of the outstanding credits,25 percent have been earned to date. That's not too bad for a program that's been in existence for a decade and a half. Usually these programs take many decades to mature and also,obviously, we had an economic downturn in the middle. More than half of those have been redeemed already and been applied to development areas. Less than half remain in circulation. They're probably earmarked for developments either in the urban residential fringe that--you've been involved in those rezone applications in the last few years,or in the receiving area west. So they're probably already spoken for,for the most part, but they haven't been applied yet because they haven't all gone to plat. And this is just a depiction of that very--of that very process. The credits you can see being derived from certain areas, being applied to certain areas, whether it's Golf Club of the Everglades, La Morada, Hacienda Lakes; all of those are consuming credits as they go to plat, and this is based on 2015 data. We've Page 30 of 40 August 18, 2016 had, obviously, more activity since then, and that will continue to grow. So with that part of our presentation,we're just going to give a short interlude to discuss our public outreach. Anita,you want to take that? MS.JENKINS: Yeah. So this is our opportunity to also thank the stakeholders and everyone that's here, and everyone that's been involved: Residents, sending-land owners came out, receiving-land owners came out,the stakeholders, interested citizens. We had about an average of 60 people at six public workshops that we had. But we would like to thank them for participating with us. It definitely has been an ongoing and collaborative process,and at many of the workshops we would say, here's some ideas we're thinking about. What do you think? And we'd go through exercises of that. And this has continued through the process and through our drafts, recommendations, and our initial recommendations.There's feedback,there's tweaks,there's feedback,there's tweaks. So really where we're at today--and I think Nicole points it out fairly-- is we're not really saying that these are final recommendations, but they are our initial recommendations and one that we need some feedback on as we go to the next level. So part of our public outreach process was to create a website where everyone could go to get the same information. The County Manager's Office approved many of these workshops being televised. So we had our Collier TV out there recording these. So if you're interested in watching it and you can't make it,you can watch it. So that was a really great thing to have. The website is under the zoning division, if you haven't visited it. Under the zoning division of community planning, we have that website that covers all four study areas. Now,the rural fringe is definitely the most populated one so far because we've done the most work, but we had started with the Golden Gate area. And that website has different resources and information on it. We're also doing surveys on it. So people,again,that are not able to participate in the public workshops,they're able to give us feedback in this regard as well with surveys. They can answer the same type of questions that we're asking at the public workshops. We also have a dedicated email address, so it's easy for people to remember where that is,that rural fringe restudy. Also,we have a distribution list,email distribution list that's been created through these public workshops and interested citizens just asking about the program. So if you would like to be on the email distribution list,up to date, receive these draft reports, white papers,those are distributed each time before we come to you so everyone has a chance to review these things and provide input to you. In addition to the website,the emails,we have had numerous meetings with stakeholders, and we've interviewed them. You know, we've met with the coalition. We've met with the environmental interest groups. We've met with the Chamber. So all of these things coming together, and our transportation consultants, our impact fee consultants,we're meeting with all of those, and also different agencies that Kris had mentioned that we can't find anybody that's interested in taking ownership of these sending lands, so that was our--a lot of the agency meetings. We've had a lot of media coverage on this program as well and expect that to continue through the process. So we had six public workshops during the first six months that we've been working on this. The first three focus on the sending lands, and we held those out at IFAS. And,again, we had about 60 participants. And I think the picture on the right,the top there,demonstrates a lot of the exercises that we were trying to not only provide information to the citizens that were participating, but asking them to give us real feedback. And so you can see some of these exercises where they were very engaged in this process. The second two we did on the receiving and neutral lands, and then the final workshop was consensus building. So at that final workshop,we had initial recommendations, based on the public outreach that we had done so far,the feedback that we have gotten,the analysis that we had done,and so we put all of those recommendations forth to the participants and asked them to rank each one,and that's what this illustrates. And it might be a little fuzzy on your screen,but this is included in the white paper. So-- if you'd like to look at those more closely. Page 31 of 40 August 18, 2016 But I think that this just demonstrates that overall we're achieving consensus on these initial recommendation at that time. Again,those were recommendations at the end of the workshop. Following that,we had continuous meetings. So they're tweaking a little bit. But at that time,the big ideas there we did reach consensus on. And now we get to go back to Kris and the TDR credit system. MR.VAN LENGEN: I'm having slide envy because Anita's slides are much more colorful than mine. I think we talked about the-- I think Nicole mentioned this is sort of a no-brainer, and I suppose it is. But we had almost unanimous agreement that the 25,000 minimum TDR meant to protect sending-land owners really becomes an interference with the market,and there are probably better ways to protect sending-land owners,and one of them is to provide additional TDRs and give them more value overall. The base TDR really ended up providing two different currencies, because even though they are used in the same way by the developers,they're worth the same at the end of the day;they're priced differently at the beginning of the day. And it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. As we did our study, we found that 13,500 was really the true average price because they were--in contracts,that were coupled together with,you know, X number of base TDR, X number of bonus TDRs at one or two thousand dollars apiece. The average turned out to be about 13,5- for what we think a TDR goes for today and,of course,that price will be different from year to year up or down. This was our original likely supply, likely demand; two-and-a-half times different. I think we talked a bit about that when we went to the economist's slide. Ways in which we can provide additional TDRs; not only just to those sending-land owners, but agricultural uses. We definitely need more feedback on agriculture. We definitely need to refine it. There are pros and cons there, and we need to examine more closely those pros and cons, particularly passive versus active agriculture. We're not talking about land use here. Under the land uses in the rural fringe, agriculture simply is an allowable land use, and people have the right to do that. It's just the question of are we incentivizing it with TDRs, should we incentivize it with TDRs. And there are good arguments,a pro and a con, and that's an area that we would like to do a lot more work on with stakeholders. Small parcels is an interesting thing. I think we're going to assume a legal lot if it's over 4.5 acres. I think that's just an administrative suggestion to make it easier for existing owners to obtain TDRs without having to go through extensive proof of how much right-of-way was taken and so forth. The bigger point there is illegal,nonconforming lots. Illegal non-conforming--and we have somewhere between 30 and 50 in the rural fringe. They were subdivided at a time when they shouldn't have been subdivided. They were no longer eligible to go below five acres after a certain point in history. They have no building rights, and we're not suggesting that they do have building rights. What we are suggesting is that those properties shouldn't just be sitting out there if we're trying to consolidate these lands into environmentally sensitive and managed areas;therefore,we recommend giving owners of those properties some TDRs, and we would do it just proportionately. So a two-and-a-half acre lot would get a half of a TDR for base, a half a TDR for each of the succession, and we'd probably require--and this is a great suggestion from Conservancy--require them to go all the way to conveyance in order to get any TDRs,because that would be the point. We would want those properties conveyed to the appropriate agent. Retroactivity or program changes: This is really just an equity argument. A lot of people got into the program. You saw it in North Belle Meade where there are a lot of base TDRs but not other TDRs. They entered the program in good faith early on. If we're going to issue additional TDRs on the base side at this point in time, should they be eligible? My opinion, from--just from an equity standpoint would be,yes,they should because why should they be prejudiced from entering the program early on in time? That's about a 1,400 credit impact to the supply. We've accounted for that,and our economist has that figure as part of his model. Page 32 of 40 August 18, 2016 Receiving a neutral credit generation: We talked enough about agriculture. Native vegetation beyond the requirements. If they--if they rise to a certain level of importance or if they recreate native habitat,these are areas that need further discussion and refinement. This is definitely an area where the fine print is going to make a whole lot of difference. So we understand that. These are just general ideas that we think would be helpful to explore. Public benefits: TDRs could be issued to receiving entities that do low-impact development or create greenway connections or allow flowway connections. And we think that that's an important area to consider because we'll need those public benefits from receiving-land owners, and I think that's a good way to achieve those. And as far as neutral goes,the concept came up in our meetings, and we think it's probably not a bad concept. In fact, it's not too different from the concept Joe was talking about even in sending areas in terms of allowing clustering, something we hadn't thought of before. That's a great thing we'll add to our list. But for our consideration here, we're talking about neutral territory. If you have a five-acre tract in neutral, why not allow a few TDRs to keep that in perpetual conservation in the neutral area, lower the density even more; more aquifer groundwater recharge; other benefits as well. Agricultural easement: Again,we'll get back to that. Areas--credit to areas outside the rural fringe: Urban residential fringe, I think you-all have decided and the Board of County Commissioners has decided that the one-mile rule need not apply. So it's just simply a cleanup, I think, at this point; it's fairly moot. There aren't too many unentitled areas where that rule would make much difference. But the larger point here would be urban infill bonus. How can we incentivize more infill in the urban area? And that's certainly where we want to concentrate some of our growth in the future. It's certainly not the centerpiece of rural fringe mixed-use restudy, but it is part of the TDR program, and we think that eliminating that TDR requirement is more consistent with the purpose of that infill development. You get three additional density units as--in an infill situation with smallish types of parcels within the urban area for residential development. But right now the way that bonus reads is that the very first of the three needs to come from a TDR credit. So the developer would need to purchase TDR credits to get those bonuses. We think that's somewhat contrary to the purpose of that urban infill bonus, so that's a recommendation that we're making. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kris, let me interrupt you just for a minute. MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes, indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, it's been an hour and a half, and we usually give you a break every hour and a half. I'm not sure how much longer we're going to go on today. What do you think, Kris? MR. VANASSE: Ten, 15 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then with that,we'll just continue through. And I just want to make sure if we're going to go longer, she had the appropriate break. Thank you. MR.VAN LENGEN: Yep. I think that's about it. Okay. And then credits from outside. I think we talked about the Golden Gate Estates watershed plan. The north Golden Gate flowway restoration area is a fairly large area. What we don't know at this point and what the CWIP Committee--that's the Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan,planning technical ad hoc advisory committee-- is looking at is what does it take to do the restoration in the Golden Gate area flowway? How much of it is mechanical? How much of it requires storage or land ownership or land use? We need to probably get to that technical aspect before we know the volume of land ownership that would be helpful to Collier County. And then we simply want to accommodate that by suggesting that TDRs could be a tool that could be used. We're not recommending that TDRs solve that problem. We're simply saying we want the TDR program to acknowledge this Golden Gate Estate issue and be ready,willing,and able to participate in an incentive-based program if the Board of County Commissioners feels that that's the way to go. There may be other incentives that could be applied. Program management: Obviously, we can--this is--who wouldn't agree with the administration Page 33 of 40 August 18, 2016 and the county staff improving the exchange site and application process? We think that customer design input, both on the application and in the exchange--the exchange really hasn't worked very well. We look at the activity through our own exchange over the past few years. It's been very, very light. So,for some reason, we need to make it more visible, more vibrant, more helpful. We also need proactive outreach to the 800 or so owners in--of sending lands that we sent notices to for our initial meetings. We need to keep up that kind of approach to help them understand how this is evolving, how this restudy ends up, what their rights are, how they can take advantage of it,and how staff can help them do that. Application costs are an issue to me because I think they fall disproportionately on the small landowners,and I think that, basically, we're talking about compensation through the TDR program for loss of use of land rights. I think by saying that and also charging application fees for them to get it done, we're putting money into one pocket and taking it out of the other. I think that the cost to the county is fairly low compared to the benefit one would get from the goodwill from eliminating some of those application fees, so that's another recommendation we're making. We talked a bit about the TDR bank. I tried to summarize that. There is broad stakeholder support. It would run parallel to the open market. Capitalization is the big issue,and that's why our consultant has recommended--you see the first line under capitalization, general or dedicated tax revenues. Our consultant, halfway down this page, is recommending a dedicated millage that we can bond so that we have a large sum of money that goes into the bank on the front end so that we can hold TDRs for a reasonable period of time knowing that the demand for those TDRs may not develop for quite some time. It's really the only option in terms of funding a TDR bank that addresses that lag time issue; otherwise, it's what he would refer to as a bootstrap approach and less--certainly less effective. So that's an area we'll be a little more specific when we go to the BCC,but that's where we want to obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on that TDR bank concept. Then land management: Again, we talked about ROMA. This has to do with TDR conveyance. It has to do with a lot of things. But the South Belle Meade,as we mentioned,provides a good example where restoration and conveyance work well together. And a majority of stakeholders have recommended that the county step forward as the owner. It also--what's kind of parallel to that is the potential watershed improvement area. Like Golden Gate Estates,North Belle Meade and South Belle Meade are potential watershed improvement areas that are mentioned in the Watershed Improvement Plan that was approved in 2012. And certainly at this point in time,there's a lot of activity having to do with grant funding for the South Belle Meade area as part of a watershed improvement project. So we need to make sure that we coordinate with that. To the extent that we can get county ownership of those areas,the better off we are;we certainly know that. But we also need to work with them in order to create incentives that make it make sense. The same thing would be true for North Belle Meade. We don't have--we don't have a timetable or definite plans to create watershed improvement in North Belle Meade, but it's one of the recommendations of that--of that watershed improvement plan. And so in time we think that that will happen once we get the funds,either through grants or otherwise,to do so. So these are the options: Create a mitigation area,which is what we've talked about; build an endowment from TDR transactions. This is where the county maybe skims the TDR off the top of each transaction. Land or TDRs get transferred at conveyance to the county. At time of conveyance,the county receives an additional bonus TDR that is owned by the county. Maybe they receive two additional TDRs. Depending on how that's structured,those TDRs could be used for funding even for maintenance and restoration purposes. And in that way it might make sense because they would have to be limited in the terms of the way they can be sold. We don't want to affect the private market, but over a period of time they could--they could--they could provide maintenance funding for a long period of time; certainly not as effective as a--or Page 34 of 40 August 18, 2016 beneficial as a ROMA would be. And a green utility fee is something that's been mentioned. We haven't done a lot of work on that. We know that stormwater is going to be talking at sometime in the near future about a stormwater utility fee. Whether those could be coupled together,I'm not sure. They seem to have some nexus certainly in the watershed concept. So that could be another--another way to fund long-term maintenance if the county decides to become owner of those 60 percent of properties that have no potential owner at this time. So here's--here are the slides on the ROMA. The three goals we mentioned: Long-term maintenance; conveyance TDRs to sending-land owner; and long-term cost savings for county roads and other projects. So we think there's a really win-win-win possibility here,and we think that that possibility is reasonably--reasonably attainable at this point in time. So we want to pursue that, get to the next Phase 2 of the feasibility study, and achieve that. This is what the fees--the feasibility report indicated for the ROMA in Phase 1; a reasonable possibility of success in terms of credit costs versus revenue. And, really, here's the best way to look at it. This is--Scenario 3 is a fairly, let's say, robust example. Scenario 3 of the paper that Passarella&Associates put together for Phase 1 is a scenario where you have medium to high infestation levels of exotics. The dotted line on the bottom indicates the cost that would be required depending on the percentage of wetlands involved for each 100 acres. The Scenario 3 line,which is the green line,is probably the most important one, and that indicates--that's the revenue that would be obtained given that--that level of infestation,that's the revenue that would by derived from the credit generation, from the lift, so to speak, from this as a mitigation area. If at some point in time we decide to pursue grants and do some hydrologic restoration on top of the other restoration in these wetland areas,then the return is much, much greater,and that shows it there. But what we wanted to prove was that even without hydrological restoration it's a win-win situation. There is a positive cash flow at the end of the day. This is one further opportunity, and this is a bit confusing for folks, but the private sector,through its mitigation efforts,has gone and used lands in North Belle Meade for their own mitigation purposes. The county would not double dip on these mitigation areas. In reality,the ROMA would work around them and through them, and all these Swiss cheese areas would be filled in to the extent possibly. And how does this make sense to the permitting agencies, Fish and Wildlife and others who would be approving the ROMA? Well, really, it fills in those gaps and allows the opportunity for an agreement down the road to have some third party or the county or a private party,either by agreement or a trust,to manage the whole thing together and to provide resources. So it's--there's very good opportunity for improving the performance of land management in North Belle Meade by combining these private mitigation parcels which, by the way,are owned in perpetuity by these entities and their successor entities,and combining that with the ROMA areas that would be all of the areas around and inside those private mitigation parcel. So this is an important opportunity,and we think it's a really big selling point to the agents in terms of approving the ROMA. So the next step for the ROMA is more site-specific analysis,pre-application meetings with Fish and Wildlife,Army Corps, DEP, and then a financial analysis that does,really, a present-value look at the money we would have to put upfront and at what time would that money be returned and would we actually be in the black or in the red at the end of the day, and we think we'd be in the black, but we need to prove that. Other possible funding sources: I think we just mentioned TDR issues to the county; restoration and maintenance fund can come along with conveyance,much like they do in South Belle Meade. Actual cash comes with the conveyance of property; and that's another possibility if the ROMA doesn't work. And we talked about the green utility fee. MS. JENKINS: So getting back to the receiving areas now. During the restudy,the six months that we have been looking at this program, Kris had mentioned early on what we're looking at as complementary land uses and economic vitality,transportation,and mobility. So through this process in our studies, we're starting with, well,where are we at now. So this Page 35 of 40 August 18, 2016 demonstrates, again, exactly where those 14--over 14,000 acres that we're going to be looking at for future growth and development--and you can see that particularly the north area and the central area of Belle Meade is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates. And Golden Gate Estates have representatives from the Estates, and the civic associations have been very active in participating in our public workshops to date. They also provided a letter of support for the recommendations moving forward with the rural fringe as they were at the end of the workshops, but that letter is available in our records as well if you're interested in reading that from the Golden Gate Estates. But, certainly,you know,when we're looking at these land uses for the rural fringe,we want to understand how is it complementing Golden Gate Estates? So--I mentioned this earlier, so I don't want to go through it,you know, in detail again, but it's the three options that you can develop: Baseline, using TDRs to increase your density up to one unit per acre in clustering or the village. An important note on this is that if you have a business and you're interested in locating in one of these areas, an agriculture research and development business,for instance,they could not locate, currently, in the rural fringe area without being in a village. So one business would have to,you know, get a whole lot of people and landowners together to create a village to actually locate there. So that's a challenge of the program going forward. How the program is working to date,how it's building out is the western receiving area that you see at the top of this screen with the orange and the yellows and the greens,that's how it's working to date,and those were the areas that I mentioned that are clustering at up to one units per acre and using TDRs. The aerial below that shows the form that they're taking. Now,these communities are all, for the most part, single-family communities. They're gated, private, auto dependent, and they have very little connection with their neighbors. So this is just kind of the pattern of an uncoordinated planning, and it's very mono-functional. So for the Golden Gate Estates,there's no services--goods and services there for them. There's no opportunity to locate a business in one of these developments at all. But that's how it's working so far in this area. And there's only about 500 acres left in that western receiving area to be built upon. So one of the things that--when we looked at who-all has a stake in this and what county agencies are looking at land use,one of the things that we found is that the Collier County Health Department is engaged in looking at the Healthy Communities Initiative, and they have created a checklist. And, also,the photo here shows us that there is an illustration of that very strong correlation between the automobile and obesity. So it's having very serious health impacts to the communities that we live in. And so that very dark red area that's indicated on this map shows a low well-being index in Collier County. When we met with the Chamber,read through the Opportunities Naples report, not only do we have, you know,a serious shortfall potential for our workforce, but when I'm looking at the research of how does this--how does that generation --how do they want to live? How can we help support the businesses that want to move here and the employees that we need to come to support these businesses? And what we found is that 80 percent of the millennials,you know, again,the baby boomers, everyone's telling us through research and surveys that they want these walkable mixed-use communities such as that's shown on all of these illustrations here. We found in our research when we're talking to the public workshops participants--and we heard many of them saying we need to increase density to make,you know, affordable housing work,to give us more products other than these private communities. We need to mix this up a bit. And so,you know,what this illustrates is a very well-defined neighborhood, and this is in South Carolina. And this is 6.3 units per acre at a gross. But I think what this shows is that you can design high-quality mixed-use neighborhoods with just a huge variety of housing types. And I had to tighten this in, but if I blew it up for you,you would see the commercial areas and businesses that are also located just to the south of this. When we were trying to figure out how we work with mobility in the eastern areas,we found that we need seven units per acre to support transit. That's the overriding consensus on the density that's needed to support transit, is seven units per acre. And I think that when we talked about the economist's slides earlier, Page 36 of 40 August 18, 2016 you know, it was shown that once you get that density up there,that's the time that you start getting that mix of uses when you have these higher densities. And if you'll also remember those slides,the single-family product was pretty constant across all three scenarios. So we're still providing lots of room for that type of product, but we need to increase the density to add new product on top of that. When we talked about consistency and compatibility with the other planning areas, one of the things that 1 found in looking at this is that our village standards are very different. And it's not just the standards, but it's how we're measuring a good mix of uses. The village in the rural fringe area basically just limits the size of a village center, but it doesn't really correlate well to how much you need per dwelling unit. And those measures and standards are different in the rural lands. So if we're looking at consistency and how we're measuring this,we just found that we're measuring it differently in our different planning areas. So there may be an opportunity to get these closer together. On the transportation,we wanted to see, are these land uses conducive to what we're trying to achieve in multi(sic)mobility and travel in Collier County. And there's been considerable attention paid to Eastern Collier County in our transportation planning and, in fact, as the top illustration shows,the majority of our transportation projects are east of 951 currently. What was interesting as well is that the Long Range Transportation Plan designates freight activity centers,and two of these freight activity centers are located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. One is in North Belle Meade, and one is in the south receiving area. And,basically,that tells us that these are designated freight activity centers, so there is a transport of goods occurring there already. So we need to think about that as we plan further in the future,that some of these networks and--are already being established to move freight out of there, so that might be something that's positive to any new business that would like to locate in these areas, is that you have that designation. We talked about concurrency earlier,and there's definitely a need to further study the arterial roadway network in this area and, in fact,we have two study areas designated in our transportation plan. One up around Randall Road,which is a little bit outside of our study area at this point, but we also have a large study area that's designated right around North Belle Meade; so how that transportation network is going to support that potential receiving area is on the books currently to be studied currently. Finally on transportation planning, we had a Master Mobility Plan with recommendations that was accepted by the Board. And the FDOT is now really emphasizing complete streets. So to us that just informs us that we need to continue to be looking at not only the automobile, but we need to be looking at the pedestrian,the bicycle, and the transit in Eastern Collier County of how we're truly multimodal in that area. So the initial recommendations for--to address some of these things: Probably one of the most popular concepts that we heard through the public workshops is that we need to allow goods and services and businesses outside of these villages. So we're thinking about doing that in different ways, and we'll talk about that in a couple of slides in the process, but certainly we want to allow for some business park uses outside of the village,and that is to address the Naples--Opportunity Naples findings that we need site available ready to go for these businesses. So right now in the rural fringe there are not really any opportunities for businesses to locate in that area, so we need to help that. There is a maximum on your village center right now of 10 percent of the total area,and that also limits the research and technology component of it as well. We're suggesting that we remove those maximums and really relate it to dwelling units to something that's more measurable for us. We want to explore designating these receiving areas as innovation zones, similar to the innovation zone that's been designated in Ave Maria for the benefit of Arthrex. So if there is another business opportunity in one of these rural fringe,that they could have that benefit as well of innovation zone. So that's something that needs further discussion and research on that one. Currently in the plan the villages are--the maximum size is 1,500 with the exception of the south one. The south receiving area could have a village up to 2,500. Now, when we have one receiving area under one ownership that is more than 1,500 acres,does it make sense to limit them in their development pattern of a village to 1,500 acres out of 2,000 acres? We Page 37 of 40 August 18, 2016 don't think that that makes sense. We would rather to see them be able to integrate that into one village. So we're suggesting that we remove the maximum size of the village in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. This is where we talked about modifying the density as well and increasing the cluster density up to two units per acre and increasing the village up to seven units per acre,and the basis for that is to support the multimodal objectives the county has and support transit. That's the number that the consensus says we need. And also changing the minimum density in a village. Right now the minimum density of a village is two. We're suggesting to go up to four, again,to try to achieve that higher mix of uses on residential units. Currently the villages are allowed to occur from 300 acres up to 1,500 acres, so what we're saying now is if you're 300 acres or more,you really need to do a village. You need to have a mix of uses in there. And recognizing that after our stakeholders read through some of these--and Bob mentioned the density of four units per acre--and it's been mentioned, is 300 acres the right minimum? Well,what I found is that through the market analysis that all of our great retail consultants do, 300 acres could support kind of the bottom tier of a neighborhood commercial center. So that 300 acre and the population that would occur in 300 acres, in addition to the catchment area that you would imagine that would surround that area, it could support,you know,the minimal neighborhood center. So is that,you know,the right one, or we need to have continued discussions if there's some concerns with our stakeholders that maybe that's not the right number, maybe the number needs to be different, but we're open to have that discussion. But that's what the basis for that is. On our transportation and mobility recommendations, we mentioned the need to analyze the roadway network, and we also need to analyze the capacity of our utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to give the court reporter a break. She's been at it for two hours now. And you had said about 15 minutes. It's already going into 30. So why don't we give her a 10-minute break, and we'll finish up here as soon as we give her a chance. (A brief recess was had.) MS. JENKINS: Go to the next slide, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS.JENKINS: Okay. So the last two slides we talk about development standards and the process. And we understand, Commissioner,that there's a concern with a simple majority approval and,you know, we're willing to, you know,continue to work on that process. That is the idea of the community,the stakeholders,wanting more certainty and more flexibility, right? So that's a response to that. Now,the second one is dealing with the businesses that would like to locate here and support that economic vitality, not only for the receiving areas,but for Golden Gate Estates as well. So if there is a business that wants to come to Collier County,first,is there a site available? We'd like to make sure that this program allows sites to be available, so we need to develop certain standards and criteria for that. And we'd--also what we heard is we need sites and we need a shorter approval process. So the idea there is it would be similar to a conditional use. So if they meet all the standards of that conditional use,that they might then be able to be approved by the hearing examiner. The third thing on this is creating a mixed-use index or impact fee index. So when we were doing our interviews and our outreach,of course,you know,the thing that you all hear the most and the county hears the most, it was documented very well in Opportunity Naples report, is we have the highest impact fees in the state,and it makes it hard to compete with those business that want to locate here in Collier County. So what we're suggesting--and when we met with the county's consultants for the impact fee-- is that there have been other communities that have successfully created a mixed-use impact fee. So that would be an impact fee that would be applicable to the villages,and that could potentially provide a cost reduction to those villages 10 to 30 percent, but we need to further study that. So we're just--at this point we're recommending that we initiate a study to see if the impact fee for mixed-use development would be something to benefit this area and also, again, be an incentive--another incentive to do mixed-use over the cluster development. Final slide here, I think. When we talked about the health index in Collier County, one of the tools Page 38 of 40 August 18, 2016 that's been being used throughout the nation now is this health impact statement. And it's used from full mixed-use projects all the way down to new travel corridors;they're using these health impact assessments. So the idea here is to explore with the Collier County Health Department the idea of these health impact statements. They're very well-funded through grants and other mechanisms now through the CDC and others, but what we would suggest is, is there an opportunity for the health department to provide information and inform the Planning Commission and the staff by running a health index assessment on any new project. Is that valuable to you as information? We're not saying that we're putting it on the developer to create that, but it might be a tool that we can use with the health department to further measure the health impacts to Collier County residents through these developments. The second point here is kind of the catchall;that we realize that there are many standards that are currently in the Growth Management Plan that don't necessarily belong there because they're design standards. They really belong in the LDC. We need to make those changes. There are other changes that will need to be made in the Growth Management Plan or in the LDC on these development standards based on the direction that we receive from the Board of County Commissioners. And it's particularly that one idea of density. You know,how much density do we want to support in these villages areas; you know,is it meeting the objectives of the other things we're trying to accomplish in Collier County? So if that changes,then there's going to be,you know,a series of modifications both within the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. But we certainly want to make sure that we make those changes to support new businesses out in the rural fringe area in the villages as well. Finally,there were lots of great ideas shared through the public workshops,but we just don't--we didn't have enough time in our six months of studying this to develop any type of incentives for these. So we'd like to just make you aware of them and let you know that we'd like to continue to explore these ideas if there are any incentives that we can come up with to support things such as flowways,that Kris mentioned before,through North Belle Meade area or the south area. Are there incentives for solar power, zero-net water use and other things? So there's still a lot of good ideas, but at this point we don't have enough information on these things to make an initial recommendation on this other than we can study these further if it's something that's approved. So the program economics,we've already went through, and that just kind of wraps it up to date. But I think Kris mentioned that,you know,when we go to the Board,we need direction on those big ideas because it's going to flow through the rest of the Growth Management Plan amendments. And, so, if you-all have any thoughts on that, on,you know,the TDR bank,the mitigation bank,the density,we'd like to hear that; we'd like to share it with our Growth Management Oversight Committee who's meeting September 1st and would be interested in your thoughts as well if you have any additional ones that you haven't shared yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody from the--Diane or Karen, have you got anything you'd like to add? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,no. We meet September 1st, so I don't think we can give you anything yet at this time. MR. VAN LENGEN: Our GMOC meets at 3 o'clock; so if possible, if you want to run over there after your meeting, it may be available. But just one final comment I wanted to make was just to thank you very much for allowing us to present this both to you and to your listening public and to also extend an invitation that--a lot of this material is very complicated, some of the ideas that are being presented are complicated, what's existing is complicated enough. Any of the listening public, any commissioners who wish to come in for one-on-ones, we're always available. Give us a call, drop in; we would love to discuss these ideas with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I do have a lot of questions, and I know where you operate out of, so I will stop by. Page 39 of 40 August 18, 2016 COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll spend my time with you when it's a little more different, so thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No reason to adjourn because we're done. Thank you. MR.VAN LENGEN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:12 p.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 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 40 of 40 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Colter County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20160001865, CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) *APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Arthrex, Inc. Reinhold Schmieding, President, Director 1370 Creekside Boulevard Naples,FL 34108 AGENTS: D. Wayne Arnold Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs,FL 34134 Naples,FL 34103 *NOTE: The complete property ownership information is contained in Exhibit 1 of the application. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)consider amending Ordinance Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), as amended, by increasing the allowable square footage in the Industrial Commercial District by 166,000 square feet for a total of 716,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses and increasing the acreage from 41.60 to 49.90 net acres; by amending the Business District to increase the allowable square footage of floor area from 260,000 square feet to 294,000 square feet including increasing from 200,000 square feet to 242,000 square feet of office uses and decreasing from 60,000 to 50,000 square feet of retail uses; by amending the Industrial Commerce District to allow parcels west of Goodlette-Frank CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 1 of 30 .740 t4cJjj: m15o '141406.III Z..... aa� �®� 7 d E V ',��• „ e $ ti' e,,F® �v .-4, -- ..-1E1.. O °/ J ' " r, I ;1,: : ;' ( . . : All I1 f Es a 3o p =jrl p , I/� m�1111 CZ) ,,1: N Z-3 - - .. ilklipilli . _l� vat 4i.. 1.4d-..••--- -=•,, '. cs-07, , )1 ',.`; 611.1MtOolv, c\I ��f, 000k ®00 0 ci. , 0 0 ,',; .' �`' 00 co cs,2 ��' � '0i �E, ®0�®„ .'' 0-40 v®®ems' ®��ROOM ill Nairn111 1 ' ao ggo i lisp �,,, co JJ � z CI- a. i N a N E a� E Z § 0 I. Z N da JNI11fld liladL11V C U O Oa N LU E 0) V cc IL J ❑ a) Q. U E Cl.cu ----... k4%4ftkk::Y C E ca Ea �i %7''As. j[ N I—, 4 - !••ii O x U r ce z,iJ a )p N 1I!welwel I c co z w a a LIQ II!gJ PUeA E E U O 0 N4 I ___ `;;;, glil EL /PI � � ; � le ill � � — AN r/ 4aav�noe xaaHiav`r" Ili, pif 0. ;s silI fif f ID { 8�7 r'.? + ?` }iii rob :1 ;t` 1 � Q� �'i'� j a t 00 v I21 —pi,,,..i../0 o ffw1O f%s`< v n2/ o« II giali j m linj � fr. i Co mb n , i 5 f II2/ c r{{;i °,Si. 05 ;/ 1 1 t` i) A ::' (( e t I 1 I IS,.SfLr% y j.• t '\, _ -_7't-.' ___ Cl-PIN!RIOOE'C �IINNAAGE EABEMINTj t=�ltif_In it I,,j r X1'1 — 'j I�-)il( -- - - i7 l nil f4iI. I -� I-'LL EMWmR to m b i� Off (G7N.,...\-.0•••_7(1?i> •• t nn w� ir 11 I I J r, - T __. 5>c :.: + _ .. ..._ .-.._... r_ v...... .�.-..-rte.. ✓�3 aOODI.TTItiFRANK ROAD :-`— . ---------._..._-._...-..^` `\ N;/I/1 li i I -. gilifi . 77.7? i \ I'lig/ !.%.,( ,q. , ii W ' iri g lig/ ! ° 111111 tiii ;;.)1 f 0 A n1( T: 0 ti ii Qco ao i c$ cr W�q �� % o j i g' 1 H Z li 3 11 asa \ ^� ` t , 1a it 1 " 1 I 1 1 n 21 8 i i r' ; O 3 amo 3aisri33_ao '— j J+ f O 9.37 W 03 1- C Ria o Z j i yy; i > ( i' oI ` --- ...._ 23 r 1 j Q {�/p� VV4 o o en i'{e •("C7r I t:A ..I p g C °I .g i t,,(40,f.:5� R7 I I III 1 NS 0 C N 3 a A. I ;M(::“M I t �AA� (I 11 °° $ � � i I 0 0 e v -- I Pi z W A — 1 I IiI o� a �aW —�_ 11 II II It II p 11 i 8 Peg E o ° a� „�o yam P. V w 0p sam ar o 11- pi. g~ 15; 0 mwy D nLooe �1 REVISED 09/02/2018 �.. �� p itaisaimeat •--- Z o ��!i.7 frosOlinnr `arc`!- . .r. ..: «M.:::�a Road to increase the zoned height from 35 feet to 50 feet except for Tract 5 on the Master Plan which shall have a zoned height of 185 and actual height of 205 feet; by amending the Business District to allow Tract 9 on the Master Plan east of Goodlette-Frank Road to increase the zoned height to 75 feet and actual height to 85 feet; by increasing the overall floor area ratio from .35 to .45; by reducing the preserve requirement and by adding a deviation to allow a portion of the preserve to be off-site; by adding a deviation to allow Tract 5 on the Master Plan to be eligible for the County's architectural deviation process. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located south of Immokalee Road and both east and west of Goodlette Frank Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 106 acres. (Please see the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Creekside PUD was originally approved in Ordinance Number 97-51, and it along with two subsequent ordinances which were repealed with the adoption of ordinance Number: 06-50. The current Ordinance Number 16-05 was approved on March 22, 2016. The petitioner is now proposing the following changes with this amendment: • Increase allowable square footage in the (I/C)IndustriallCommerce District from 550,000 square feet to 716,000 square feet of gross floor area. • The size of the I/C District will also increase from 41.6 acres to 49.90 net acres. t • Increase allowable square footage in the (B) Business District from 260,000 square feet to 294,000 square feet of floor area. Of this total, the area allocated to office uses will increase from 200,000 square feet to 244,000 square feet and the area for retail uses will decrease from 60,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet. • Increase overall project floor area ratio (FAR)from .35 to .45, excluding parking garages. • All additional square footage proposed will be for medical related land uses (No additional land uses are proposed). • Revise PUD Section 3.4.D to increase allowable"Zoned"building height for parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road from 35 feet to 50 feet. Facilities located on Tract 5 shall have a maximum zoned height of 185 feet and an actual height of 205 feet. • Revise PUD Section 4.4.D.a to increase allowable building height for Business Tract 9 from a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet to a zoned height of 75 feet and an actual height of 85 feet. • Conceptual Master Plan has been revised as follows: o Modify internal vehicular circulation by vacating a portion of Creekside Boulevard and routing the traffic around Tracts 4 and S via Creekside Street, Creekside Parkway, and Arthrex Boulevard. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 4 of 30 o Replace minor project sign at Creekside Boulevard and Goodlette-Frank Road with major project sign as provided for in PUD Section 2.20.B. o Increase acreage of Business District Tract 9 located east of Goodlette-Frank r. Road and decrease preserve area. o Rectify land use summary acreage table and add deviation locations. • Request two new project deviations: o Revise PUD Section 4.5 to add a third deviation as follows: Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(a), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied off-site for properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size to allow off-site preservation where the on-site preserve requirement is more than 2 acres and where the off-site preserve proposed is less than 2 acres, to permit an off-site preserve area of 1.35± acres. The area impacted by the expansion of the `B' District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank Road. o Revise PUD Section 3.4.F to add a fourth deviation to require all I/C office building to meet the requirements of LDC Section 5.05.08, except for buildings located on Tract 5 which shall be eligible for the County's architectural deviation process. This exemption is listed as a deviation in PUD Section 3.5.2. Other PUD Sections have been revised to remove language that is redundant with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), to clarify federal and state permit responsibility. The Master Plan has been revised to show the location of the signage deviation. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: SR-84 then (Collier's Reserve), 506± acres of mixed-use: 61.4± acres commercial, 385 residential units, 0.87 units per acre,Maximum Height 8-Stories or 80 feet, whichever is greater,zoned Collier Tract 22 PUD; and a 61±acre (North Collier Hospital),Maximum Height 5-Stories and shall not exceed 80 feet, (Zone B/Phase IT') shall not exceed 100 feet—All other structures shall not exceed 100 feet, zoned Collier Health Center PUD 1 East: Collier County Utilities Water Plant,Maximum Zoned Height:50 feet, zoned Industrial; a 17.74± acre commercial and medical park, Maximum Height: 45 feet, zoned SW Professional Health Park PUD South: Collier County Utilities Water Plant,Maximum Zoned Height: 50 feet, zoned Industrial; and 2,104± acres of mixed-use: 80± acres commercial/industrial, 8,600 residential units, Maximum Zoned Height: 50 feet for the multi family Tract, 80 feet for the Cultural Center Tract, 100 feet for the Commercial Tract, zoned Pelican Marsh DRI West: 35.24± acre Business Park,Maximum Zoned Height: 75 feet for Parcel A, zoned The Naples Daily News BPUD(Business Park PUD) CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 5 of 30 5 'Al � SUBJECT �v ,* a ` •. M a ii;—"'"'" PROPERTY ;°VP � �y - �, ,. > .�►' "' ifiliat A; • C-waa.0a tl+C•V Y 1,...,-�►'�.7 k � 9I d. �"? C , r ,. _ r . ' i . - - 21 . te t4.1... rA. — . , '''.1' le• lit, 1 .�s y+M aj °gym y J w i - tis'telt tlunly,„p.,I,Anr•a....4 V....N4 # .+5 .1 ... AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD amendment and has made the following determination: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The existing PUD, which allows a variety of commercial and industrial uses, was approved in 1997 by Ordinance No. 97-51; FLUE consistency for that approval is contained in the Statement of Compliance (most of the site was previously zoned I, Industrial). The PUD was amended in 2006 by Ordinance No. 06-50 to subtract+_3.11 acres at the northwest corner of the PUD so that it could be incorporated into the existing Naples Daily News Business Park PUD. The PUD was amended in 2013 to add hotel/motel to the list of principal uses permitted within the Industrial/Commerce District and the Business District of the PUD; and add assisted living facilities (ALF), independent living units, skilled nursing units, continuing care retirement communities, and intermediate care facilities, to the list of restricted principal uses permitted within the Industrial/Commerce District and the Business District of the PUD. Additionally, the amendment increased the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from .35 to .6 for the proposed new uses; eliminated the maximum FAR restriction CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 6 of 30 to individual parcels; added operational requirements for the proposed group housing uses; and, increased the maximum building height to those parcels of the PUD located east of Goodlette- Frank Road. No changes were made to the overall approved intensity (building square feet). These amendments were deemed consistent with the FLUE based upon certain policies under Objective 5, via the provision allowing medical offices and other similar uses within 1/4 mile of a major medical facility such as North Collier Hospital, and via the Urban designation allowance for group housing uses. The PUD was amended on March 22, 2016 by Ordinance #16-05. The Ordinance authorized reducing the allowable square footage in the Industrial Commercial District by 70,000 square feet for a total of 550,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses; by amending the Business District to add permitted uses from the Industrial and the General Commercial C-4 zoning districts; by amending the Business District to increase the allowable square footage of floor area from 150,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet of office uses and from 40,000 to 60,000 square feet of retail uses;by amending the business district to allow group housing east of Goodlette-Frank Road at the southeast quadrant of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road and to increase the zoned height to 75 feet and actual height to 85 feet; by amending the business district to allow a hotel at the southeast corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road and to reduce the building setback from Immokalee Road to 350 feet; and by adding a sign deviation regarding the location of directory signage; and revising the master plan to depict the sign deviation for the CPUD property. These amendments were deemed consistent with the FLUE based upon Policy 5.1. The proposed use additions are allowed by the existing Future Land Use Designation Description - Section I.- Urban Designation 11., which states "Support medical facilities — such as physicians'offices, medical clinics, medical treatment centers, medical research centers and medical rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies—provided the dominant use is medical related and the site is located within 1/4 mile of existing or approved hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and traumas, such as, but not limited to, North Collier Hospital. The distance shall be measured from the nearest point of the tract that the hospital is located on or approved for, to the project boundaries of the support medical facilities. Approval of such support medical facilities may be granted concurrent with the approval of new hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and traumas. Stipulations to ensure that the construction of the support medical facilities is concurrent with hospitals or medical centers shall be determined at the time of zoning approval. Support medical facilities are not allowed under this provision if the hospital or medical center is a short-term leased facility due to the potential for relocation. " is The new square footages proposed within the PUD amendment are restricted to Health Services, medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), Medical Laboratories, Research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-8092, 8099). To ensure the new square footage is restricted to these uses, a provision has been added to the PUD within the Statement of Compliance, section 2, which restricts all additional square footage approved will be medical related uses, such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment centers, medical research centers and medical rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies. Therefore the additional square footage requested within this PUD amendment shall all be authorized by the above FLUE Urban Designation of support medical facilities within 1/4 mile of an existing hospital. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 7 of 30 FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of the total review of the petition. Regarding FLUE Policies 7.1-7.4, pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities, no changes are proposed to PUD access, interconnection or sidewalk provisions, and the PUD must comply with open space requirements of the LDC. Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning stafffinds the proposed PUD amendment consistent with the FLUE. Economic Element (EE): Collier County's Growth Management Plan contains an Economic Element, which sets forth policies and guidelines for consideration of economic matters in relation to overall planning and growth management. The single Goal of the Element is, "Collier County will achieve and maintain a diversified and stable economy by providing a positive business climate that assures maximum employment opportunities while maintaining a high quality of life." Policy 1.2 of the Economic Element establishes that Collier County will, "support the opportunity for development and establishment of hospitals, nursing homes and additional medical related research and manufacturing facilities in order to promote a continuum of care to enhance the quality of life throughout the County." Objective 3 of the Economic Element indicates that Collier County will, "support programs which are designed to promote and encourage the recruitment of new industry as well as the expansion and retention of existing industries in order to diversify the County's economic base. " The proposed project with additional 198,000 square footage of dedicated medical and medical research related square footage for the expansion of the existing Arthex facility at Creekside Commerce Park will further the Goal of the Economic Element of the GMP and promote a specific policy and Objective contained within the Element. Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD amendment consistent with the EE. Transportation Element(TE): In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the 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 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 8 of 30 not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where 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. " The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then applicable 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately 2,353 PM peak hour trips,with 384 PM peak hour net new trips on the adjacent roadway links, as follows: Roadway Link 2015 AUIR Current Peak 2015 Remaining Existing LOS Hour Peak Capacity Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction Immokalee Road Tamiami Trail to C 3,100/West 1,082 (CR 846) Goodlette-Frank Road(6 lane divided) Immokalee Road Goodlette-Frank D 3,100/East 702 (CR 846) to Airport Road (6 lane divided) Immokalee Road Airport Road to D 3,100/West 216 (CR 846) Livingston Road (6 lane divided) Goodlette-Frank Immokalee Road D 1,000/North 136 Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road(2 lane undivided) CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 9 of 30 Airport Road Immokalee Road C 2,200/North 997 to Vanderbilt Beach Road (4 lane divided) Tamiami Trail Wiggins Pass D 3,100/North 534 North(US 41) Road to Immokalee Road (6 lane divided) Tamiami Trail Immokalee Road C 3,100/North 1,021 North(US 41) to Vanderbilt Beach Road(6 lane divided) Based on the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Staff however notes that Table 6 of the TIS indicates that the proposed development exceeds the peak directional, peak hour capacity on Immokalee Rd. (CR 846) between Airport Pulling and Livingston Road within the 5 year LOS projection. This road segment has a capacity of 3,100 trips and the projected 2021 peak directional, peak hour with this project is 3,244 trips. This project is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) boundary and is therefore subject to Policy 5.6 of the GMP. This policy requires any new development exceeding LOS levels within a TCMA designated area must provide documentation that at least two Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are provided/used. The specific TDM's for this development shall be provided at time of Site Development Plan SDP or SDPA review. 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. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans,are sought. 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 the CPUD ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. Additionally staff has included developer CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 10 of 30 commitments to specifically address additional operational concerns related to impacts resulting from the proposed development. Based upon the above analysis, Transportation Planning staff finds the proposed PUD amendment consistent with the TE subject to the two additional developer commitments to be added to Section 2.16 of the PUD as follows: J. The owner, its successors, or assigns, shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk within the Florida Power &Light (FPL) easement, subject to approval by FPL on the west side of Creekside Street and the south side of Creekside Parkway along/within folio # 29331193049 to connect to the existing sidewalk along Creekside Parkway. The sidewalk is to be completed prior to the issuance of a • Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan or no later than one year following FPL's concurrence. K. Due to the removal of a portion of the Creekside Boulevard minor collector roadway and re-routing of traffic, the owner, its successors, or assigns, shall design and construct the re-routed roadway to adequately accommodate AASHTO Interstate Semitrailer(WB-62) standards and provide access to existing postal service truck traffic prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The design and construction shall be at no cost to Collier County. Any additional right-of-way easements required by County for a public road • pursuant to County standards shall be dedicated to the County, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances without County maintenance responsibility. Such dedication shall occur prior to the issuance of the certification of occupancy for the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan and prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The owner, its successor, or assigns, shall also accept ownership of the entire length of Creekside Boulevard with all maintenance responsibilities. Note: Operational mitigation will be the subject of a companion developer agreement. The proposed business points will be provided via a supplemental staff report memo. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A deviation from the LDC provision for off-site retention of native vegetation has been requested by the applicant. This LDC provision is also provided for in the CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10), a deviation from which is allowed pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13). The applicable CCME Policy is provided below: • CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10) The County shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority as described in Policy 6.1.1 (4)than the land being impacted, or other CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 11 of 30 appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program, as required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to purchase and manage native vegetative communities off-site. The land development regulations shall provide criteria to determine when this alternative will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions: a. The amount,type, rarity, and quality of the native vegetation on site; b. The presence of conservation lands adjoining the site; c. The presence of listed species and consideration of Federal and State agency technical assistance; d. The type of land use proposed, such as,but not limited to, affordable housing; e. The size of the preserve required to remain on site is too small to ensure that the preserve can remain functional; and f. Right of Way acquisitions for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition area. The land development regulations shall include a methodology to establish the monetary value, land donation, or other appropriate method of compensation to ensure that native vegetative communities not preserved on-site will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site. • CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13) The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements of sub-sections 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 of this Policy, and shall adopt land development regulations to set forth the process for obtaining a deviation. The regulations shall allow for the granting of a deviation by the appropriate review board after a public hearing, and for the granting of a deviation administratively. The County shall consider the amount and type of native vegetation and the presence of listed species in determining whether the granting of a deviation requires a public hearing, or may be granted administratively. The County may grant a deviation if: a. County, Federal, or State agencies require that site improvements be located in areas which result in an inability to meet the provisions of this Policy, or b. On or off-site environmental conditions are such that the application of one or more provisions of this Policy is not possible or will result in a preserve area of lesser quality, or c. The strict adherence to these provisions will not allow for the implementation of other Plan policies that encourage beneficial land uses. • GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), which allows for deviations from the GMP provisions identified in Policy 6.1.1 (13) was adopted by Ord. 07-16 on 1-25-07, based upon the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Beneficial land uses are not defined in the GMP or LDC; it is at the discretion of the BCC to determine beneficial land uses. A specific use has not been provided for the impact of 2 acres of platted Preserve#3 existing onsite. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 12 of 30 ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The property owner is requesting to allow 2 acres of existing preserve to be impacted, which requires a deviation. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the project requires review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since a deviation to environmental standards of the LDC has been requested. Revised Environmental Data (Environmental Supplement September 2016) was received after environmental portions of the staff report were written. Acreages and information may not be consistent between the staff report and environmental supplement. Approximately 7.53 acres of preserve have been platted within the PUD. Per the Creekside Commerce Park CPUD, preserve requirements were determined to include 4.1 acres of uplands and 2.9 acres of wetlands for a total of 7 acres of County required preserve as shown on the existing PUD Master Plan. Pursuant to the LDC and GMP, fifteen percent(7 acres) of the native vegetation is required to be retained for the PUD as originally set aside with the PUD. The request to impact 2 acres of preserve to allow for expansion of one of the commercial parcels and reconfiguration of the stormwater management system will result in a reduction of approximately 2 acres of the minimum required preserve onsite. The native vegetation acreages are as follows: PUD Required Preserves 7 ac Existing Platted Preserves 7.53 ac Proposing Impact to onsite Preserves 2 ac Proposed PUD Amendment provides: Onsite Preserve 5.65 ac(includes 0.68 created preserve) Off-site Preserve 1.35 ac Total PUD required 7 ac Preserve acreages from Plat OR BK 29,PG 57-58;OR BK 35,PG 43-44;OR BK 54,PG 84- 86. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 13 of 30 Existing Preserves 1, 2, 3, 4 Four preserves are platted within the Creekside PUD,two on each side of Goodlette-Frank Road. See "Existing Native Habitat Map" and the "Proposed Native Habitat Map" for reference within the Environmental Supplement. The location of these preserves is shown on the PUD master plan and the exhibit below. For discussion purposes, staff has created the exhibit below which has assigned a number to each preserve starting at the furthest preserve on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road: 1. Furthest west is a 0.81 acre preserve containing a willow marsh transitioning to a laurel oak forest. 2. West of Goodlette-Frank Road is a 1.68acre preserve containing a highly disturbed remnant cabbage palm/hardwood forest which appears to not have been re-vegetated with native species when exotic vegetation(Brazilian pepper) was removed. Much of the area within the former cabbage palm/hardwood forest consists solely of exotic vegetation interspersed with areas of bare ground covered with weeds. This area is proposed to be expanded with the addition of 0.68 with this PUD amendment. 3. East of Goodlette-Frank Road is the 3.52 acre oak pine woodland/wetland forest preserve proposed to be impacted as part of the PUD amendment. A vegetation inventory for the oak pine woodland/wetland forest preserve is included in the environmental data for the project and consists of a mature forest free of exotic vegetation. 4. Furthest east is a 1.52 acre preserve consisting of pine flatwoods along the eastern edge of the PUD. The preserves on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road represent the highest quality native habitats on site. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 14 of 30 Creekside Commerce Park CPU D Existing Preserves Immokalee RD „ t♦7s„. -'-- —— .. ..-.''.... I it tr,r4 il,‘ . 1 ergillnii ,i 1, as e §. If1 ; II ,,: I . -i -11 tii?* is , 1 ---.- — . it r ax 1 '. � _.._ � Y ' 4 t 1. . t — 11‘ 1,--:17,444 1 s a, 6 \ i . ...., ....,.... Q IR Off Fill I E i ii 1 1' • E ! t 4r,Sik ra.. ''''P''m""'"'"'"lms"--""'„ '\, ..-, Ll o Preserve#1-0.81 acres ( W Legend o Preserve#2-1.88 acres 1 �Edsthp Presenes o Preserve#3.3.52 acres , ! ”.N - �� ,fil t, . I �e 1 Cneltside Comme ce PaN CPUD 0 Preserve#41.52 acres 0 100 200 400 600M�rY t � Feet u��eoWe � �.., �_Js rtr •«." :"�,.. I me ptrverw.w nrp Vfat MP g" 1 t Pictures of Preserves Below are pictures of the area proposed for expansion (Preserve #2) and impacts (Preserve #3) and staffs recommended area for impact (Preserve #2) as discussed in the Recommendation section on page 18 of this staff report. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 15 of 30 Preserve #2 (see pictures below): This preserve consists mostly of exotic vegetation interspersed with areas of bare ground covered with weeds. Woman's Tongue(Albizia Lebbeck) is prevalent throughout many portions of the preserve. The northern portion has some cabbage palms with a weedy understory. t fj r 'f . "�0,((, t* i1i 4. View of the preserve from Goodlette-Frank Looking from the west into the preserve — Road with a canopy of the invasive prohibited weedy invasive plants, including Woman's exotic tree, Woman's Tongue (Albizia Tongue. lebbeck). .„, , ,„,, . i .a 4.' 404 f 1 Vi 1 , f p""• _ ,•'', i. ii ': ),,,,, , ; k • View looking from the west into the preserve View looking north at the canopy of Woman's — area devoid of native vegetation with bare Tongue. ground and weedy invasive plants. Preserve #3: A full explanation of this native habitat is detailed in the Environmental Supplement provided by Turrell, Hall & Associates. These areas contain Pine Flatwoods, Oak Pine community, and Wetland Forested area all with little to no exotics (see report Environmental Supplement). CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 16 of 30 Preserve#3 see s ictures below) ,r► - • 4, .1.).A . ..% 14. r . '4601 ,;*• 1 ' .01.....„t, „„ N--:- 4 • i i 4 ii , �i , `.,� Ill $, yi. ,' �, ik e!• 'i�:�, .0 {+ ,mss. e.r ' View from sidewalk on Creekside Blvd E View from the north of Preserve #3 looking looking east—Oak Pine community. south from the berm. . P bill*. �rr i .c Lt, . a° Or 4 t4 r T a'4,, 0. 44.0w.' 1 ' View from sidewalk on Creekside Blvd E View from the northeast of Preserve#3 looking south—Oak Pine community. looking southwest from the berm CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA 20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 17 of 30 Nc Panoramic picture—view from the north of Preserve#3 looking south from the berm. From left to right(east to west)the following are shown: south part of preserve#4, lake, preserve#3. Stormwater Conveyance Preserve #1 & #3 are connected to the stormwater management system. In addition to being platted as a preserve, Preserve #3 which is proposed to be impacted by 2 acres as part of the PUD amendment has a recorded drainage easement over much of it(OR Book 3117, Pages 3123-3135). Current standards would not allow for stormwater within a preserve unless the preserve meets the LDC criteria to allow stormwater in a preserve. This drainage easement in the preserve is to Collier County. According to the Stormwater Section Manager,this easement is for drainage of the basin for portions of Victoria Park, not Goodlette-Frank Road. Even though current standards would not allow stormwater in a preserve, this was previously permitted under previous regulations and therefore is allowed as non-conforming per LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.h.ii.j. Recommendation A review of existing preserves within the PUD and the off-site native vegetation retention provisions of the LDC show the highly disturbed remnant cabbage palm/hardwood forest within existing Preserve #2 (west side of Goodlette-Frank Road) to already meet the provisions for off- site retention of native vegetation without the need for a deviation; staff recommends that any impacts to existing preserves for the PUD be limited to this preserve. The applicable LDC sections are provided below: LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f. Off-site vegetation retention. i. Applicability. A property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for only the following situations and subject to restrictions listed below. f) Existing or proposed preserves with 75 percent or more coverage with exotic vegetation. Existing preserves not previously overrun with this type vegetation and which arrive at this state due to lack of management of the preserve shall mitigate off site at a ratio of 2 to 1. g) Created preserves which do not meet the success criteria in 3.05.07 H.1.e.viii or where preserves have not been planted in a manner which mimics a natural plant community. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 18 of 30 Stipulation: The off-site preserve location is not being proposed as part of this petition and has not been reviewed or approved by staff. The East Gateway petition was approved with a stipulation by the BCC; staff recommends the same stipulation be included in the PUD document: The 1.35 acre off-site preserve shall not be used for mitigation to other agencies including, but not limited to the SFWMD or Army Corps of Engineers. An off-site preserve shall be provided in accordance with the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of the first Site Development Plan or subdivision plat approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan and is recommending approval subject to the stipulations in staffs recommendations section of this report and the PUD document developer commitment section. Utility Review: The Public Utilities Department staff has reviewed this petition and the PUD is located within the CCWSD (Collier County Water and Sewer District). Adequate capacity is currently available for water and wastewater services. However, a supplemental County Utility Easement (CUE) is needed to construct an irrigation quality (IQ) main along the eastern segment of Creekside Boulevard from Goodlette-Frank Road to Creekside Street and along Creekside Street, terminating at Immokalee Rd. The segment of the CUE between Creekside Parkway and Immokalee Road must be at least 15 feet wide. This width may be reduced along the rights-of-way with CUE overlay depending on the final alignment of the IQ main. Therefore, staff is recommending approval subject to the following stipulation: • A 15 foot wide CUE shall be provided at the time of or before the applicable development order and at a mutually agreed location deemed acceptable by Collier County. Zoning Services Section Analysis: Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning action is approved,as it relates to the requirement or limitations set forth in the FLUE of the GMP. The proposed additional square footage is restricted to health services, medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), Medical Laboratories, research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-8092, 8099). To ensure the new square footage is restricted to these uses, a provision has been added to the PUD within the Statement of Compliance, section 2, which restricts all additional approved square footage to Support medical facilities — such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment centers, medical research centers and medical rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies. Therefore the additional square footage requested within this PUD amendment shall all be authorized by the above FLUE Urban Designation of support medical facilities within 1/4 mile of an existing hospital. Zoning staff finds the proposed additional square footage that are allocated to health services, medical clinics/offices and medical laboratories and research and rehabilitative centers to be compatible with the existing neighborhood commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses and intensities. The petitioner also proposes to increase maximum "Zoned" building height for parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road from 35 feet to 50 feet. However, facilities located on Tract 5 shall have a CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 19 of 30 maximum zoned height of 185 feet and an actual height of 205 feet. In addition, the petitioner proposed to increase allowable building height for Business Tract 9 from a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet to a zoned height of 75 feet and an actual height of 85 feet. Because the GMP and the LDC doesn't provide a maximum building height, a GMP and/or LDC • amendment is not required. In addition, it is the applicant's contention that additional square footage and building height, while creating a more intense development, are off-set by the architectural design of the 205-foot tall building and its location internal to the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundaries. Given the project's proximity to the Mixed-Use Activity Center Sub-district, staff notes that these locations are intended to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning where traffic impacts and intense development can readily be accommodated. It is also anticipated that these locations will accommodate tall commercial office buildings. Even though there are no developments that have been approved with a similar maximum building height, the proposed 205-foot tall office building is approximately 1,000 feet away from developed residential subdivisions. The line-of-site renderings prepared by the applicant show that much of the lower portions of the proposed 205-foot tall building will be obscured by the existing vegetation and other existing structures. However, the upper portions of this structure will be visible from the nearby residential developments in Pelican Marsh and Collier's Reserve. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the • following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. Staff in the Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as mixed-use with residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional lands, is 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 20 of 30 At the time the subject property was rezoned to a CPUD, it was deemed to be of sufficient size that it did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD amendment doesn't change this finding. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to change the areas of the Industrial Commercial District and Business District to increase the square footage for medical industrial research and development and medical and general office, which are targeted industry groups in Collier County. This amendment also includes increases to the maximum building heights as noted above. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will add 166,000 square feet to the I/C District and 32,000 square feet to the B District which will result in additional traffic on the adjacent road network. Staff's analysis indicates that there is sufficient capacity on the County's collector and arterial road network to accommodate the traffic resulting from the proposed increase in floor area. The proposed increase in the maximum building height is greater than the approved maximum heights for the surrounding developments which are as follows: • Collier Tract 22 PUD (Collier's Reserve)permits a maximum height of 8-Stories or 80 feet, whichever is greater; • Collier Health Center PUD (North Collier Hospital)permits a maximum height of 5-Stories and shall not exceed 80 feet, (Zone B/Phase IV) shall not exceed 100 feet — All other structures shall not exceed 100 feet, • Collier County Utilities Division Water Plant(Zoned Industrial)permits a maximum zoned Height of 50 feet; • Southwest Professional Health Park PUD permits a maximum zoned height of 45 feet; • Pelican Marsh PUD/DRI permits a maximum zoned height of 50 feet for the multi family Tract, 80 feet for the Cultural Center Tract,100 feet for the Commercial Tract;and • Naples Daily News BPUD permits a maximum zoned height of 75 feet for Parcel A. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPDD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 21 of 30 The applicant contends that additional square footage and building height, while creating a more intense development, are off-set by the architectural design of the building and location internal to the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundaries. The line-of-site renderings prepared by the applicant show that much of the lower portions of the proposed 205-foot tall building being obscured by the existing vegetation and other existing structures. However, the upper portions of this structure will be visible from the nearby residential developments in Pelican Marsh and Collier's Reserve, and staff is unable to ascertain if the proposed building height will adversely influence living conditions in the surrounding neighborhoods. Although, the applicant has stated that the County doesn't have a maximum height limit and has approved other tall buildings near residential subdivisions. Based upon the above findings, staff is of the opinion that the proposed change should not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the CPUD ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore,the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 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. The increased zoned and actual building heights as described in the application should not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. is 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However, staff is unable to ascertain if the proposed building height will adversely influence property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 22 of 30 Properties around this property are already mostly developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 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 but would not accommodate the proposed expansion. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or county. However, it should be noted that the proposed 205-foot tall office building will be visible from the nearby residential developments in Pelican Marsh and Collier's Reserve. The residents from these communities that attended the Neighborhood Information Meeting expressed concern or objected to the increase in building height as being out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. 15. Whether it is 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. This petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and that it represents an expansion of an existing use on the subject property. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 23 of 30 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the proposed transportation impacts are increased and are consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety,and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas,traffic and access,drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The Creekside Commerce Park is an established business park which has been developed with a variety of light industrial, commercial, and office uses. The proposed commercial and industrial uses are compatible with the existing development within the subject PUD. The project would also be required to comply with County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Therefore,the site is suitable for the proposed 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. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. The development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 24 of 30 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 be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The currently approved development, landscaping, and buffering standards were determined to be compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself when the PUD was approved. However, the proposed 205-foot tall (actual height) office building will be visible from the nearby residential developments such as in Pelican Marsh and Collier's Reserve. Some residents from these communities have objected to the increase in building height as being out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and thereby not a compatible building height. Even though the applicant contends that the compatibility of the proposed building height is subjective, they have located the proposed 205-foot tall office building to be located within the Arthrex campus site on Tract 5, as depicted on the master plan, which is buffered from the external residential developments by the existing vegetation and other existing commercial/industrial buildings. In addition, the applicant contends that the architectural design and orientation/massing is intended lessen the visual impact from the nearby residential communities. Staff concurs that the restrictions and limitations noted above should improve the internal and external compatibility of the proposed amendment. Because Collier County doesn't have a maximum height limitation, the proposed 205-foot tall office building is not inconsistent with any regulation in the GMP or LDC. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The existing open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. • 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The roadway infrastructure 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. Finally,the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plans and plat or site development plan, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject property does have the ability to support the proposed expansion. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 25 of 30 it 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 to replace a minor project sign at Creekside Boulevard and Goodlette- Frank Road with major project sign as provided for in PUD Section 2.20.B. In addition, the requested deviations (see below) must comply with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts as listed in LDC Section 2.03.06A. 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. Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more detailed description. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking two new deviations as noted below. Deviation#1: Approved Ordinance 13-23 Deviation#2: Approved Ordinance 16-05 New Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(a), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size to allow offsite preservation where the on- site preserve requirement is more than 2 acres and where the off-site preserve proposed is less than 2 acres, to permit an off-site preserve area of 1.35± acres. The area impacted by the expansion of the `B' District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank Road. Petitioner's Rationale: The Creekside Commerce Park is a business park located in the highly urbanized area of Collier County. Demand for business services and light industrial space in close proximity to the Naples Community Hospital and transportation corridors including US. 41 and I- 75. The proposed modification to the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan impacts an approximately 2± acre area which contains native upland and wetland vegetation. The Creekside Commerce Park was previously approved and required to preserve 71 acres. The proposed Master Plan reduces the on-site preserves to 5.651 acres, which will include a small re-created upland of 0.68±acres. The applicant has reviewed the proposed change with state regulatory agencies and they have offered no initial concern with the revisions to the preserve area. The revision to the preserve area will permit the expansion of the Business Tract and provide for a sufficient size to accommodate the increased square footage sought as part of this PUD amendment. The small existing preserve area is not connected to any flowway nor does it provide habitat for listed species. The applicant can provide off-site mitigation for the 1.35±acres of native vegetation in an area where it would be connected to a larger more contiguous area of native vegetation;providing a greater benefit to the community and environment. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: For commercial properties, a property owner may request that all or a portion of the onsite preserve requirement be satisfied off-site if the total on-site preserve requirement is less than two acres (LDC section 3.05.07 H.1.f). A deviation from this LDC CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 26 of 30 provision is required because the total on-site preserve requirement for the PUD is 7 acres, 5 acres greater than the threshold standard of 2 acres. The applicant is requesting that 1.35 acres be preserved off-site, leaving 5.65 acres on-site that includes 0.68 acres of preserve to be created onsite adjacent to the existing heavily disturbed upland Preserve #2 located west of Goodlette- Frank Road. In total, 2 acres of preserve are proposed to be impacted on site and the preserve proposed to be impacted,representing the highest quality native habitat on site. Previous requests for other projects/properties, for deviations from the criteria in the LDC for off- site retention of native vegetation have occurred through the PUD rezone and GMP amendment process and have mainly been for sites/preserves heavily impacted with exotic vegetation with no adjoining off-site preserves or undeveloped areas. As these previous projects included minimal off-site acreage requests and/or the onsite native vegetation areas were significantly impacted by exotic vegetation, staff supported the deviation requests. The preserve proposed for impact within Creekside PUD contains a mature forest not impacted with exotic vegetation and represents the highest quality native habitat within the PUD. The preserve to be impacted also contains a diverse assemblage of native vegetation including freshwater swamp, oak pine and xeric oak pine forests. The xeric scrub oak pine habitat, of which, is becoming increasingly rare in Collier County. Off-site retention of preserves to impact the highest quality native habitat on site does not meet the intent of CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10) and criteria in the LDC for off-site retention of preserves. Both xeric scrub and hardwood habitats are also either supported or required by the preserve selection and off-site preserve provisions of the GMP and LDC to be retained on-site. These provisions include CCME Policy 6.1.1 (4 & 10) and LDC sections 3.05.07 A.4 and 3.05.07 H.lIli. The area proposed for impact is currently a government required preserve to Collier County. Specifically, 3.05.07.H.l.f.ii.b. states: Preserves shall remain on-site if located contiguous to natural flowways required to be retained per the requirements of the SFWMD, natural water bodies, estuaries, government required preserves (not meeting the off-site preservation criteria herein), NRPAs, or contiguous to property designated for purchase by Conservation Collier or purchased by Conservation Collier, or contiguous to properties containing listed species nests, buffers, corridors and foraging habitat per the requirements or recommendations of the FFWCC or USFWS The preserve proposed for impact is an existing government required preserve. Therefore, the existing preserve proposed for impact is contiguous to a government required preserve. On-site preserves are beneficial land uses valued by the community and staff recommends not amending the PUD to allow for a reduction of the preserve containing the highest quality native habitat. A review of existing preserves within the PUD and the off-site native vegetation retention provisions • of the LDC show the highly disturbed remnant cabbage palm/hardwood forest within existing Preserve #2 (west side of Goodlette-Frank Road) to already meet the provisions for off-site retention of native vegetation without the need for a deviation. Staff recommends that any 1 reduction in preserve acreage for the PUD be limited to this preserve, New Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC section 5.05.08.F.4.a. VI. (b) that exempts multi-story buildings with a total gross building area of 20,000 square feet or more from qualifying for the CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 27 of 30 administrative architectural deviation process and compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for specific types of buildings, to allow general office and medical office that can be constructed on Tract 5 of the Master Plan to be eligible for this deviation process. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant indicates that all I/C office building shall meet the requirements of Section 5.05.08 of the LDC, except for buildings located on Tract 5 will be eligible for the County's architectural deviation process. This Tract is proposed to be redeveloped with a multi-story office building with supporting covered parking structure. Because of the structural and architectural features typically associated with a multi-story office building, certain architectural design requirements of Section 5.05.08 may need to be in the form of alternative design elements. Further, the LDC requires all sides of a standalone building within a PUD to be considered primary facades, and compliance on all four sides of the building to provide elements such as covered entries,porte-cochere is not practical. The applicant is proposing to construct a medical related multi-story office building and associated parking on the subject parcel, and to insure compliance to the greatest extent possible with the intent of the architectural and site design standards, the applicant proposes to address the architectural review through the deviation and alternate compliance process that has been established for other types of buildings. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. The architectural review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on August 30,2016. For further information,please see Attachment: "F"Transcripts of the Neighborhood Information Meeting. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on September 7, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDR-PL20160001865, Creekside Commerce Park PUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. A 15 foot wide CUE shall be provided at the time of or before the applicable development order and at a mutually agreed location deemed acceptable by Collier County. 2. Deny the proposed Deviation #3 for the off-site retention of the required preserve area. However, should the CCPC staff recommend approval of this deviation, then staff recommends the following: CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 28 of 30 Any reductions in on-site preserves within the PUD be limited to Preserve #2 instead of the requested impact to Preserve #3 and that the PUD document and PUD master plan be amended accordingly. 3. Revise PUD Section 2.16 to add two additional Transportation Developer Commitments as follows: J. The owner, its successors, or assigns, shall construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk within the Florida Power& Light(FPL) easement, subject to approval by FPL on the west side of Creekside Street and the south side of Creekside Parkway along/within folio # 29331193049 to connect to the existing sidewalk along Creekside Parkway. The sidewalk is to be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan or no later than one year following FPL's concurrence. K. Due to the removal of a portion of the Creekside Boulevard minor collector roadway and re-routing of traffic, the owner, its successors, or assigns, shall design and construct the re-routed roadway to adequately accommodate AASHTO Interstate Semitrailer (WB-62) standards and provide access to existing postal service truck traffic prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The design and construction shall be at no cost to Collier County. Any additional right- of-way easements required by County for a public road pursuant to County standards shall be dedicated to the County, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances without County maintenance responsibility. Such dedication shall occur prior to the issuance of the certification of occupancy for the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan and prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The owner, its successor, or assigns, shall also accept ownership of the entire length of Creekside Boulevard with all maintenance responsibilities. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Application with Environmental Supplement Attachment C: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Memo Attachment D: Economic Element Consistency Review Memo Attachment E: Traffic Impact Study(TIS) Attachment F: Transcripts of the Neighborhood Information Meeting Attachment G: Letters/Correspondence of Objection Tentatively scheduled for the October 25, 2016 BCC Meeting CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Page 29 of 30 PREPARED BY: /2 4iftervi 7 6 /6 RAYMO 4f V. BELLO S, ZON G MANAGER ATE ZONING I IVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: q_)- ft MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING&ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 7- ?- ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AVI S. WILKISON, P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD,PUDA-PL20160001665 September 6,2016 Page 30 of 30 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment August 31, 2016 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 106± Acres Located in Section 27 Township 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105 PREPARED BY: WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34105 YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34101 AMENDED DECEMBER 2005 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, L.P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida 34103 AMENDED MAY 2012 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 AMENDED AUGUST 2015 and JULY 2016 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment i August 31, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE ii SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, & 1-1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION SECTION II COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT 2-1 2.1 Purpose 2.2 General Description Of The Park and Proposed Land Uses 2.3 Compliance With County Ordinances 2.4 Community Development District 2.5 Land Uses 2.6 Lake Siting 2.7 Fill Storage 2.8 Use Of Right-Of-Way 2.9 Sales Office and Construction Office 2.10 Changes and Amendments To PUD Document Or PUD Master Plan 2.11 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Phasing 2.12 Open Space and Native Vegetation Retention Requirements 2.13 Surface Water Management 2.14 Environmental 2.15 Utilities 2.16 Transportation 2.17 Common Area Maintenance 2.18 Design Guidelines and Standards 2.19 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls 2.20 Signage 2.21 General Permitted Uses SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT 3-1 SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT 4-1 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5-1 EXHIBIT A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, LOCATION MAP (WMB&P File No. RZ-255A) EXHIBIT B CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B-1 CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED) Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment ii August 31, 2016 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this section is to express the intent of the Barron Collier Partnership, hereinafter referred to as Barron Collier or the Developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 106± acres of land located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Creekside Commerce Park. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will be in substantial compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies and land development regulations adopted thereunder of the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District as identified on the Future Land Use Map which allows certain industrial and commercial uses. The Urban designation also allows support medical facilities, offices, clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers and pharmacies provided they are located within 1/4 mile of the property boundary of an existing or approved hospital or medical center. The Creekside Commerce Park PUD is located within ¼ mile of the North Collier Hospital. The request is to add 166,000 square feet to the I/C District and 34,000 square feet to the B District. All additional square footage approved in the October 2016 Ordinance amendment will be medical related uses, and will be on Tracts that are within or partially within ¼ mile of the North Collier Hospital property. 2. The existing Industrial zoning is considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as provided for by Policy 5.9 and 5.11 of the FLUE. 3. The FLUE Urban-Industrial District allows for expansion of the industrial land use provided the rezone is in the form of a PUD, the site is adjacent to existing land designated or zoned industrial the land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and the necessary infrastructure is provided or in place. Creekside Commerce Park has expanded the industrial land use accordingly. 4. The FLUE Urban-Industrial District requires the uses along the boundaries of the project to be transitional. Creekside Commerce Park has included transitional uses accordingly. 5. Creekside Commerce Park is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 6. Improvements are planned to be in substantial compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 7. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the FLUE. 8. Creekside Commerce Park is a master planned, deed-restricted commerce park and is planned to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Planned Unit Development District. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment iii August 31, 2016 9. This master planned park will incorporate elements from the existing Industrial, Business Park and Industrial PUD sections of the LDC. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment iv August 31, 2016 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-1 August 31, 2016 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of Creekside Commerce Park, and to describe the existing condition of the property proposed to be developed. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows; COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Section 27; thence along the north line of said Section 27 South 89°45’21” East 1869.61 feet; thence leaving said line South 00°14’39” West 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence along said right of way line in the following Six (6) described courses; 1) South 89°45’21” East 485.99 feet; 2) South 00°14’39” West 10.00 feet; 3) South 89°45’21” East 150.19 feet; 4) South 89°48’33” East 716.81 feet; 5) North 05°34’33” West 10.05 feet; 6) South 89°48’33” East 486.21 feet to a point on the west right of way line of Goodlette Road as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 58, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said line South 05°33’48” East 1767.02 feet; thence leaving said line South 89°20’53” West 51.18 feet; thence North 23°55’53” West 13.07 feet; thence northwesterly, 30.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 21°59’52” and being subtended by a chord which bears North 12°55’57” West 30.53 feet; thence North 05°00’53” West 31.56 feet; thence North 36°19’20” West 32.02 feet; thence North 56°04’35” West 35.11 feet; thence North 80°39’15” West 32.53 feet; thence North 88°39’12” West 97.78 feet; thence North 86°04’40” West 45.79 feet; thence North 89°49’48” West 132.77 feet; thence North 69°40’10” West 37.23 feet; thence South 89°20’53” West 142.47 feet; thence South 84°59’26” West 24.66 feet; thence South 74°56’50” West 121.32 feet; thence South 79°49’59” West 45.93 feet; thence westerly and northwesterly, 45.51 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 66.00 feet, through a central angle of 39°30’16” and Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-2 August 31, 2016 being subtended by a chord which bears North 80°24’53” West 44.61 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence northwesterly, 52.92 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 150.00 feet, through a central angle of 20°12’57” and being subtended by a chord which bears North 70°46’13” West 52.65 feet; thence North 80°52’42” West 36.59 feet; thence westerly and southwesterly, 46.18 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 33°04’14” and being subtended by a chord which bears South 82°35’11” West 45.54 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence southwesterly and westerly, 38.16 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 60.00 feet, through a central angle of 36°26’19” and being subtended by a chord which bears South 84°16’14” West 37.52 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence westerly and northwesterly, 68.85 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 305.00 feet, through a central angle of 12°55’59” and being subtended by a chord which bears North 83°58’36” West 68.70 feet; thence South 89°33’25” West 18.36 feet; thence South 89°39’19” West 71.63 feet; thence North 89°34’56” West 36.03 feet; thence South 86°06’41” West 42.94 feet; thence South 83°44’16” West 26.23 feet; thence South 51°01’13” West 27.49 feet; thence South 33°25’50” West 19.95 feet; thence South 15°40’05” West 20.54 feet; thence South 10°54’39” West 34.64 feet; thence South 89°20’14” West 101.06 feet; thence North 10°46’06” East 101.42 feet; thence North 89°20’53” East 65.45 feet; thence North 00°39’07” West 100.64 feet; thence South 89°20’53” West 503.78 feet; thence North 00°39’07” West 27.71 feet; thence North 72°58’55” West 131.30 feet; thence North 02°08’56” West 1473.29 feet to a point on the south right of way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Containing 69.48 acres more or less; Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South 89°49'40" East. All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 27; Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-3 August 31, 2016 thence along the east line of said Section 27, South 01°09’43” East 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said east line South 01°09’43” East 1189.62 feet; thence leaving said line South 89°48’50” West 677.35 feet; thence South 05°35’39” East 886.02 feet; thence South 89°48’50” West 400.00 feet to a point on the easterly right of way line of Goodlette Frank Road as Recorded in Plat Book 13, page 58, Public records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said line North 05°35’39” West 2088.10 feet to a point of the south right of way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846); thence along said line South 89°49’40” East 1168.55 feet; thence continue along said line South 89°12’58” East 1.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Containing 38.9 acres more or less; Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South 89°46'26" East. LESS A PORTION OF TRACTS “R” AND “L1” CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTHWESTERLYMOST CORNER OF TRACT “R” (CREEKSIDE WAY) CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°45'00" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT -OF-WAY OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FOR A DISTANCE OF 249.45 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°25'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 107.22 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 60°02'56" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.20 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 82°32'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TRACT “L1” OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT ONE, ALSO BEING THE WES LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST-UNIT ONE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°07'39" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 111.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT “R”; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°58'01" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 456.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT “R”; THENCE RUN NORTH 02°19'57" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT -OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 294.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.32 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-4 August 31, 2016 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership or control of Barron Collier Partnership, or its assigns, whose address is 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project site is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and is generally bordered on the west by Agriculturally zoned and developed property; on the north, across Immokalee Road by office and medical (North Collier Hospital) PUD zoned and developed property; on the east by Medical Office Park currently under development, County Park and County Wastewater Treatment Facility; and on the south by PUD and County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The location of the site is shown on Exhibit A Aerial Photograph, Location Map. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of PUD application is I (Industrial) and A (Agricultural). C. Elevations within the site are approximately 7.5 to 9 feet-NGVD. Per FEMA Firm Map Panels No. 1200670193D, dated June 3, 1986, the Creekside Commerce Park property is located within Zones "AE-11" of the FEMA flood insurance rate. Topographic mapping is shown on Exhibit G. D. The soil types on the site generally include Riviera limestone substratum, Copeland fine sand, Pineda fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Myakka fine sand, Basinger fine sand, Riveria fine sand, Ft. Drum and Malabar fine sand, and Satellite fine sand. Soil Conservation Service mapping of soil types is shown on Exhibit D. E. Prior to development, vegetation on the site primarily consists of active croplands and small amounts of pine flatwoods. An isolated wetland system is located along the south side of Immokalee Road west of Goodlette-Frank Road. This wetland consists primarily of Brazilian pepper that surrounds a small willow area. The wetland on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road consists primarily of cabbage palms. A portion of the historic water course within this wetland has been channelized. Brazilian pepper has infested the northern part of this wetland. A detailed vegetation mapping is shown on Exhibit C. F. The project site is located within the Pine Ridge Canal and West Branch Cocohatchee River sub-basins, as depicted within the Collier County Drainage Atlas (July, 1995). The Conceptual Stormwater Management Master Plan is shown on Exhibit H. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-5 August 31, 2016 1.5 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Creekside Commerce Park does not meet the minimum thresholds for a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, 19972016, in that it is at or below 80% of all numerical thresholds in the guidelines and standards set forth therein. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-1 August 31, 2016 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for Creekside Commerce Park (park), and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. Creekside Commerce Park will consist of predominately industrial, warehouse, wholesale, financial institutions, business and office uses, with limited amounts of retail uses. Creekside Commerce Park shall establish project-wide guidelines and standards to ensure a high and consistent level of quality for proposed features and facilities. B. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically on Exhibit B (WMB&P, Inc. File No. RZ- 225B). A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the Master plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval with minor adjustments at the time of Final Plat approval, in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Creekside Commerce Park shall be in accordance with the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the LDC and Collier County Growth Management Plan which are in effect at the time of issuance of any development order. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that is otherwise applicable shall apply to which said regulations relate. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 3.15 of the LDC. D. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-2 August 31, 2016 E. The Site Development Plans Division of the LDC (Article 3, Division 3.3) shall apply to Creekside Commerce Park, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 3.3.4. F. The Developer shall submit to the County an annual PUD monitoring report in accordance with LDC Section 2.7.3.6. 2.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A. The Developer may elect to establish a Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, 1997, to provide and maintain infrastructure and community facilities needed to serve the park. A CDD would constitute a timely, efficient, effective, responsive and economic way to ensure the provision of facilities and infrastructure for the proposed development. Such infrastructure as may be constructed, managed and financed by the CDD shall be subject to, and shall not be inconsistent with, the Collier County Growth Management Plan and all applicable ordinances dealing with planning and permitting of Creekside Commerce Park. B. The land area is amenable to infrastructure provision by a district that has the powers set forth in the charter of a Community Development District under Section 190.006 through 190.041, Florida Statutes. Such a district is a legitimate alternative available both to the County and to the landowner for the timely and sustained provision of quality infrastructure under the terms and conditions of County development approval. 2.5 LAND USES A. The location of land uses are shown on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit B. Changes and variations in building tracts, location and acreage of these uses shall be permitted at preliminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary site development plan approval and final site development plan approval to accommodate utilities, topography, vegetation, and other site and market conditions, subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County LDC. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined at the time of site development plan approval. B. Roads and other infrastructure may be either public, private or a combination of public and private, depending on location, design and purpose. The request for a road to be public shall be made by the Developer at the time of final subdivision plat approval. The Developer or its assignees shall be responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, common areas, water and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the County Code regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise approved during subdivision approval. The Developer reserves the right Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-3 August 31, 2016 to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the LDC. 2.6 LAKE SITING A. As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, lakes have been preliminary sited. The goal of this Master Plan is to achieve and overall aesthetic character for the park, to permit optimum use of the land, and to increase the efficiency of the water management network. Fill material from lakes is planned to be utilized within the park; however, excess fill material may be utilized off-site. The volume of material to be removed shall be limited to ten percent of the calculated excavation volume to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. If the applicant wishes to take more off-site, a commercial excavation permit will be required. Final lake area determination shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District stormwater criteria and Section 3.5.7. of the LDC. 1. Setbacks: Excavations shall be located so that the control elevation shall adhere to the following minimum setback requirements, subject to approval of County staff at time of final construction plan approval: a) Twenty feet (20’) from right-of-way of internal roads. The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections, and need for barriers. b) Forty feet (40’) from Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road rights-of-way. Perimeter property lines will have a setback of twenty feet (20’). The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections and need for barriers. 2.7 FILL STORAGE A. Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Creekside Commerce Park PUD. Fill material generated from properties owned or leased by the Developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the Developer shall notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator per Section 3.2.8.3.6. of the LDC. The following standards shall apply: 1. Stockpile maximum height: Thirty-five feet (35') 2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5') in height shall be separated from developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical barriers if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4 to 1 (i.e. 3 to 1). Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-4 August 31, 2016 a) Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC Division 3.7. 2.8 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY Utilization of lands within all park rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entrance ways, and signage shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Developer and the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations during the development review process. 2.9 SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE Sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout Creekside Commerce Park. These uses may be either wet or dry facilities. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.4., Section 3.2.6.3.6. and Division 3.3 of the LDC, with the exception that the temporary use permit shall be valid through the life of the project with no extension of the temporary use required. These uses may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 10D-6 and may use potable water or irrigation wells. 2.10 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN A. Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or PUD Master Plan as provided in Section 2.7.3.5. of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the LDC. B. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan upon written request of the Developer or his assignee. C. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: 1) The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Creekside Commerce Park PUD document. 2) The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5.1. of the LDC. 3) The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with external adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, water management facilities, and conservation areas within or external to the PUD. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-5 August 31, 2016 D. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1) Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. 2) Internal realignment of rights-of-ways. 3) Reconfiguration of parcels per Section 5.5 of this PUD. E. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by appropriate Collier County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County Ordinances and regulations prior to the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator’s consideration for approval. F. Approval by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan approval, however such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and approvals. 2.11 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT PHASING Submission, review, and approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plats for the park may be accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property. 2.12 OPEN SPACE AND NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS The PUD will fully comply with all sections of the LDC and meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan relating to open space and retention of native vegetation. 2.13 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Chapters 40E-4 and 4-E-40, this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3-day duration and 25-year return frequency. The lake originally approved as Lake L- 1, Creekside Unit I Plat, shall continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved plat and approved South Florida Water Management District Permit. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-6 August 31, 2016 2.14 ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) Rules, and shall further be subject to review and approval by Collier County Planning Services Department Environmental Review Staff. Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05.00 of the LDC, except as provided for in Deviation for off-site native vegetation preservation in Section 4.5.3 of this PUD Ordinance. 2.15 UTILITIES All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. 2.16 TRANSPORTATION A. The Developer shall provide appropriate left and/or right turn lanes on Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road at the main park entrances. Such turn lanes shall be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for a use that utilizes the perspective/associated entrance. B. There shall be a full access intersection at the park’s southern entrance on Goodlette Frank Road. When justified by traffic warrants, this intersection shall be signalized, notwithstanding its proximity to Immokalee Road. C. Future access points to Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads are those shown on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan. D. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided by the Developer at the park’s main entrance in conjunction with the development of this entrance. E. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 92-22, as amended. F. The Developer shall provide the appropriate easements or reserve right of way so that the southerly access road west of Goodlette Frank Road may be interconnected to the properties to the west of Creekside Commerce Park. G. The Developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signals at any project access when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signal shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. H. The Developer agrees to complete construction of the segment of internal roadway that connects Goodlette-Frank Road to the I/C parcel (herein called Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-7 August 31, 2016 “southern parcel”) that is west of Goodlette Road and abuts Pelican Marsh prior to the first of the following to occur: 1) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the “southern parcel”; 2) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the second business parcel to be developed west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement; 3) Within 3 years of approval of this PUD; or 4) Within 9 months of obtaining “grant” money or other funds for construction of such infrastructure from an outside source. I. The I/C parcels west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement and immediately north of the south road shall connect for service and employee access at the time that the south road is extended to a point that they may connect. J. The Developer agrees to provide the County with an update of the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) at the time of submittal of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. K. The Goodlette-Frank Road southernmost access to the I/C parcel east of Goodlette-Frank Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access. L. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses both primary and ancillary may not exceed 17542,053 PM Peak Hour, two-way trips. 2.17 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Most common area maintenance will be provided by the CDD or by a Property Owner’s Association (POA). The CDD or the POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and reserves serving Creekside Commerce Park, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.18 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in the LDC, Section 2.2.20. B. Creekside Commerce Park is planned as a functionally interrelated business park under unified control. The Developer will establish community-wide guidelines and standards to ensure a high level of quality for both the common areas and the individual parcel developments. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-8 August 31, 2016 C. These guidelines will serve as a control for individual parcel development, and be referred to as The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Creekside Commerce Park. The level of quality defined in this document is directed towards the creation of an attractive business environment, and these standards are the basis for evaluation of projects submitted for review to the Property Association’s Architectural and Landscaping Committee, referred to as the ALC. The standards in this document will include criteria for site planning, architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and graphics and signage. D. The specific design guidelines will act as supplemental standards to the requirements of this Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and other County codes, but in no way supersede them. 1. Common Areas The master design of the park’s entries and signage, streetscapes, and open space areas will form a harmonious framework that visually links the entire park together. This unified appearance will enhance the image of the entire community. Internal roadways will provide efficient vehicular circulation with streetscapes that create pleasant neighborhood environments. Streetscape plans will be designed to establish a hierarchy of landscape improvements appropriate in scale and character with the function of the street and adjacent land uses. Along these streetscapes a pedestrian walkway system will be established to link each project with the overall community. 2. Individual Projects A. Site Planning: Each individual parcel project will provide a visually appealing, articulated, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles from the street to the site and from the site to the buildings themselves. The orientation of a building or structure upon a site will not only reflect the project’s functional need, but will also be responsive to the individual parcel’s characteristics and be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. B. Architectural standards: The objective of the architectural standards will be to promote the creation of an attractive, value-apparent business environment. Design elements throughout a project must be consistent with the nature of the chosen style and building materials selected. Project design should endeavor to adhere to the classical principles of design and avoid clichés, overly complex or garish motifs, while seeking to invoke a “timeless” quality. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-9 August 31, 2016 C. Lighting: The guidelines for lighting will establish a continuity of design for all lighting in the park which is consistent with the overall visual impression of the park. D. Landscaping: The purpose of landscape design guidelines within individual projects is to guide development toward harmonious and visually pleasing landscape that is cohesive with the overall master landscape plan. The Creekside landscape concept will have a naturalistic theme. Similar to the overall project’s plant palette, individual sites will be dominated with plants that are native, xeric, or naturalized within Southwest Florida. Landscape designs will create a coherent theme which emphasizes plant material as a primary unifying element. 1. Landscape elements along public R.O.W.s will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. Parcel entries will be designed to harmonize with adjacent streetscape landscaping, and clearly accentuate, the parcel entry. 2. Individual parking lots will be screened from the roadways as much as possible, without obscuring views of the building entrances. In addition, plant materials used around main entrances of buildings will visually cue visitors to their location. E. Graphics/signage: The guidelines serve to provide continuity of design for all signage in the park which is consistent with the overall visual impression of the park. Parcel signage serves the identification needs of the individual tenants and user. 2.19 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout Creekside Commerce Park. Required buffer treatments shall terminate at entrances to accommodate entrance treatments and at lakes to accommodate views into the park. The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape buffers contiguous to Immokalee Road R.O.W. will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per construction phase and will have the following characteristics: 1) Minimum width of 20’-0”, measured from the R.O.W. 2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business District, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25’ on center (O.C.), planted at an initial height of 13’-14’ overall (O.A.) with a 6’ spread. In Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-10 August 31, 2016 addition, a continuous 24” high shrub hedge shall be provided within the 20’ buffer. B. Landscape buffers contiguous to Goodlette-Frank Road R.O.W. will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per development phase and will have the following characteristics: 1) Minimum width of 20’-0”, measured from the R.O.W. 2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business and Industrial/Commerce (I/C) Districts, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25’ O.C., planted at an initial height of 12’ O.A., with a 6’ spread. At the time of individual lot improvements, hedges will be placed at parking lot edges to satisfy the requirements of LDC Section 2.4.7.4. 3) Adjacent to industrial type uses within the Industrial/Commerce District, trees will be native, xeric or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25’ O.C., planted at an initial height of 12’ O.A, with a 6’ spread. Trees will be placed on a berm, 3 feet high and supplemented with a 5 foot high hedge consisting of but not limited to the following plant material: coco plum, viburnam, ficus. The intent will be to obtain 80% opacity within one year of planting for travelers on Goodlette-Frank Road. C. Landscape buffers surrounding the perimeter of the park will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per construction phase. The buffers are referenced on Exhibit B, and proceed in a clockwise direction from the northeast corner of the project as follows: 1) The landscape buffer along the eastern most property boundary, north of the preserve area, as depicted on Exhibit B, shall consist of an Alternative “A” type buffer. Any preservation areas within this buffer may be credited toward buffering requirements. 2) The preserve area along the balance of the eastern most property boundary will serve as the buffer between uses. 3) The Developer will provide a five feet (5’) wide Alternative “A” type buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50’) on center between the business use and the preserve/lake area, as depicted on Exhibit B. 4) The Developer will provide a five feet (5’) wide Alternative “A” type landscape buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50’) on center along the eastern property boundary contiguous to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 5) The landscape buffer along the southern most property boundary, east of Goodlette-Frank Road, shall be a five feet (5’) wide Alternative “A” type Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-11 August 31, 2016 buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50’) on center. An opaque hedge six feet (6’) high will be planted to supplement the existing oak tree buffer planted by the County at the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 6) The existing landscape berm/buffer from Goodlette Frank Road to the west side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement will be supplemented as follows: a type “A” buffer along the proposed lake; and the remaining area westward of the lake will be supplemented to consist of 50 sabal palms, 8’-14’ O.A. and 4 Ficus nitida 12’-13’ O.A. and 6’-8’ wide; locations to be coordinated with the adjacent property owner. 7) The Developer will provide a ninety percent (90%) opaque landscape buffer and berm between the I/C District and the Pelican Marsh PUD from the west side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement to the existing berm to the west, that approximates the existing Pelican Marsh berm/buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. The buffer shall meet ninety percent (90%) opacity within one (1) year of planting. 8) The Developer will supplement with additional trees the buffer along the remaining portion of the southern property line westward to achieve a ninety percent (90%) opaque buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. 9) The landscape buffer between the I/C District and the adjacent Agricultural District along the southern portion of the western property line will be an Alternative “A” type buffer. 10) The landscape buffer between the R.O.W. and the adjacent Agricultural District to the west will be an Alternative “A” type buffer and be incorporated into the R.O.W. D. Maximum fence or wall height internal to the PUD: Twelve feet (12'). E. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls will be constructed along the perimeter of the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary concurrent with subdivision and site development construction phase, except where noted in this document. F. Sidewalks, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be allowed in landscape buffers pursuant to review and approval of the Development Services Administrator. G. Landscape berms located within the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary and contiguous to a property line and/or right-of-way line may be constructed such that the toe of slope is located on the property line and/or encroaches into the right-of- way line when approved by the applicable owner or agency. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-12 August 31, 2016 2.20 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL 1) Pursuant to Section 2.5.5.2.3.7. of the LDC, the following conditions provide for the required comprehensive sign plan for the Creekside Commerce Park 2) Each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land. 3) Signs and decorative landscaped entrance features within a County dedicated right-of-way, shall require a right-of way permit subject to the review and approval of the County. 4) All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. B. PARK ENTRY SIGNS 1) Major park entry signs shall be located as depicted on Exhibit B. Each sign will not exceed 160 square feet in size on any side and signs will be no longer than 25 feet in length and 8 feet in height. 2) Minor park entry signs shall be located as depicted Exhibit B. Each minor monument sign will not exceed 100 square feet in size on any side. Minor monument signs will be no larger than 20 feet in length and 8 feet in height. C. INTERNAL SIGNS 1) Directional or identification signs are allowed within the business park. Such signs may be used to identify the location or direction of approved uses such as sales centers, information centers, etc. Individual signs may be a maximum of 4 square feet per side in size, or signs maintaining a common architectural theme may be combined to form a menu board with a maximum size of 25 square feet per side, and a maximum height of 8 feet. No building permit is required unless such signs are combined to form a menu board. 2) Grand Opening signs: The Developer or parcel owner may display an on-site grand opening sign not exceeding 32 square feet on a side, and not exceeding 64 square feet total. Banner signs shall be anchored and may be displayed on- site for a period not exceeding 14 days within the first three months that the Developer/occupant is open for business. D. USER SIGNS 1) Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs: One wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign may be permitted for each single-occupancy facility, or for each Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-13 August 31, 2016 establishment in a multiple-occupancy facility. Corner units within multiple- occupancy facilities, or multi-frontage single-occupancy facilities shall be allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be combined for the purpose of placing the combined area on one wall. However, the combined area of those signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable display area for signs by this ordinance. a. The maximum allowable display area for signs may not be more than 15 percent of the total square footage of the visual facade of the building to which the sign will be attached and may not, in any case, exceed 200 square feet in area for any sign. 2) Monument and Pole signs: One (1) monument or pole sign is permitted for each lot or parcel for each external and internal road frontage(s). a. Internal road frontage setbacks: A minimum of fifteen feet (15’) from the edge of pavement. Signs may encroach within the right-of-way subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility. b. External road frontage setbacks: Pole signs shall be setback from any external right-of-way in accordance with the applicable section of the LDC. Monument signs may be permitted closer to the right-of-way subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility. c. Spot or floodlights may be permitted provided said light shines only on the signs or landscaping and is shielded from motorists and adjacent residents. d. Should the U.S. Postal Service purchase or lease land within Creekside Commerce Park, in addition to the user signs as permitted herein, they will be allowed one sign between Immokalee Road and the proposed lake adjacent to the west entry. E. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic signs such as street name signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, etc. may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme, in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.19. of the LDC. 2. 21 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Creekside Commerce Park PUD except in the Preserve Area. General permitted uses are those Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-14 August 31, 2016 uses which generally serve the Developer and tenants of Creekside Commerce Park and are typically part of the common infrastructure. B. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 5. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 6. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 7. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.11 of this PUD. 8. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. Site filling and grading as set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. 9. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible. 10. Sidewalks may occur within County required buffers if approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator. 11. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC provision in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. 12. Creekside Commerce Park shall be permitted to develop with a maximum of 40 percent commercial uses. Commercial uses are defined as offices, health services, medical clinics, financial institutions, fitness centers, childcare centers, restaurants and retail sales in accordance with Section 3.3. C.2. hereof. 2. 22 MISCELLANEOUS Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-15 August 31, 2016 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. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-1 August 31, 2016 SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "I/C". 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as “I/C” on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of 550716,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses on 41.649.90.± net acres. Intermediate care (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are in addition to the IC gross square footage figures. The overall floor area ratio (FAR) for the IC designated areas may exceed .35. Individual parcels may be developed at a higher FAR and the FAR for hotel/motel, group housing and intermediate care facilities (SIC Code 8052) shall not exceed .6. (Refer to Section 3.5, Deviations); however, the overall FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed .3545, excluding parking structures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the United States Postal Service parcel may use any available square footage in the I/C District and the Business District up to a FAR of .35 on the United States Postal Service Parcel until all available square footages are used up in the PUD. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. The permitted principal uses and structures will generally consist of light manufacturing, wholesale, warehouse, processing and packaging, laboratories and clinics, research, design and product development, business services and corporate offices and headquarters. 1. Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment (Group 3728) 2. Apparel and Other Finished Products (Groups 2311-2399) 3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-2 August 31, 2016 4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies, except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service; dogs, rental of: for protective service; automobile recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with hair spray, insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a contract or fee basis) 5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 6. Communications (Groups 4812-4899 not including major communications towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, radar or telephone service) 7. Computer and Office Equipment (Groups 3571-3579) 8. Construction; Special Trade Contractors (Groups 1711-1799 except for boiler erection and installation contractors; drainage system installations, cesspool and septic tank contractors; fuel oil burner installation and servicing contractors; gasoline hookup contractors; sewer hookups and connection for buildings contractors; epoxy application contractors; fireproofing buildings contractors; gasoline pump installation contractors; lead burning contractors; and mobile home site setup and tie down contractors) 9. Depository and Non-Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163) 10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836, except for adrenal derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives) 11. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction; survival schools; vocational counseling) 12. Electronics and Other Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (Groups 3612, 3613, 3624, 3625, 3631, 3641-3676, 3678, 3679, 3694, 3695, 3699, except Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-3 August 31, 2016 for airport lighting transformers, autotransformers, electric (power transformers) distribution transformers, electric; electric furnace transformers; lighting transformers, street and airport; transformers, reactor; atom smashers (particle accelerators; electron beam metal cutting, forming, and welding machines; electron linear accelerators; electrostatic particle accelerators)) 13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services (Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research; automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories; pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories) 14. Fabricated Metal Products (Groups 3411-3432, 3442, 3444, 3446, 3452, 3469, 3492, 3495, 3496, production of metal is prohibited) 15. Furniture and Fixtures Manufacturing (Groups 2511-2599) 16. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224-9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661) 17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011), not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for the entire PUD. Only 1 Hotel/Motel is permitted within the PUD and it must be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to specific development standards and setbacks in Section 3.4. 18. Industrial and Commercial Machinery (Groups 3524, 3546, 3553-3556, 3559, 3562, 3564-3566, 3581-3599 except for bronzing and dusting machines for printing trades; foundry type for printing; presses, printing - slugs printers’; ammunition and explosives loading machinery; brick making machines; cement making machinery; chemical kilns; control rod drive mechanisms for use on nuclear reactors; foundry machinery and equipment; frame straighteners, automotive (garage equipment); fur sewing machines; ginning machines, cotton; metal finishing equipment for plating, except rolling mill lines; metal pickling equipment, except rolling mill lines) 19. Leather and Leather Products (Groups 3131-3199) 20. Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical and Optical Goods: Watches and Clocks Manufacturing (Groups 3812-3843, 3845-3873) 21. Membership Organizations (Groups 8611-8631) 22. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (Groups 3911-3999 except for dressing of furs: bleaching, blending, curring, scraping, and tanning; feathers: curling, dyeing, and renovating - for the trade; fur stripping; furs Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-4 August 31, 2016 dressed: bleached, curried, scraped, tanned, and dyed; pelts: scraping, curring, tanning, bleaching and dyeing; plumes, feather; tear gas devices and equipment; veils made of hair) 23. Motion Picture Production (Groups 7812-7819) 24. Motor Freight Transportation (Groups 4214, 4215) 25. Packing and Crating (Group 4783) 26. Paper and Allied Products (Groups 2652-2657, 2673-2679) 27. Personal Services (Groups 7213, 7216, 7219, 7221) 28. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991) 29. Plastic Materials and Synthetics (Groups 2833,2834) 30. Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries (Groups 2711-2791) 31. Professional Offices: including but not limited to, Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311- 6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512, 6514, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552,) 32. Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products (Groups 3021, 3085, 3086, 3088, 3089) 33. Transportation Equipment (Group 3732, except for boats, fiberglass: building and repairing; boats: motorboats, sailboats, rowboats, and canoes - building and repairing; houseboats, building and repairing; motorboats, inboard and outboard: building and repairing) 34. United States Postal Service (Group 4311) 35. Warehousing and Storage (Group 4225, 4226, 5014 except oil and gas storage, petroleum and chemical bulk stations and automobile dead storage) only one (1) self-storage use allowed to be located adjacent to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 36. Wholesale Trade-Durable Goods (Groups 5021-5031, 5043-5049, 5063- 5074, 5078, 5091, 5092, 5094-5099 except for fencing, wood-wholesale; lumber: rough, dressed, and finished-wholesale; batteries, except automotive-wholesale; storage batteries, industrial-wholesale; unit substations-wholesale; boilers, power: industrial-wholesale; boilers, steam and hot water heating-wholesale; burners, fuel oil and distillate oil- wholesale; oil burners-wholesale) 37. Wholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods (Groups 5111-5143, 5145, 5147-5149, 5192, 5199 except for cats-wholesale; charcoal-wholesale; dogs-wholesale; fish, tropical-wholesale; furs, dressed-wholesale; greases, animal and vegetable-wholesale; ice, manufactured or natural-wholesale, leather and cut Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-5 August 31, 2016 stock-wholesale; linseed oil-wholesale; oils, except cooking: animal and vegetable-wholesale; oilseed cake and meal-wholesale; rubber, crude- wholesale; sawdust-wholesale; vegetable cake and meal-wholesale; wigs- wholesale; worms-wholesale) 38. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. B. Restricted Principal Uses The following medical related uses must be located within a 1/4 mile radius of the hospital property boundary. 1. Group housing for the elderly limited to Assisted living facilities, independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 2. Health Services, medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 3. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071- 8092, 8099) 4. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this district. 2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the permitted principal use. D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing uses described in Section 3.2.B.1A.16 shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-6 August 31, 2016 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents’ individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F. B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT. C. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard, adjacent to Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road: Fifty feet (50’). For parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road, see additional setback requirements in Section 3.4.C.7.a. 2. Front Yard, Internal: Thirty feet (30’) 3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10’) Five feet (5’) to internal property line along Pine Ridge canal drainage easement and FP&L easement 4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0’) to bulkhead or rip-rap at top of bank, otherwise twenty feet (20’) Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-7 August 31, 2016 5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25’) 6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD: Fifty feet (50’) 7. Minimum Building Setback from Existing Goodlette-Frank Road Right-of- Way East of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50’), except as provided as follows: i) For group housing for elderly and intermediate care use: (a) If the zoned height of any structure exceeds 50 feet, the minimum setback is 75 feet plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over 50 feet of height. ii) For hotel/motel use: (a) Minimum setback of 75 feet regardless of height plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over 50 feet of height. D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road: thirty- fivefifty feet (35’50’), including silos, storage tanks, elevator towers, satellite dishes, antennas, etc. Facilities located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan shall have a maximum zoned height of one-hundred eighty five (185’) feet and a maximum actual height of two-hundred five (205’) feet, For parcels east of Goodlette-Frank Road: the Hotel, group housing for the elderly, and the intermediate care facility shall have a zoned height seventy-five feet (75’), actual height eight-five feet (85’). All other uses permitted east of Goodlette-Frank Road pursuant to Section III shall have a zoned height of fifty feet (50’) and an actual height of sixty feet (60’). E. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal and external public roadways with a fence or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design. All manufacturing operations and equipment, including accessory process equipment such as compressors and air handlers shall be contained in an enclosed structure. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-8 August 31, 2016 F. All industrial I/C buildings sides visible from roadways internal or external to the park shall have the appearance of a concrete material, such as, but not limited to, block, brick, tilt up concrete panels, stucco on lathe systems, etc. Corrugated steel sides visible from said roadways are prohibited; as well as exposed metal siding on any building west of Goodlette Frank Road.shall meet the requirements of Section 5.05.08 of the LDC, except for buildings located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan, which shall be exempt from Section 5.05.08 of the LDC (see Section 3.5.2, Development Deviations, of this PUD Ordinance). G. Business District type uses located within the I/C District along Goodlette-Frank Road will meet the Collier County Architectural Guidelines in Division 2.8. of the LDC. H. Industrial type uses abutting Goodlette-Frank Road shall meet the requirements of Section 2.19.B.3 hereof, alternatively, said uses shall have the option of utilizing the landscaped buffer applicable to business uses fronting Goodlette-Frank Road, provided the portion of the building facing Goodlette-Frank Road meets the following Architectural Guideline Sections of the LDC, therefore satisfying the intent of the building design section of the Architectural Guidelines in the opinion of the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator: 1. Section 2.8.3.5.1., Purpose and Intent 2. Section 2.8.3.5.4., Facade Standard 3. Section 2.8.3.5.6., Project Standards 4. Section 2.8.3.5.7., Detail Features except for 2.8.3.5.7.2. 5. Section 2.8.3.5.12. I. Loading Areas: Buildings west of the Pine Ridge canal and adjacent to the Pelican Marsh boundary shall orient loading docks to the north, east or west. J. Noise: Uses within the I/C District shall not exceed 65 dBA between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 60 dBA after 10 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. and all of Sundays, as measured at the property boundary of the land use from which the sound emanates. K. Odor: No business shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air from any single source such as to result in odors which are detectable outside the parcel boundaries. Best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available shall be utilized in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous air. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-9 August 31, 2016 L. Lighting: Lighting shall be located so that no light is aimed directly toward a property designated residential if lighting is located within 200 feet of residential property. Light fixtures within parking areas shall not exceed 25 feet in height. M. Emissions: All sources of air emissions shall comply with rules set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-2). No person shall operate a regulated source of air emissions without a valid operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses, including the intermediate care facilities. 2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08G, Deviations and alternate compliance, which authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively approve deviations from compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for specific types of buildings, to permit the administrative approval of deviations for office buildings and parking garages at the time of Site Development Plan approval of Tract 5 on the Master Plan. 3.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section 2.19.B.2. (and B.3) are prohibited Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-1 August 31, 2016 SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "B". 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as “B” on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of 260294,000 square feet of floor area, including approximately 200244,000 square feet of office uses and 6050,000 square feet of retail uses on 19.124.88± net acres. Intermediate care facilities (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are in addition to the B District gross square footage figures. The overall floor area ratio (FAR) for the B designated areas may exceed .35.Individual parcels may be developed at a higher FAR and the FAR for hotel/motel, group housing and intermediate care facilities (SIC Code 8052) shall not exceed .6. (Refer to Section 4.5, Deviations); however, the overall FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed .3545. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611-5699) 2. Breweries (Group 2082) 3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction. 4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies, except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service; dogs, rental of: for protective service; automobile recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with hair spray, Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-2 August 31, 2016 insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a contract or fee basis) 5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 6. Convenience Store, food market (Group 5411) only two (2) allowed within the PUD and Gasoline Filling Station (Group 5541) only one (1) allowed within the PUD. 7. Communications (Groups 4812-4899), not including major communication towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, radar or telephone service. 8. Dance and Martial Arts Studios (Groups 7911 and 7999, including only gymnastics and martial arts instruction) 9. Depository and Non-Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163) including automatic teller machines 10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836 except for adrenal derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives) 11. Eating Places (Group 5812) not including stand alone drive-thru restaurants. 12. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction; survival schools; vocational counseling) 13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services (Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research; automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories; pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories) 14. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224-9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661) 15. Hardware Stores (Group 5251) 16. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores (Groups 5712-5736) Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-3 August 31, 2016 17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011); not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for the entire PUD. Only 1 hotel/motel is permitted within the PUD and it must be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to additional building development standards and setbacks identified in Section 4.4.Miscellaneous Food Stores (Group 5499) 18. Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores (Group 5399) 19. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912-5949 and 5992-5999, excluding used merchandise stores, fireworks, gravestones, tombstones and monuments, ice dealers, sales barns, and swimming pools; retail) 20. Paint/Glass and Wallpaper (Group 5231) 21. Personal Services (Groups 7215, excluding self-service or coin laundries, 7221-7251, 7291 and 7299, including only clothing rental, costume rental, tanning salons and hair services) 22. Professional Offices: Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512-6515, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552, 6553); Holding and Other Investment Offices (Groups 6712-6799); Attorneys (Group 8111) 23. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991) 24. Retail Bakeries (Group 5461) 25. Security and Commodity Brokers (Groups 6211-6289) 26. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. B. Restricted Principal Uses The following medical related uses must be located within 1/4 mile radius of the hospital property boundary. 1. Group housing for the elderly limited to assisted living facilities, independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 2. Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores (Group 5912) only one (1) drug store allowed. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-4 August 31, 2016 3. Health Services, Medical Clinics and Offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.B.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 4. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071- 8099) 5. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this district. 2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the permitted principal use. D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing uses described in Section 4.2.B.1A.15 shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents’ individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-5 August 31, 2016 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F. B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT. C. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard, Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads: Fifty feet (50’) 2. Front Yard, Internal Roads: Thirty feet (30’) 3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10’) Five feet (5’) to internal property line along the Pine Ridge canal drainage easement and FP&L easement 4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0’) to bulkhead or rip-rap at top of bank, otherwise twenty feet (20’) 5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25’) 6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD for Properties West of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) Fifty feet (50’) for buildings up to thirty five feet (35’) in height. b) Three additional feet (3’) for every one foot of building height over thirty five feet (35’) adjoining residential districts. 7. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD and from Public Roadways: a) Immokalee Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50’) plus for any portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50’), that portion of the building shall have its building setback increased at a 1:3 ratio (i.e. one (1’) vertical foot of height for every three (3’) horizontal feet); or Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-6 August 31, 2016 For any portion of a hotel that may be constructed on the B designated tract at the southeast corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road, a minimum three hundred fifty foot (350’) building setback from Immokalee Road. b) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50’) and for any portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50’), that portion of the building shall have the setback increased at a 1:2 ratio (i.e. one (1’) vertical foot of height for every two (2’) horizontal feet); or For any portion of a hotel on the B designated tract on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road, the minimum setback from Goodlette-Frank Road shall be seventy-five (75’) regardless of height. D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road, three stories over parking to a maximum of fifty feet (50’) except that no structure shall be greater than thirty-five feet (35’), on property west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed on the B designated tract located at the southeast quadrant of the Goodlette- Frank Road and Immokalee Road intersection shall have a zoned height of sixty feet (60’) and an actual height of seventy feet (70’), except that a hotel building or structure associated with this use may not exceed a zoned height of seventy five feet (75’) and an actual height of eighty five (85’). Uses on Tract 9 on the Master Plan shall be permitted to have a zoned height of seventy five feet (75’) and an actual height of eighty five (85’) b) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed on the easternmost B designated tract adjacent to Immokalee Road, as shown on the Master Plan, shall have a zoned height of sixty feet (60’) and an actual height of seventy feet (70’). c) All other uses permitted pursuant to Section IV shall be limited to a maximum zoned height of fifty (50’) and an actual height of sixty (60’). E. Commercial design guidelines for facilities in the Business District shall be subject to the provisions of Division 2.8. Architectural and Site Design Standards and Site Design Standards for commercial buildings and projects. F. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal and external public roadways with a fence at least seven feet in height above ground Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-7 August 31, 2016 level, or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design. 4.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses, including the intermediate care facility. 2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 Directory signs, which authorizes one (1) directory sign to be located at the project entrance, to permit installation of the directory sign on Immokalee Road east of Goodlette-Frank Road, not at the project entry, but rather at a location between the project entry and Goodlette- Frank Road. 3. Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.i(a), Preservation Standards, a property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-site preserve requirement is more than 2 acres and where the off-site preserve proposed is less than 2 acres, to permit an off-site preserve area of 1.35± acres. The area impacted by the expansion of the ‘B’ District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 4.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section 2.19.A.2 (and B.2) are prohibited. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 5-1 August 31, 2016 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for the area within Creekside Commerce Park, designated on the Master Plan, as Preserve Area. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Preserve Area on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails). 2. Water management structures. 3. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, permitted in accordance with the LDC and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 5.4 PRESERVE DISTRICT PRESERVATION EASEMENT A non-exclusive preservation easement or tract is required by LDC Section 3.2.8.4.7.3. for preservation lands included in the Preserve Area. The Developer, its successor or assign shall be responsible for the control and maintenance of lands within the Preserve Area. Exact location/boundary of the Preserve Area will be determined during the development permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District, Army Corps of Engineers, and Collier County. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 5-2 August 31, 2016 5.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed native vegetation retention areas, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan, are intended for meeting the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservations areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval. If adjustments are needed, per the Collier County LDC the Developer will have the option to increase the preservation in another area, enhance and preserve another area, or provide increased native landscape per the Collier County LDC. The proposed preservation areas, including 2.91.37 acres of wetlands and 4.14.28 acres of uplands, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park master plan, are areas where the native vegetation requirements may be met on-site as set forth in the Collier County LDC. An area 0.68± acres in size shall be created as on-site native preservation, adjacent to the existing “PU” preserve located west of Goodlette-Frank Road. The developer or successors shall provide for a minimum of 1.35 acres of native vegetation preservation offsite. The off-site preservation area shall be identified at the time of Development Order approval, which proposes impacts to the existing preserve area(s). ORDINANCE NO. 16 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2006-50, THE CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPDD), AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY 1669000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 716,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE USES AND INCREASING THE ACREAGE FROM 41.6 TO 49.90 NET ACRES; BY AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF FLOOR AREA FROM 260,000 SQUARE FEET TO 292,000 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING FROM 200,000 SQUARE FEET TO 242,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES AND FROM 60,000 TO 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES; BY AMENDING THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE DISTRICT TO ALLOW PARCELS WEST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD TO INCREASE THE ZONED HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 50 FEET EXCEPT FOR TRACT 5 ON THE MASTER PLAN WHICH SHALL HAVE A ZONED HEIGHT OF 185 AND ACTUAL HEIGHT OF 205 FEET; BY AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW TRACT 9 ON THE MASTER PLAN EAST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD TO INCREASE THE ZONED HEIGHT TO 75 FEET AND ACTUAL HEIGHT TO 85 FEET; BY INCREASING THE OVERALL FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM .35 TO .45; BY REDUCING THE PRESERVE REQUIREMENT AND BY ADDING A DEVIATION TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE PRESERVE TO BE OFF-SITE; BY ADDING A DEVIATION TO ALLOW TRACT 5 ON THE MASTER PLAN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE COUNTY'S ARCHITECTURAL DEVIATION PROCESS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND BOTH EAST AND WEST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 106 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDA-PL20160001865] WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 06-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (the "PUD"); and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 13-23, which amended the PUD; and (16 -CPS -01581] 30 Creekside Commerce Park CPUD 1 of 2 PUDA-PL20160001865 — 9/2/16 WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 16-05, which further amended the PUD; and WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates representing Arthrex, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the CPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to the CPUD Document of Ordinance No. 2006-50, as amended The CPUD Document attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 2006-50, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 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 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A — CPUD Document [16 -CPS -01581] 30 Creekside Commerce Park CPUD 2 of 2 PUDA-PL20160001865 — 9/2/16 day of , 2016. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DONNA FIALA, Chairwoman CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP Exhibit A CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 106± Acres Located in Section 27 Township 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105 PREPARED BY: WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34105 YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34101 AMENDED DECEMBER 2005 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, L.P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive, 3�d Floor, Naples, Florida 34103 AMENDED MAY 2012 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 AMENDED AUGUST 2015 and JULY 2016 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 Words struek-t#reugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment September 2, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, & GENERAL DESCRIPTION SECTION II COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Purpose 2.2 General Description Of The Park and Proposed Land Uses 2.3 Compliance With County Ordinances 2.4 Community Development District 2.5 Land Uses 2.6 Lake Siting 2.7 Fill Storage 2.8 Use Of Right -Of -Way 2.9 Sales Office and Construction Office 2.10 Changes and Amendments To PUD Document Or PUD Master Plan 2.11 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Phasing 2.12 Open Space and Native Vegetation Retention Requirements 2.13 Surface Water Management 2.14 Environmental 2.15 Utilities 2.16 Transportation 2.17 Common Area Maintenance 2.18 Design Guidelines and Standards 2.19 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls 2.20 Signage 2.21 General Permitted Uses SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION V PRESERVE AREA EXHIBIT A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, LOCATION MAP (WMB&P File No. RZ-255A) EXHIBIT B CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B-1 CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED) Words swuek- tht�e� are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment i September 2, 2016 3-1 4-1 5-1 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this section is to express the intent of the Barron Collier Partnership, hereinafter referred to as Barron Collier or the Developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 106± acres of land located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Creekside Commerce Park. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will be in substantial compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies and land development regulations adopted thereunder of the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District as identified on the Future Land Use Map which allows certain industrial and commercial uses. The Urban designation also allows support medical facilities, offices, clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers and pharmacies provided they are located within 1/4 mile of the property boundary of an existing or approved hospital or medical center. The Creekside Commerce Park PUD is located within 1/4 mile of the North Collier Hospital. The 2016 petition request is to add 166,000 square feet to the I/C District and 32,000 square feet to the B District. All additional square footage approved in the October 2016 Ordinance amendment will be medical related uses, and will be on Tracts that are within orap rtially within '/4 mile of the North Collier Hospital propertL. 2. The existing Industrial zoning is considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as provided for by Policy 5.9 and 5.11 of the FLUE. 3. The FLUE Urban -Industrial District allows for expansion of the industrial land use provided the rezone is in the form of a PUD, the site is adjacent to existing land designated or zoned industrial the land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and the necessary infrastructure is provided or in place. Creekside Commerce Park has expanded the industrial land use accordingly. 4. The FLUE Urban -Industrial District requires the uses along the boundaries of the project to be transitional. Creekside Commerce Park has included transitional uses accordingly. 5. Creekside Commerce Park is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 6. Improvements are planned to be in substantial compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 7. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the FLUE. Words k thr are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment ii September 2, 2016 Creekside Commerce Park is a master planned, deed -restricted commerce park and is planned to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Planned Unit Development District. 9. This master planned park will incorporate elements from the existing Industrial, Business Park and Industrial PUD sections of the LDC. Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment iii September 2, 2016 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". Words struek throu are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment iv September 2, 2016 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of Creekside Commerce Park, and to describe the existing condition of the property proposed to be developed. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows; COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Section 27; thence along the north line of said Section 27 South 89°45'21" East 1869.61 feet; thence leaving said line South 00°14'39" West 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence along said right of way line in the following Six (6) described courses; 1) South 89°45'21" East 485.99 feet; 2) South 00° 14'39" West 10.00 feet; 3) South 89°45'21" East 150.19 feet; 4) South 89°48'33" East 716.81 feet; 5) North 05°34'33" West 10.05 feet; 6) South 89048'33" East 486.21 feet to a point on the west right of way line of Goodlette Road as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 58, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said line South 05°33'48" East 1767.02 feet; thence leaving said line South 89°20'53" West 51.18 feet; thence North 23°55'53" West 13.07 feet; thence northwesterly, 30.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 21°59'52" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 12°55'57" West 30.53 feet; thence North 05°00'53" West 31.56 feet; thence North 36°19'20" West 32.02 feet; thence North 56°04'35" West 3 5. 11 feet; thence North 80'39'15" West 32.53 feet; thence North 88'39'12" West 97.78 feet; thence North 86°04'40" West 45.79 feet; thence North 89°49'48" West 132.77 feet; thence North 69040'10" West 37.23 feet; thence South 89°20'53" West 142.47 feet; thence South 84°59'26" West 24.66 feet; thence South 74°56'50" West 121.32 feet; thence South 79°49'59" West 45.93 feet; thence westerly and northwesterly, 45.51 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 66.00 feet, through a central angle of 39'30'16" and Words strHek thre are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-1 September 2, 2016 being subtended by a chord which bears North 80°24'53" West 44.61 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence northwesterly, 52.92 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 150.00 feet, through a central angle of 20°12'57" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 70'46'13 " West 52.65 feet; thence North 80°52'42" West 36.59 feet; thence westerly and southwesterly, 46.18 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 33'04'14" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 82°35'11 " West 45.54 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence southwesterly and westerly, 38.16 feet along the are of a circular curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 60.00 feet, through a central angle of 36'26'19" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 84'16'14" West 37.52 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence westerly and northwesterly, 68.85 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 305.00 feet, through a central angle of 12°55'59" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 83°58'36" West 68.70 feet; thence South 89°33'25" West 18.36 feet; thence South 89'39'19" West 71.63 feet; thence North 89°34'56" West 36.03 feet; thence South 86°06'41" West 42.94 feet; thence South 83'44'16" West 26.23 feet; thence South 51 °01' 13" West 27.49 feet; thence South 33°25'50" West 19.95 feet; thence South 15°40'05" West 20.54 feet; thence South 10°54'39" West 34.64 feet; thence South 89'20'14" West 101.06 feet; thence North 10046'06" East 101.42 feet; thence North 89°20'53" East 65.45 feet; thence North 00°39'07" West 100.64 feet; thence South 89°20'53" West 503.78 feet; thence North 00°39'07" West 27.71 feet; thence North 72°58'55" West 131.30 feet; thence North 02°08'56" West 1473.29 feet to a point on the south right of way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Containing 69.48 acres more or less; Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South 89°49'40" East. All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 27; Words 6tFuekthFeugh are deleted, words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 1-2 September 2, 2016 thence along the east line of said Section 27, South 01 °09'43" East 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (SA, 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said east line South 01'09'43" East 1189.62 feet; thence leaving said line South 89°48'50" West 677.35 feet; thence South 05°35'39" East 886.02 feet; thence South 89°48'50" West 400.00 feet to a point on the easterly right of way line of Goodlette Frank Road as Recorded in Plat Book 13, page 58, Public records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said line North 05°35'39" West 2088.10 feet to a point of the south right of way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846); thence along said line South 89°49'40" East 1168.55 feet; thence continue along said line South 89°12'58" East 1.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Containing 38.9 acres more or less; Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South 89°46'26" East. LESS A PORTION OF TRACTS "R" AND "L1" CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTHWESTERLYMOST CORNER OF TRACT "R" (CREEKSIDE WAY) CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°45'00" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FOR A DISTANCE OF 249.45 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00025'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 107.22 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 60°02'56" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.20 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 82°32'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TRACT "Ll" OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE, ALSO BEING THE WES LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00007'39" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 111.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT "R'; THENCE RUN NORTH 89058'01" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 456.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT "R"; THENCE RUN NORTH 02019'57" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 294.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.32 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Words s"eItlue t are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-3 September 2, 2016 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership or control of Barron Collier Partnership, or its assigns, whose address is 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project site is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and is generally bordered on the west by Agriculturally zoned and developed property; on the north, across Immokalee Road by office and medical (North Collier Hospital) PUD zoned and developed property; on the east by Medical Office Park currently under development, County Park and County Wastewater Treatment Facility; and on the south by PUD and County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The location of the site is shown on Exhibit A Aerial Photograph, Location Map. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of PUD application is I (Industrial) and A (Agricultural). C. Elevations within the site are approximately 7.5 to 9 feet-NGVD. Per FEMA Firm Map Panels No. 1200670193D, dated June 3, 1986, the Creekside Commerce Park property is located within Zones "AE -11" of the FEMA flood insurance rate. ' showil on Exhibit G. D. The soil types on the site generally include Riviera limestone substratum, Copeland fine sand, Pineda fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Myakka fine sand, Basinger fine sand, Riveria fine sand, Ft. Drum and Malabar fine sand, and Satellite fine sand. s show!i On F—xhi it n E. Prior to development, vegetation on the site primarily consists of active croplands and small amounts of pine flatwoods. An isolated wetland system is located along the south side of Immokalee Road west of Goodlette-Frank Road. This wetland consists primarily of Brazilian pepper that surrounds a small willow area. The wetland on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road consists primarily of cabbage palms. A portion of the historic water course within this wetland has been channelized. Brazilian pepper has infested the northern part of this wetland. L 1 detailed VL .. Exhibitshown eii F. The project site is located within the Pine Ridge Canal and West Branch Cocohatchee River sub -basins, as depicted within the Collier County Drainage Atlas (July, 1995). The r ptual Ste ate N o N4aste Plaii is shov,4i on Exhibit 141. Words st-ruek thr-e are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-4 September 2, 2016 1.5 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Creekside Commerce Park does not meet the minimum thresholds for a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, 49972016, in that it is at or below 80% of all numerical thresholds in the guidelines and standards set forth therein. Words sk threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 1-5 September 2, 2016 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for Creekside Commerce Park (park), and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. Creekside Commerce Park will consist of predominately industrial, warehouse, wholesale, financial institutions, business and office uses, with limited amounts of retail uses. Creekside Commerce Park shall establish project -wide guidelines and standards to ensure a high and consistent level of quality for proposed features and facilities. B. The Mastef Plan is iflustfated g . Its 225B}7 -A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the Master plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval with minor adjustments at the time of Final Plat approval, in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Creekside Commerce Park shall be in accordance with the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the LDC and Collier County Growth Management Plan which are in effect at the time of issuance of any development order. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that is otherwise applicable shall apply to which said regulations relate. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 3.15 of the LDC. D. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. Words str*ek thf�e� are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-1 September 2, 2016 E. The Site Development Plans Division of the LDC (Article 3, Division 3.3) shall apply to Creekside Commerce Park, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 3.3.4. F. The Developer shall submit to the County an annual PUD monitoring report in accordance with LDC Section 2.7.3.6. 2.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A. The Developer may elect to establish a Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, 1997, to provide and maintain infrastructure and community facilities needed to serve the park. A CDD would constitute a timely, efficient, effective, responsive and economic way to ensure the provision of facilities and infrastructure for the proposed development. Such infrastructure as may be constructed, managed and financed by the CDD shall be subject to, and shall not be inconsistent with, the Collier County Growth Management Plan and all applicable ordinances dealing with planning and permitting of Creekside Commerce Park. B. The land area is amenable to infrastructure provision by a district that has the powers set forth in the charter of a Community Development District under Section 190.006 through 190.041, Florida Statutes. Such a district is a legitimate alternative available both to the County and to the landowner for the timely and sustained provision of quality infrastructure under the terms and conditions of County development approval. 2.5 LAND USES A. The location of land uses are shown on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit B. Changes and variations in building tracts, location and acreage of these uses shall be permitted at preliminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary site development plan approval and final site development plan approval to accommodate utilities, topography, vegetation, and other site and market conditions, subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County LDC. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined at the time of site development plan approval. B. Roads and other infrastructure may be either public, private or a combination of public and private, depending on location, design and purpose. The request for a road to be public shall be made by the Developer at the time of final subdivision plat approval. The Developer or its assignees shall be responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, common areas, water and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the County Code regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise approved during subdivision approval. The Words tel- t reugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-2 September 2, 2016 Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the LDC. 2.6 LAKE SITING A. As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, lakes have been preliminary sited. The goal of this Master Plan is to achieve an overall aesthetic character for the park, to permit optimum use of the land, and to increase the efficiency of the water management network. Fill material from lakes is planned to be utilized within the park; however, excess fill material may be utilized off-site. The volume of material to be removed shall be limited to ten percent of the calculated excavation volume to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. If the applicant wishes to take more off-site, a commercial excavation permit will be required. Final lake area determination shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District stormwater criteria and Section 3.5.7. of the LDC. Setbacks: Excavations shall be located so that the control elevation shall adhere to the following minimum setback requirements, subject to approval of County staff at time of final construction plan approval: a) Twenty feet (20') from right-of-way of internal roads. The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections, and need for barriers. b) Forty feet (40') from Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road rights-of-way. Perimeter property lines will have a setback of twenty feet (20'). The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections and need for barriers. 2.7 FILL STORAGE A. Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Creekside Commerce Park PUD. Fill material generated from properties owned or leased by the Developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the Developer shall notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator per Section 3.2.8.3.6. of the LDC. The following standards shall apply: Stockpile maximum height: Thirty-five feet (35') 2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5) in height shall be separated from developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical barriers if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4 to 1 (i.e. 3 to 1). Words strue1through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-3 September 2, 2016 a) Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC Division 3.7. 2.8 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY Utilization of lands within all park rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entrance ways, and signage shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Developer and the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations during the development review process. 2.9 SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE Sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout Creekside Commerce Park. These uses may be either wet or dry facilities. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.4., Section 3.2.6.3.6. and Division 3.3 of the LDC, with the exception that the temporary use permit shall be valid through the life of the project with no extension of the temporary use required. These uses may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. 10D-6 and may use potable water or irrigation wells. 2.10 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN A. Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or PUD Master Plan as provided in Section 2.7.3.5. of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the LDC. B. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan upon written request of the Developer or his assignee. C. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: 1) The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Creekside Commerce Park PUD document. 2) The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5.1, of the LDC. 3) The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with external adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land Words struek threu are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-4 September 2, 2016 uses, water management facilities, and conservation areas within or external to the PUD. D. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1) Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. 2) Internal realignment of rights -of -ways. 3) Reconfiguration of parcels per Section 5.5 of this PUD. E. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by appropriate Collier County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County Ordinances and regulations prior to the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator's consideration for approval. F. Approval by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan approval, however such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and approvals. 2.11 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT PHASING Submission, review, and approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plats for the park may be accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property. 2.12 OPEN SPACE AND NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS The PUD will fully comply with all sections of the LDC and meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan relating to open space and retention of native vegetation. 2.13 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Chapters 40E-4 and 4-E-40, this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3 -day duration and 25 -year return frequency. The lake originally approved as Lake L- 1, Creekside Unit I Plat, shall continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved plat and approved South Florida Water Management District Permit. Words strue1threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-5 September 2, 2016 2.14 ENVIRONMENTAL Reseufee Permitting (ERP) Rules, and shall f6fthef be subje-t t- and appr-eval-by Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05.00 of the LDC, except as provided for in Deviation for off-site native vegetation preservation in Section 4.5.3 of this PUD Ordinance. 2.15 UTILITIES All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. 2.16 TRANSPORTATION A. The Developer shall provide appropriate left and/or right turn lanes on Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road at the main park entrances. Such turn lanes shall be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for a use that utilizes the perspective/associated entrance. B. There shall be a full access intersection at the park's southern entrance on Goodlette Frank Road. When justified by traffic warrants, this intersection shall be signalized, notwithstanding its proximity to Immokalee Road. C. Future access points to Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads are those shown on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan. D. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided by the Developer at the park's main entrance in conjunction with the development of this entrance. E. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 92-22, as amended. F. The Developer shall provide the appropriate easements or reserve right of way so that the southerly access road west of Goodlette Frank Road may be interconnected to the properties to the west of Creekside Commerce Park. G. The Developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signals at any project access when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signal shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. H. The Developer agrees to complete construction of the segment of internal roadway that connects Goodlette-Frank Road to the UC parcel (herein called Words sk through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-6 September 2, 2016 "southern parcel") that is west of Goodlette Road and abuts Pelican Marsh prior to the first of the following to occur: 1) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the "southern parcel"; 2) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the second business parcel to be developed west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement; 3) Within 3 years of approval of this PUD; or 4) Within 9 months of obtaining "grant" money or other funds for construction of such infrastructure from an outside source. I. The I/C parcels west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement and immediately north of the south road shall connect for service and employee access at the time that the south road is extended to a point that they may connect. J. The Developer agrees to provide the County with an update of the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) at the time of submittal of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. K. The Goodlette-Frank Road southernmost access to the I/C parcel east of Goodlette-Frank Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access. L. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses both primary and ancillary may not exceed 1-7-542,053 PM Peak Hour, two-way trips. 2.17 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Most common area maintenance will be provided by the CDD or by a Property Owner's Association (POA). The CDD or the POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and reserves serving Creekside Commerce Park, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.18 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in the LDC, Section 2.2.20. B. Creekside Commerce Park is planned as a functionally interrelated business park under unified control. The Developer will establish community -wide guidelines and standards to ensure a high level of quality for both the common areas and the individual parcel developments. Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-7 September 2, 2016 C. These guidelines will serve as a control for individual parcel development, and be referred to as The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Creekside Commerce Park. The level of quality defined in this document is directed towards the creation of an attractive business environment, and these standards are the basis for evaluation of projects submitted for review to the Property Association's Architectural and Landscaping Committee, referred to as the ALC. The standards in this document will include criteria for site planning, architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and graphics and signage. D. The specific design guidelines will act as supplemental standards to the requirements of this Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and other County codes, but in no way supersede them. 1. Common Areas The master design of the park's entries and signage, streetscapes, and open space areas will form a harmonious framework that visually links the entire park together. This unified appearance will enhance the image of the entire community. Internal roadways will provide efficient vehicular circulation with streetscapes that create pleasant neighborhood environments. Streetscape plans will be designed to establish a hierarchy of landscape improvements appropriate in scale and character with the function of the street and adjacent land uses. Along these streetscapes a pedestrian walkway system will be established to link each project with the overall community. 2. Individual Projects A. Site Planning: Each individual parcel project will provide a visually appealing, articulated, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles from the street to the site and from the site to the buildings themselves. The orientation of a building or structure upon a site will not only reflect the project's functional need, but will also be responsive to the individual parcel's characteristics and be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. B. Architectural standards: The objective of the architectural standards will be to promote the creation of an attractive, value -apparent business environment. Design elements throughout a project must be consistent with the nature of the chosen style and building materials selected. Project design should endeavor to adhere to the classical principles of design and avoid cliches, overly complex or garish motifs, while seeking to invoke a "timeless" quality. Words strue1- threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-8 September 2, 2016 C. Lighting: The guidelines for lighting will establish a continuity of design for all lighting in the park which is consistent with the overall visual impression of the park. D. Landscaping: The purpose of landscape design guidelines within individual projects is to guide development toward harmonious and visually pleasing landscape that is cohesive with the overall master landscape plan. The Creekside landscape concept will have a naturalistic theme. Similar to the overall project's plant palette, individual sites will be dominated with plants that are native, xeric, or naturalized within Southwest Florida. Landscape designs will create a coherent theme which emphasizes plant material as a primary unifying element. 1. Landscape elements along public R.O.W.s will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. Parcel entries will be designed to harmonize with adjacent streetscape landscaping, and clearly accentuate, the parcel entry. 2. Individual parking lots will be screened from the roadways as much as possible, without obscuring views of the building entrances. In addition, plant materials used around main entrances of buildings will visually cue visitors to—their location. E. Graphics/signage: The guidelines serve to provide continuity of design for all signage in the park which is consistent with the overall visual impression of the park. Parcel signage serves the identification needs of the individual tenants and user. 2.19 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout Creekside Commerce Park. Required buffer treatments shall terminate at entrances to accommodate entrance treatments and at lakes to accommodate views into the park. The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape buffers contiguous to Immokalee Road R.O.W. will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per construction phase and will have the following characteristics: 1) Minimum width of 20'-0", measured from the R.O.W. 2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business District, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' on center (O.C.), planted at an initial height of 13'-14' overall (O.A) with a 6' spread. In Words struek th are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-9 September 2, 2016 addition, a continuous 24" high shrub hedge shall be provided within the 20' buffer. B. Landscape buffers contiguous to Goodlette-Frank Road R.O.W. will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per development phase and will have the following characteristics: 1) Minimum width of 20'-0", measured from the R.O.W. 2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business and Industrial/Commerce (I/C) Districts, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' O.C., planted at an initial height of 12' O.A., with a 6' spread. At the time of individual lot improvements, hedges will be placed at parking lot edges to satisfy the requirements of LDC Section 2.4.7.4. 3) Adjacent to industrial type uses within the Industrial/Commerce District, trees will be native, xeric or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' O.C., planted at an initial height of 12' O.A, with a 6' spread. Trees will be placed on a berm, 3 feet high and supplemented with a 5 foot high hedge consisting of but not limited to the following plant material: coco plum, vibumam, ficus. The intent will be to obtain 80% opacity within one year of planting for travelers on Goodlette-Frank Road. C. Landscape buffers surrounding the perimeter of the park will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per construction phase. The buffers are referenced on Exhibit B, and proceed in a clockwise direction from the northeast corner of the project as follows: 1) The landscape buffer along the eastern most property boundary, north of the preserve area, as depicted on Exhibit B, shall consist of an Alternative "A" type buffer. Any preservation areas within this buffer may be credited toward buffering requirements. 2) The preserve area along the balance of the eastern most property boundary will serve as the buffer between uses. 3) The Developer will provide a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center between the business use and the preserve/lake area, as depicted on Exhibit B. 4) The Developer will provide a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type landscape buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center along the eastern property boundary contiguous to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 5) The landscape buffer along the southern most property boundary, east of Goodlette-Frank Road, shall be a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type Words stmel-tlre� are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-10 September 2, 2016 buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center. An opaque hedge six feet (6') high will be planted to supplement the existing oak tree buffer planted by the County at the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant, 6) The existing landscape berm/buffer from Goodlette Frank Road to the west side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement will be supplemented as follows: a type "A" buffer along the proposed lake; and the remaining area westward of the lake will be supplemented to consist of 50 sabal palms, 8'-14' O.A. and 4 Ficus nitida 12'-13' O.A. and 6'-8' wide; locations to be coordinated with the adjacent property owner. 7) The Developer will provide a ninety percent (90%) opaque landscape buffer and berm between the I/C District and the Pelican Marsh PUD from the west side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement to the existing berm to the west, that approximates the existing Pelican Marsh berm/buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. The buffer shall meet ninety percent (90%) opacity within one (1) year of planting. 8) The Developer will supplement with additional trees the buffer along the remaining portion of the southern property line westward to achieve a ninety percent (90%) opaque buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. 9) The landscape buffer between the I/C District and the adjacent Agricultural District along the southern portion of the western property line will be an Alternative "A" type buffer. 10) The landscape buffer between the R.O.W. and the adjacent Agricultural District to the west will be an Alternative "A" type buffer and be incorporated into the R.O.W. D. Maximum fence or wall height internal to the PUD: Twelve feet (12'). E. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls will be constructed along the perimeter of the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary concurrent with subdivision and site development construction phase, except where noted in this document. F. Sidewalks, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be allowed in landscape buffers pursuant to review and approval of the Development Services Administrator. G. Landscape berms located within the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary and contiguous to a property line and/or right-of-way line may be constructed Words k through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-11 September 2, 2016 such that the toe of slope is located on the property line and/or encroaches into the right-of-way line when approved by the applicable owner or agency. 2.20 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL 1) Pursuant to Section 2.5.5.2.3.7. of the LDC, the following conditions provide for the required comprehensive sign plan for the Creekside Commerce Park 2) Each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land. 3) Signs and decorative landscaped entrance features within a County dedicated right-of-way, shall require a right -of way permit subject to the review and approval of the County. 4) All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. B. PARK ENTRY SIGNS 1) Major park entry signs shall be located as depicted on Exhibit B. Each sign will not exceed 160 square feet in size on any side and signs will be no longer than 25 feet in length and 8 feet in height. 2) Minor park entry signs shall be located as depicted Exhibit B. Each minor monument sign will not exceed 100 square feet in size on any side. Minor monument signs will be no larger than 20 feet in length and 8 feet in height. C. INTERNAL SIGNS 1) Directional or identification signs are allowed within the business park. Such signs may be used to identify the location or direction of approved uses such as sales centers, information centers, etc. Individual signs may be a maximum of 4 square feet per side in size, or signs maintaining a common architectural theme may be combined to form a menu board with a maximum size of 25 square feet per side, and a maximum height of 8 feet. No building permit is required unless such signs are combined to form a menu board. 2) Grand Opening signs: The Developer or parcel owner may display an on-site grand opening sign not exceeding 32 square feet on a side, and not exceeding 64 square feet total. Banner signs shall be anchored and may be displayed on- site for a period not exceeding 14 days within the first three months that the Developer/occupant is open for business. D. USER SIGNS Words swuek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-12 September 2, 2016 1) Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs: One wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign may be permitted for each single -occupancy facility, or for each establishment in a multiple -occupancy facility. Corner units within multiple - occupancy facilities, or multi -frontage single -occupancy facilities shall be allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be combined for the purpose of placing the combined area on one wall. However, the combined area of those signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable display area for signs by this ordinance. a. The maximum allowable display area for signs may not be more than 15 percent of the total square footage of the visual facade of the building to which the sign will be attached and may not, in any case, exceed 200 square feet in area for any sign. 2) Monument and Pole signs: One (1) monument or pole sign is permitted for each lot or parcel for each external and internal road frontage(s). a. Internal road frontage setbacks: A minimum of fifteen feet (15') from the edge of pavement. Signs may encroach within the right-of-way subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility. b. External road frontage setbacks: Pole signs shall be setback from any external right-of-way in accordance with the applicable section of the LDC. Monument signs may be permitted closer to the right-of-way subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility. c. Spot or floodlights may be permitted provided said light shines only on the signs or landscaping and is shielded from motorists and adjacent residents. d. Should the U.S. Postal Service purchase or lease land within Creekside Commerce Park, in addition to the user signs as permitted herein, they will be allowed one sign between Immokalee Road and the proposed lake adjacent to the west entry. E. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic signs such as street name signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, etc. may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme, in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.19, of the LDC. 2.21 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-13 September 2, 2016 A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Creekside Commerce Park PUD except in the Preserve Area. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the Developer and tenants of Creekside Commerce Park and are typically part of the common infrastructure. B. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 5. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 6. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 7. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.11 of this PUD. 8. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. Site filling and grading as set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. 9. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible. 10. Sidewalks may occur within County required buffers if approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator. 11. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC provision in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. 12. Creekside Commerce Park shall be permitted to develop with a maximum of 40 percent commercial uses. Commercial uses are defined as offices, health services, medical clinics, financial institutions, fitness centers, childcare centers, restaurants and retail sales in accordance with Section 3.3. C.2. hereof. Words stmek thpough are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 2-14 September 2, 2016 2.22 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. Words sk through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 2-15 September 2, 2016 SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "I/C". 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "I/C" on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of 5-58716,000 square feet of gross floor area of industrial/commerce uses on 41.649.90.± net acres. Intermediate care (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are in addition to the IC gross square footage figures. The overall vatio (FAR) fer- the 1C designated eas may exeeed .35. Individual par -eels may be developed a4 a highef FAR and the . for hotel/motel, gfoup housing and intefflie ear -e f6eilities (SIC Code 8052) shall not eNeeed .6. (Ref�f te Seetion 3.5, Deviatiens); ,,,,..,eve the •era" FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed .3-54. 5 excluding parking structures. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the United States Postal Service parcel may use any available square footage in the I/C District and the Business District up to a FAR of .35 on the United States Postal Service Parcel until all available square footages are used up in the PUD. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. The permitted principal uses and structures will generally consist of light manufacturing, wholesale, warehouse, processing and packaging, laboratories and clinics, research, design and product development, business services and corporate offices and headquarters. 1. Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment (Group 3728) 2. Apparel and Other Finished Products (Groups 2311-2399) 3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction. Words strue%lreugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-1 September 2, 2016 4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies, except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service; dogs, rental of. for protective service; automobile recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with hair spray, insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a contract or fee basis) 5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 6. Communications (Groups 4812-4899 not including major communications towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, radar or telephone service) 7. Computer and Office Equipment (Groups 3571-3579) 8. Construction; Special Trade Contractors (Groups 1711-1799 except for boiler erection and installation contractors; drainage system installations, cesspool and septic tank contractors; fuel oil burner installation and servicing contractors; gasoline hookup contractors; sewer hookups and connection for buildings contractors; epoxy application contractors; fireproofing buildings contractors; gasoline pump installation contractors; lead burning contractors; and mobile home site setup and tie down contractors) 9. Depository and Non -Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163) 10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836, except for adrenal derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives) 11. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction; survival schools; vocational counseling) Words meek tkreugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-2 September 2, 2016 12. Electronics and Other Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (Groups 3612, 3613, 3624, 3625, 3631, 3641-3676, 3678, 3679, 3694, 3695, 3699, except for airport lighting transformers, autotransformers, electric (power transformers) distribution transformers, electric; electric furnace transformers; lighting transformers, street and airport; transformers, reactor; atom smashers (particle accelerators; electron beam metal cutting, forming, and welding machines; electron linear accelerators; electrostatic particle accelerators)) 13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services (Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research; automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories; pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories) 14. Fabricated Metal Products (Groups 3411-3432, 3442, 3444, 3446, 3452, 3469, 3492, 3495, 3496, production of metal is prohibited) 15. Furniture and Fixtures Manufacturing (Groups 2511-2599) 16. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224- 9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661) 17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011), not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for the entire PUD. Only 1 Hotel/Motel is permitted within the PUD and it must be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to specific development standards and setbacks in Section 3.4. 18. Industrial and Commercial Machinery (Groups 3524, 3546, 3553-3556, 3559, 3562, 3564-3566, 3581-3599 except for bronzing and dusting machines for printing trades; foundry type for printing; presses, printing - slugs printers'; ammunition and explosives loading machinery; brick making machines; cement making machinery; chemical kilns; control rod drive mechanisms for use on nuclear reactors; foundry machinery and equipment; frame straighteners, automotive (garage equipment); fur sewing machines; ginning machines, cotton; metal finishing equipment for plating, except rolling mill lines; metal pickling equipment, except rolling mill lines) 19. Leather and Leather Products (Groups 3131-3199) 20. Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical and Optical Goods: Watches and Clocks Manufacturing (Groups 3812-3843, 3845-3873) 21. Membership Organizations (Groups 8611-8631) Words struek thro� are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-3 September 2, 2016 22. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (Groups 3911-3999 except for dressing of furs: bleaching, blending, curring, scraping, and tanning; feathers: curling, dyeing, and renovating - for the trade; fur stripping; furs dressed: bleached, curried, scraped, tanned, and dyed; pelts: scraping, curring, tanning, bleaching and dyeing; plumes, feather; tear gas devices and equipment; veils made of hair) 23. Motion Picture Production (Groups 7812-7819) 24. Motor Freight Transportation (Groups 4214, 4215) 25. Packing and Crating (Group 4783) 26. Paper and Allied Products (Groups 2652-2657, 2673-2679) 27. Personal Services (Groups 7213, 7216, 7219, 7221) 28. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991) 29. Plastic Materials and Synthetics (Groups 2833,2834) 30. Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries (Groups 2711-2791) 31. Professional Offices: including but not limited to, Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512, 6514, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552,) 32. Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products (Groups 3021, 3085, 3086, 3088, 3089) 33. Transportation Equipment (Group 3732, except for boats, fiberglass: building and repairing; boats: motorboats, sailboats, rowboats, and canoes - building and repairing; houseboats, building and repairing; motorboats, inboard and outboard: building and repairing) 34. United States Postal Service (Group 4311) 35. Warehousing and Storage (Group 4225, 4226, 5014 except oil and gas storage, petroleum and chemical bulk stations and automobile dead storage) only one (1) self -storage use allowed to be located adjacent to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 36. Wholesale Trade -Durable Goods (Groups 5021-5031, 5043-5049, 5063- 5074, 5078, 5091, 5092, 5094-5099 except for fencing, wood -wholesale; lumber: rough, dressed, and finished -wholesale; batteries, except automotive -wholesale; storage batteries, industrial -wholesale; unit substations -wholesale; boilers, power: industrial -wholesale; boilers, steam and hot water heating -wholesale; burners, fuel oil and distillate oil - wholesale; oil burners -wholesale) Words struek threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-4 September 2, 2016 37. Wholesale Trade -Nondurable Goods (Groups 5111-5143, 5145, 5147- 5149, 5192, 5199 except for cats -wholesale; charcoal -wholesale; dogs - wholesale; fish, tropical -wholesale; furs, dressed -wholesale; greases, animal and vegetable -wholesale; ice, manufactured or natural -wholesale, leather and cut stock -wholesale; linseed oil -wholesale; oils, except cooking: animal and vegetable -wholesale; oilseed cake and meal - wholesale; rubber, crude -wholesale; sawdust -wholesale; vegetable cake and meal -wholesale; wigs -wholesale; worms -wholesale) 38. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. B. Restricted Principal Uses The following medical related uses must be located within a 1/4 mile radius of the hospital property boundary. Group housing for the elderly limited to Assisted living facilities, independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.13.2, 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.13.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 2. Health Services, medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.13.2, 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.13.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 3. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-8092, 8099) 4. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this district. Words struekthreugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-5 September 2, 2016 2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the permitted principal use. D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing uses described in Section 3.2.13.1 shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F. B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT. C. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard, adjacent to Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road: Fifty feet (50'). For parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road, see additional setback requirements in Section 3.4.C.7.a. Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-6 September 2, 2016 2. Front Yard, Internal: Thirty feet (30') 3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10') Five feet (5') to internal property line along Pine Ridge canal drainage easement and FP&L easement 4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0') to bulkhead or rip -rap at top of bank, otherwise twenty feet (20') 5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25') 6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD: Fifty feet (50') 7. Minimum Building Setback from Existing Goodlette-Frank Road Right - of -Way East of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50'), except as provided as follows: i) For group housing for elderly and intermediate care use: (a) If the zoned height of any structure exceeds 50 feet, the minimum setback is 75 feet plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over 50 feet of height. ii) For hotel/motel use: (a) Minimum setback of 75 feet regardless of height plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over 50 feet of height. D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road: thifty- €+vefifty feet (35150'), including silos, storage tanks, elevator towers, satellite dishes, antennas, etc. Facilities located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan shall have a maximum zoned height of one -hundred eighty five 0 85') feet and a maximum actual height of two -hundred five (205') feet, For parcels east of Goodlette-Frank Road: the Hotel, group housing for the elderly, and the intermediate care facility shall have a zoned height seventy-five feet (75'), actual height eight -five feet Words str ek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-7 September 2, 2016 (85'). All other uses permitted east of Goodlette-Frank Road pursuant to Section III shall have a zoned height of fifty feet (50') and an actual height of sixty feet (60'). E. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal and external public roadways with a fence or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design. All manufacturing operations and equipment, including accessory process equipment such as compressors and air handlers shall be contained in an enclosed structure. F. All str-ial IIC buildings s sides visible fi-em said read -ways afe prohibited-, as well as emhposed fflietal siding on atiy builwest —of-GeedTe** Roz shall meet the requirements of Section 5.05.08 of the LDC, except for buildings located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan, which shall be subject to the deviation process in Section 5.05.08 of the LDC (see Section 3.5.2, Development Deviations, of this PUD Ordinance). G. Business District type uses located within the I/C District along Goodlette-Frank Road will meet the Collier County Architectural Guidelines in Division 2.8. of the LDC. H. Industrial type uses abutting Goodlette-Frank Road shall meet the requirements of Section 2.19.13.3 hereof, alternatively, said uses shall have the option of utilizing the landscaped buffer applicable to business uses fronting Goodlette-Frank Road, provided the portion of the building facing Goodlette-Frank Road meets the following Architectural Guideline Sections of the LDC, therefore satisfying the intent of the building design section of the Architectural Guidelines in the opinion of the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator: Section 2.8.3.5.1., Purpose and Intent 2. Section 2.8.3.5.4., Facade Standard 3. Section 2.8.3.5.6., Project Standards 4. Section 2.8.3.5.7., Detail Features except for 2.8.3.5.7.2. Section 2.8.3.5.12. I. Loading Areas: Buildings west of the Pine Ridge canal and adjacent to the Pelican Marsh boundary shall orient loading docks to the north, east or west. Noise: Uses within the I/C District shall not exceed 65 dBA between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 60 dBA after 10 p.m. to 6:59 Words struek Areugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-8 September 2, 2016 a.m. and all of Sundays, as measured at the property boundary of the land use from which the sound emanates. K. Odor: No business shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air from any single source such as to result in odors which are detectable outside the parcel boundaries. Best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available shall be utilized in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous air. L. Lighting: Lighting shall be located so that no light is aimed directly toward a property designated residential if lighting is located within 200 feet of residential property. Light fixtures within parking areas shall not exceed 25 feet in height. M. Emissions: All sources of air emissions shall comply with rules set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-2). No person shall operate a regulated source of air emissions without a valid operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses, including the intermediate care facilities. 2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08G, Deviations and alternate compliance, which authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively approve deviations from compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for specific types of buildings to allow general office and medical office that can be constructed on Tract 5 of the Master Plan to be eligible for this deviation process. 3.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section 2.19.B.2. (and B.3) are prohibited Words sowek threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 3-9 September 2, 2016 SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "B". 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "B" on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of 29292,000 square feet of floor area, including approximately 299242,000 square feet of office uses and €050,000 square feet of retail uses on 444.24.88± net acres. Intermediate care facilities (SIC Code 8052), group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are in addition to the B District gross square footage figures. The evefall fleef aro, f (FAR) f f the B designate, afeas m exeeed .35.Individual parcels may be developed at a higher FAR and the FAR for hotel/motel, group housing and intermediate care facilities (SIC Code 8052) shall not exceed .6. (Refer to Section 4.5, Deviations); however, the overall FAR for the PUD for IC and B District areas will not exceed. -3-545. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611-5699) 2. Breweries (Group 2082) 3. Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction. 4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies, except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service; dogs, rental of: for protective service; automobile recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with Words str*ek thre� are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-1 September 2, 2016 hair spray, insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a contract or fee basis) 5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 6. Convenience Store, food market (Group 5411) only two (2) allowed within the PUD and Gasoline Filling Station (Group 5541) only one (1) allowed within the PUD. 7. Communications (Groups 4812-4899), not including major communication towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, radar or telephone service. 8. Dance and Martial Arts Studios (Groups 7911 and 7999, including only gymnastics and martial arts instruction) 9. Depository and Non -Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163) including automatic teller machines 10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836 except for adrenal derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives) 11. Eating Places (Group 5812) not including stand alone drive-thru restaurants. 12. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction; survival schools; vocational counseling) 13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services (Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research; automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories; pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories) 14. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224- 9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661) 15. Hardware Stores (Group 5251) Words sk thpeugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-2 September 2, 2016 16. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores (Groups 5712-5736) 17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011); not to exceed a maximum of 180 rooms for the entire PUD. Only 1 hotel/motel is permitted within the PUD and it must be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and subject to additional building development standards and setbacks identified in Section 4A.Miscellaneous Food Stores (Group 5499) 18, Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores (Group 5399) 19. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912-5949 and 5992-5999, excluding used merchandise stores, fireworks, gravestones, tombstones and monuments, ice dealers, sales barns, and swimming pools; retail) 20. Paint/Glass and Wallpaper (Group 523 1) 21. Personal Services (Groups 7215, excluding self-service or coin laundries, 7221-7251, 7291 and 7299, including only clothing rental, costume rental, tanning salons and hair services) 22. Professional Offices: Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512-6515, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552, 6553); Holding and Other Investment Offices (Groups 6712-6799); Attorneys (Group 8111) 23. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991) 24. Retail Bakeries (Group 5461) 25. Security and Commodity Brokers (Groups 6211-6289) 26. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. B. Restricted Principal Uses The following medical related uses must be located within 1/4 mile radius of the hospital property boundary. Group housing for the elderly limited to assisted living facilities, independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and Words strwek thpwugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 4-3 September 2, 2016 4.3.13.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 2. Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores (Group 5912) only one (1) drug store allowed. 3. Health Services, Medical Clinics and Offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.13.2, 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.13.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 4. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-8099) 5. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this district. 2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the permitted principal use. D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing uses described in Section 4.2.B.1 shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning Words struelthreugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-4 September 2, 2016 for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F. B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT. C. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard, Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads: Fifty feet (50') 2. Front Yard, Internal Roads: Thirty feet (30') 3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10') Five feet (5') to internal property line along the Pine Ridge canal drainage easement and FP&L easement 4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0') to bulkhead or rip -rap at top of bank, otherwise twenty feet (20') 5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25') 6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD for Properties West of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) Fifty feet (50') for buildings up to thirty five feet (35') in height. b) Three additional feet (3') for every one foot of building height over thirty five feet (35') adjoining residential districts. 7. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD and from Public Roadways: Words struek thre� are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 4-5 September 2, 2016 a) Immokalee Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50') plus for any portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50'), that portion of the building shall have its building setback increased at a 1:3 ratio (i.e. one (1') vertical foot of height for every three (3') horizontal feet); or For any portion of a hotel that may be constructed on the B designated tract at the southeast corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road, a minimum three hundred fifty foot (350') building setback from Immokalee Road. b) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50') and for any portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50'), that portion of the building shall have the setback increased at a 1:2 ratio (i.e. one (1') vertical foot of height for every two (2') horizontal feet); or For any portion of a hotel on the B designated tract on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road, the minimum setback from Goodlette-Frank Road shall be seventy-five (75') regardless of height. D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road, three stories over parking to a maximum of fifty feet (50') except that no structure shall be greater than thirty-five feet (35'), on property west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed on the B designated tract located at the southeast quadrant of the Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road intersection shall have a zoned height of sixty feet (60') and an actual height of seventy feet (70'), except that a hotel building or structure associated with this use may not exceed a zoned height of seventy five feet (75') and an actual height of eighty five (85'). Uses on Tract 9 on the Master Plan shall be permitted to have a zoned height of seventy five feet (75') and an actual height of eighty five (85') b) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed on the easternmost B designated tract adjacent to Immokalee Road, as shown on the Master Plan, shall have a zoned height of sixty feet (60') and an actual height of seventy feet (70'). C) All other uses permitted pursuant to Section IV shall be limited to a maximum zoned height of fifty (50') and an actual height of sixty (60'). Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 4-6 September 2, 2016 E. Commercial design guidelines for facilities in the Business District shall be subject to the provisions of Division 2.8. Architectural and Site Design Standards and Site Design Standards for commercial buildings and projects. F. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal and external public roadways with a fence at least seven feet in height above ground level, or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design. 4.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.l which establishes a .45 floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses, including the intermediate care facility. 2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 Directory signs, which authorizes one (1) directory sign to be located at the project entrance, to permit installation of the directory sign on Immokalee Road east of Goodlette-Frank Road, not at the project entry, but rather at a location between the project entry and Goodlette- Frank Road. 3. Deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.114a), Preservation Standards_ a property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for properties zoned commercial where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size to allow offsite preservation where the on-site preserve requirement is more than 2 acres and where the off-site preserve proposed is less than 2 acres, to permit an off-site preserve area of 1.35± acres. The preserve area impacted by the expansion of the `B' District is located in the area east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 4.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section 2.19.A.2 (and B.21 are prohibited. Words #ret are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 4-7 September 2, 2016 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for the area within Creekside Commerce Park, designated on the Master Plan, as Preserve Area, 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Preserve Area on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails). 2. Water management structures. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, permitted in accordance with the LDC and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 5.4 PRESERVE DISTRICT PRESERVATION EASEMENT A non-exclusive preservation easement or tract is required by LDC Section 3.2.8.4.7.3. for preservation lands included in the Preserve Area. The Developer, its successor or assign shall be responsible for the control and maintenance of lands within the Preserve Area. Exact location/boundary of the Preserve Area will be determined during the development permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District, Army Corps of Engineers, and Collier County. Words s"ek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPDD Amendment 5-1 September 2, 2016 5.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed native vegetation retention areas, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan, are intended for meeting the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservations areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development -plan approval. If adjustments are needed, per the Collier County LDC the Developer will have the option to increase the preservation in another area, enhance and preserve another area, or provide increased native landscape per the Collier County LDC. The proposed preservation areas, including 2791.37 acres of wetlands and 4744.28 acres of uplands, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park master plan, are areas where the native vegetation requirements may be met on-site as set forth in the Collier County LDC. An area 0.68± acres in size shall be created as on-site native preservation, adjacent to the existing "PU" preserve located west of Goodlette-Frank Road. The developer or successors shall provide for a minimum of 1.35 acres of native vegetation preservation offsite. The off-site preservation area shall be identified at the time of Development Order approval, which proposes impacts to the existing preserve area(s). Words sti-uelthrough are deleted; words underlined are added. 2016 CPUD Amendment 5-2 September 2, 2016 COLLIER'S EXISTING TRAFFIC RESERVE PUD SIGNAL -MAJOR RTit1 SR.INAGE MAJOR ENTRY Y `I ��--• 4.. MRIO N Y F A SIGNAGE ALTERNATE "A" 10' V WIDE LANDSCAPE JJJ BUFFER WITHIN R.O.W. PER L.D.0. (C,TBI NAPLES DAILY NEWS PUD r PROJECT B Rd ARY , ALTERNATE 'A' 10' WIDE LANDSCAPI BUFFER PER L.D.C. (Cs) NOTA PART OF THIS PUD SUPPLEMENT EXISTING BUFFER WITH ADDITIONAL TREES TO ACHIEVE 90% OPAQUE BUFFER Ic") REQUIRED PRESERVES: 7.00 ACRES NORTH COLLIER NORTH COLLIER ON-SITE. 5.65 ACRES MEDICAL HOSPITAL PUD t OFF-SITE: 1.35 ACRES 3 — - ••—°�-'�- '�•'-' EXISTING TRAFFIC --- _ DEVIATION IMMOKALEE ROAD MAJOR ENTRY SIGNAGE °� .._ .� _ - �"""""- ��. - . .. - _ _ .. _ MINOR ENTRY SIGNAGE - t r f NAJORENTRYSIGNAGE 1 2D' WIDE LANDSCAPE,' BYO' WOE LANDSCAPE.i BUFFER CT (Al. A2, B182BUFFER 8 1131 IA A2. BT, B2 b BS) C /Sign Deviation (See PU 11 TRACT 3 ALTERNATE Section 4.5, Item 2 ) ,1 B Ii I B ) �1 ' B ! 1 '— 10'WR LANDSCAPE TRACT 9_ BUFFER PER LD.0 TRACT 8 CREEKSIDE;PKWY� [ �—' m B (CAI m 3GUTHWEST II`ut` I 1 ;PROFESSIONAL 1 a t mlA .1 Q' A or CHEALTH PARK TRACT 51— } Q I• 1 `� m TRACT 10 (. rj l/r WIE tANO6CAPE_ ( PROJECT /I`�,•.�.—_ _ �_.�—._ _ RiGNEA3S) EbO'AecturalStandardsDeviationPACT UC UNITARY -WITH HDTREIUD Section 3.5, Item 2) ' P /BO l/CSIGNAL ARE ACT A8UpSCAPE BUFFER 11 .- "IT 7 /94% OPAQUE BUFFER AND BERM ; TO APPROXIMATE EXISTING BUFFER (C.TI WI y I OPEN SPACE Q a W3 FPAL EASEMENT C; S'SERM WITH ALTERNATE "A" BUFFER Preserve Standards Deviation (See PUD Section 4.5, Item 3) ALTERNATE 'A^ BUFFER Cc WITH TREES SO• D.G. SEW IC.4) LAND USE SUMMARY I/C — Industrial/Commerce = 49.90± Ac B — Business = 24.88± Ac Right of Way = 9.25± Ac L — Lake = 7.63± Ac PW — Preserved Wetlands = 1.37± Ac PU — Preserved Uplands = 4.28± Ac Other (buffers, open space)= 8.77± Ac -- TOTAL = 106 08± Ac F WOE LVAISCAPE BUFFER WITH A W HEDGE TO SUPPLEMENT EXISTING OAK TREE BUFFER ON THE ADJACENT SWEAGE GENERALNOTES TREATMENT PLANT (c5) 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL, NOTA SPECIFIC SURVEY. ALL EASEMENT mwlw LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. THE BUFFER DESIGNATIONS IN PARENTHESIS E.G. (C.1, A-1), REFER TO -N - PUD DOCUMENT PARAGRAPH 2.119 WHERE BUFFER IS DESCRIBED. V -1. S J. U3 EXHIBIT B1 CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED) INTERNAL PARCEL. PARKING STREET LIGHT HEDGE CANOPY TREE CANOPY TREE PARCEL ENTRANCE T -WALK INTERNAL PARCEL PARKING 12' 1 12' +^ +a�cx as• PAVOAM RNTERRIAL PARCEL PAR KMQ HEDGE STREET LIGHT CANOPY TREE �CANOPY TREE PARCEL ENTRANCE MKT 1 i---SMWALK PARKRNAL ING PARCEL +r 1 1z 10' +z it s lb" wHucZ maw �aa INTERNAL PARM PARKING STREET LIGHT WEDGE CANOPY TIME % CANOPY TREE PAROM MRANCE iM UMENT / r---^-8WEWALK INTERNAL PARCEL PARKING G A D 'C GOEDE / ADAMCZYK / DEBOEST / CROSS ATTORNEYS AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSEL INFO@GADCLAW.COM / WWW.GADCLAW.COM September 8, 2016 Sent via electronic mail(michaelbosi(Z colliergov.net) Michael Bosi, AICP Director of Planning and Zoning Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Proposed Amendment to Creekside Commerce Park CPUD (PL20160001865) Dear Mr. Bosi: This Firm represents the Foundation of Pelican March, Inc. ("Foundation"), a Florida not for profit corporation and homeowners association comprised of more than 4,000 residents. The Foundation includes many homes and land located immediately adjacent to the Creekside Commercial Park CPUD zoning district ("Creekside CPUD"). As you are aware, Arthrex has an application pending(referenced above)to amend the Creekside CPUD (the "Proposed PUD Amendment"). While we recognize the important contributions that Arthrex has made in our community, and we applaud their continued success, we have serious concerns with the Proposed PUD Amendment. The Foundation agrees with and echoes the concerns previously expressed by neighboring communities such as Bay Colony and Collier's Reserve. In addition, the Foundation has the following concerns with the Proposed PUD Amendment: Procedural Defects. A review of project records indicates that to date, the rezoning process is procedurally defective to the detriment of Foundation members and neighboring communities. Defects in the process include the following: 1. No pre-application meeting. County records indicate that the requirement for a pre-application meeting may have been "waived". However, the pre-application meeting is not optional. The County is apparently taking the position that a meeting with the Applicant in the County Manager's Office, without any notes taken, meets the pre-application meeting requirement. However, every other rezoning in Collier County must abide by land development 8950 Fontana Del Sol Way, Ste. 100 2030 McGregor Boulevard 2600 Douglas Road,Ste.717 4800 N. Federal Highway, Ste.307D Naples, Florida 34109 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 P: 239.331.5100 P: 239.333.2992 P: 786.294.6002 P: 561.368.9200 F: 239.260.7677 F: 239.333.2999 F: 305.503.9551 F: 561.395.7050 regulations that require a pre-application meeting with the Director of Planning and Zoning and other staff"prior to the submission of a formal application . . ." (see LDC, Section 10.02.13.B.1). The pre-application meeting is intended to discuss project details and requirements with the County's professional staff. This is a cost that every other applicant must incur. By "waiving" the pre-application requirement, and holding a meeting in the County Manager's Office in the place of this clear requirement, the County has apparently violated its own land development regulations. 2. No NIM notice to more than 4,000 neighbors. The Foundation is a prevalent and well-known homeowners association that borders the Creekside PUD. County land development regulations require provision of notice of the neighborhood information meeting ("NIM") to "all neighboring civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use change . . ." This notice requirement is the Applicant's responsibility. The Foundation's many members will be impacted by this project, and the Applicant's failure to provide notice of the NIM to the Foundation and its members has resulted in a lack of input from hundreds of affected Foundation members and Creekside neighbors. The application reflects an intent to notify the Pelican Marsh community via "Pelican Marsh Owners Association, Inc." That entity is a Florida not for profit corporation dissolved more than sixteen (16) years ago and wholly unrelated to the Foundation. The individual served on behalf of Pelican Marsh Owners Association, Inc. is a representative of the Pelican Marsh developer that turned over control of the Foundation to the members many years ago. Further, although the Applicant apparently held a meeting with neighboring Bay Colony, the application is void of any formal notice to the immediately adjacent Bay Colony land owner. It is the Foundation's position that the expedited approval schedule provides inadequate opportunity for public participation, and therefore the Applicant's attempt to provide notice to affected neighbors should be flawless to maximize any potential public participation. Substantive Defects. In addition to the above procedural requirements, the Foundation asserts that the Proposed PUD Amendment includes several substantive shortcomings. 1. Building height. The proposed amendment includes an increase in building height West of Goodlette-Frank Road from the existing 35 feet to 50 feet, with an isolated exception of Tract 5 to 185 feet (zoned height) and 205 feet (actual height). The Proposed PUD Amendment further includes an increase in building height East of Goodlette-Frank Road for Tract 9 and removes most all restrictions on the use of the sizeable Tract 9. This is an unreasonable increase that will change the skyline of North Naples and the isolated exceptions create drastic de facto variances to longstanding height restrictions that have shaped the character of Pelican Marsh and Collier County. If the Creekside PUD Amendment is approved, it will undoubtedly yield a waiting line for developers and businesses to request similar variances and amendments. El A 2 `D 2. Traffic. The proposed amendment also includes more than 3,000 new vehicle trips daily that will undoubtedly threaten to burden the level of service below acceptable parameters. It is my understanding that the NIM included an acknowledgment by the Applicant's representative that the traffic frustrations and service levels would be exacerbated as a result of the Proposed PUD Amendment. The Foundation further questions whether the County has a full appreciation for the negative traffic impacts considering the nature of the proposal would significantly alter the number and nature of jobs based in the area, but also the traffic flow by the alteration of Creekside Boulevard and its use by the public and large trucks employed by the Naples Daily News. Neither the record nor the information provided at the NIM reflect a comprehensive understanding of these critical issues. 3. Environment. The Foundation echoes the concerns expressed by the Conservancy of Southwest Florida that the proposed amendment would result in adverse impacts to the existing conservation easements and preserve areas. The fact that Pelican Marsh borders the Creekside PUD indicates these environmental concerns may also directly impact the Foundation, and this impact may not be adequately analyzed due to the accelerated approval process being employed by the County. 4. Density. The project proposes intensification of commercial density. It appears that Arthrex applied for and obtained a previous amendment to the Creekside PUD in January, 2016 (2016-05), which on its face does not appear to be an extensive increase in commercial density, but when combined with the current proposed amendment yields an unreasonable influx of commercial density and capacity. These cumulative amendments are alarming to the Foundation considering the fact that the Foundation, as a significant stakeholder in the area, did not receive proper NIM notice for both the January amendment and the current proposed amendment. Foundation residents are now faced with the possibility of having their property rights substantially impacted without notice or representation. My client understands the importance of timing to this project. Nevertheless, this Applicant must be held to the same standards as other applicants with respect to observing County land development regulations. This PUD amendment is clearly being handled differently and although the accelerated timeline and requested outcome may be good for Arthrex, it is detrimental to its neighbors and the residents of Collier County. The requirements of a pre- application meeting and proper notice to neighboring homeowners associations are in place for a reason — i.e., to ensure public involvement and proper review and vetting of any proposal. The Foundation opposes any amendment to the Creekside PUD that would permit a building height greater than is currently constructed. By this communication, we kindly request the County honor the following requests: (1) require Arthrex to hold a pre-application meeting, consistent with County land development regulations; (2) require Arthrex to re-schedule the neighborhood meeting, consistent with County land development regulations; (3) continue and abate the September 15, 2016 Planning Commission hearing to consider the Proposed PUD Amendment; (4) make this communication a part of the record in relation to the referenced project; and (5) add the Foundation to the project notification list. El A 3 D 1131 If you have any questions or concerns with the information we have provided, do not hesitate to contact me at (239) 687-3936 or at sadamczyk@gadclaw.com. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly, Goe• Adamczyk, DeBoest & Cross `I eve Adamczyk cc: Donna Fiala, Chairman and District 1 Commissioner Georgia Hiller, Esq., District 2 Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 Commissioner County Attorney's Office Robert Pritt, Esq. Mark Strain, Planning Commission Chair Karen Homiak, Planning Commission Diane Ebert, Planning Commission Stan Chrzanowski, Planning Commission El A 4 ~D MORRIS 2891 Center Pointe Drive Unit 100 I Fort Myers, Florida 33916 DEPEVV Phone (239) 337-3993 I Toll Free (866) 337-7341 www.morris-depew.com ENGINEERS• PLANNERS•SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Compatibility Issues: Creekside CPUD Amendment PL20160001865 September 8,2016 Arthrex, Inc. has submitted a request to modify the existing Creekside CPUD approval (Collier County Ordinance 06-51, as amended by Collier County Ordinance 13-23). Creekside is a 106- acre commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of Immokalee and Goodlette Roads in northern Collier County. Based upon the applicant's submittals, the following issues have been identified as compatibility concerns for surrounding and proximate residents. 1. The application increases the total allowable square footage of the development by 200,000 square feet. The submitted traffic study indicates that an additional 3,970 daily trips are being added to the network. This provides an additional 206 AM peak hour trips and an additional 392 PM peak hour trips. Put more directly, there will be an additional 3.43 cars per minute at the entrances to the development during the AM peak, and an additional 6.53 cars per minute at the entrances to the development during the PM peak. May, 2106 traffic counts on Goodlette were 19,266 average daily trips (ADT's) south of Immokalee Road; counts on Immokalee were 49,296 ADT's east of Goodlette and 22,803 ADT's west of U. S. 41; counts were 61,177 ADT's on U. S. 41, north of Immokalee, and 39,096 ADT's south of Immokalee. The addition of 3,381 daily trips to the network will be significant. Additionally, the proposed development expansion is in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area.This means that the area in which it is proposed to be located is already deficient in the network's capacity. It is also noted that a 25% pass-by capture rate was used for the analysis, but that rate is for shopping centers, a use that does not accurately reflect the activities proposed for this development. 2. The application removes the connection of Creekside Boulevard through the project. Coupled with the additional floor area, and the added traffic impacts, the reduction of internal circulation options will increase traffic congestion at the project's access points. Truck traffic accessing the Naples Daily News will be forced to take a more circuitous route to reach the loading areas west of the proposed new building. Additionally, the applicant refuses to provide additional sidewalks along the remaining roadways to accommodate multi-modal opportunities for internal circulation. 3. The project proposes to increase the allowable height on Tract 5 to 205' and allow the proposed structure to avoid compliance with the architectural standards found in the LDC.The applicant now represents that they will comply with standards to be enforced by Staff at the time the site development permit applications are made.This removes any consideration of the building features from consideration by the Planning Commission of the Board of County Commissioners.There is significant concern that such a large, imposing structure as that which is being proposed (i.e. at 205' in height Fort Myers I Gainesville I Tallahassee Destin Compatibility Issues,Creekside CPUD Amendment September 8, 2016 Page 12 and with an additional 166,000 SF of overall development floor area) will so overpower the current neighborhood as to change the existing aesthetic. Conditions should be provided to protect the existing development, including consideration of massing, bulk, facade articulation, and the potential for lowering the maximum height to more generally conform to the current permitted heights. Representations provided by the applicant cannot be relied upon absent conditions supplied within the approving ordinance. 4. Section 2.21.B.12 of the PUD ordinance states, "Creekside Commerce Park shall be permitted to develop with a maximum of 40 percent commercial uses. Commercial uses are defined as offices, health services, medical clinics, financial institutions, fitness centers, childcare centers, restaurants and retail sales in accordance with Section 3.3.C.2. hereof."Section 3.2 of the proposed ordinance indicates that there is an increase of maximum floor area from 550,000 to 805,000 square feet. Neither the site plan nor the proposed ordinance adequately demonstrate how the 40%cap on commercial uses will be calculated, tallied by the County, or implemented by the developer.There is no indication as to the percentage of the proposed 205' tall building that will be considered as a use other than commercial in accordance with the definitions of the proposed ordinance. Section 4.2 of the proposed ordinance also addresses uses and floor areas in areas labelled 'B' on the Master Plan, but fails to demonstrate how the 40% restriction is to be met. As part of the applicant's/1/2016 response, it is stated, "All additional square footage proposed will be for medical related uses consistent with the standards providing for additional medical related uses near the North Collier Hospital." Based upon the language of Section 2.21.B.12,these uses would all appear to be part of the 40% maximum. 5. On page 3-8 of the proposed amended PUD ordinance the limit of 185'/205' is established for Tract 5 of the MCP. Additionally, a limit of 75'/85' is established for the I/C hotel/motel parcel. The remaining parcels west of Goodlette are being increased to 50' in height from 35'.The balance of the I/C parcels east of Goodlette are limited to 50'/60' in height. However, as noted on page 4-6, all uses on Tract 9 are specifically called out for an increase in the height limit to 75'/85'. Clearly the overall impact of the proposed amendments includes a significant increase in the permitted heights of the development. As noted in the application materials, the tallest building in the area is 103' (North Collier Hospital) with the next tallest being the Naples Daily News (72').The proposed structures will be among the tallest habitable buildings in Collier County. They will be located adjacent to a golf course development of single family structures, and quite visible to the surrounding communities.This building will be the only structure at this height for miles around, and will certainly be a visible landmark located in a community of significantly lesser structures. Additionally, lighting of the proposed building during nighttime hours could have significant impacts upon surrounding and proximate land uses. 6. The application is requesting a deviation for reduced on-site native vegetation preservation.This will increase the area of impervious surface within the development, decreasing the on-site preservation, according to the applicant, by 1.14 acres.The project was previously required to preserve 6.14 acres, with that figure being reduced to Compatibility Issues,Creekside CPUD Amendment September 8,2016 Page I 3 5.0 acres by the request. However, it is noted that the developed site area of the I/C portion of the PUD has been increased from 41.6 acres to 49.9 acres, and the B portion of the PUD from 19.1 acres to 24.88 acres.Thus the net development area is being increased, yet the preservation area is being decreased. Additionally, according to Section 3.05.07B.1, the required preservation area would be 25%for projects greater than 20 acres. For the 106.08-acre site, this means that the required preservation area should be 26.52 acres.There does not appear to be any provision in the proposed ordinance that would address the location of the required open space, nor is it designated on the Master Plan. In fact,the Master Plan lists only 8.77 acres of buffers and open space. Combining that number with the 5 acres of preservation area yields only 13.77 acres of open space, a deficit of 12.75 acres. 7. The actual construction process on a building of 205' in height will involve the placement of cranes, stockpiling of steel, concrete trucks, and a great deal of activity on the proposed site.There is no consideration of working hours, restrictions on days of the week to be worked, barriers, noise control, or other elements of the construction process that could impact compatibility. From: Michael Michigami [mmmbas@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:45 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Commissioner Strain, We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you, Michael and Sharon Michigami 8990 Bay Colony Drive, Apt. 602 Naples, FL 34108 From: Gregory DeWitt [gregg.dewitt@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:46 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Mr. Strain: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Gregg and JoAnn DeWitt From: Kim Rosenberg [krosenb@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:21 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Kim Rosenberg 8665 Bay Colony Dr Naples, FL From: Donna Koterba [dkoterba@brudereramericas.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:28 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Mr. Strain, We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. Also, a complete environmental impact study should be submitted before any other decisions are rendered. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Best Regards, Alois Rupp 9770 Niblick Lane Naples, FL 34108 From: Debra Griswold [debragriswold@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:31 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Debra Griswold 9960 Brassie Bend Naples, Florida 34108 From: eary@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:32 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Sent from my iPad From: George Klaus [lgklaus@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:36 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Mr. Strain, I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on my golf club, golf course and residences at Bay Colony. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. I urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you, George Klaus -- George Klaus 949+422-4222 lgklaus@gmail.com -- George Klaus 949+422-4222 lgklaus@gmail.com -- George Klaus 949+422-4222 lgklaus@gmail.com From: Harshman, Rich [Rich.Harshman@ATImetals.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:58 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; StrainMark Cc: jerryt@baycolonygolfclub.com Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: My wife and I are members of the Bay Colony Golf Club. express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course a revisions would permit the construction of a 205 than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic imp concerns are also a major issue allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard J. Harshman Scheryl C. Harshman 8665 Bay Colony Drive #1602 Naples, FL 34108 Richard J. Harshman Harshman, Rich [Rich.Harshman@ATImetals.com] Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:58 PM HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; StrainMark jerryt@baycolonygolfclub.com Dear Planning Commission Member: My wife and I are members of the Bay Colony Golf Club. We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development nd residences. The foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down lications. Environmental with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Corporate Headquarters 1000 Six PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5479 ATImetals.com T: 412-394-2861 F: 412-394-2884 This electronic message contains information that may be confidential. The information is intended to be for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. From: Michael J Rothmeier [mrothmeier@visi.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:05 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Michael J. Rothmeier Member of Bay Colony Golf Club Collier County's Planning Commissioners: Planning Commissioner Email Address Karen Homiak, Vice Chair karenhomiak@colliergov.net Diane Ebert dianeebert@colliergov.net Mark Strain, Chair markstrain@colliergov.net Stan Chrzanowski stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact the proposed Artrex tower will have: The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: STEPHEN PETERSEN [stephen_petersen@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:27 PM To: EbertDiane Cc: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. From: Jay Smith [jsmith@teel.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:30 PM To: StrainMark Cc: EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; HomiakKaren Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Jay & Pat Smith From: Nancy Johnson [nancyljohnson@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:31 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Importance: High Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you, Brian and Nancy Nahey 9750 Bent Grass Bend Naples, FL 34108 From: David J. Eskra [davideskra@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:47 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. David J. Eskra 7935 Vizcaya Way Naples, Florida 34108 (Mobile)630.235.0136 (Home Florida)239.254.5035 (Home Wisconsin)262.448.1217 (Fax)239.254.5036 (e-mail) davideskra@comcast.net From: Bob Tuniewicz [RTuniewicz@tri-techsales.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:49 PM To: StrainMark Subject: ARTHREX Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Robert M Tuniewicz 906 SPANISH MOSS TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA CEO, Tri-Tech Sales Associates, Inc. & PRESIDENT, ACD Inc. Nesconset, New York 11767 Tel; 631-642-0087 x 206 Fax: 631-642-1544 Cell : 516-849-9881 email address: rtuniewicz@tri-techsales.com From: Joe Sanda [joesan@AstuteSolutions.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:12 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you, Joe Sanda From: Barbara Balser [bbalser@balserllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:01 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Barbara B. & Ronald D. Balser Barbara & Ron Balser Barbara’s Cell: 404 307-6444 Balsers’ Naples Residence: 239 596-1467 7575 Pelican Bay Blvd Penthouse 1807 Naples, FL 34108 From: Dennis Donovan [dmdonovan3@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:02 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Dennis Donovan Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Felix Zulauf [zulauf@zuam.ch] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:09 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Cc: Felix Zulauf Subject: Arthrex Building From: Felix Zulauf Sent: Mittwoch, 7. September 2016 18:06 To: karenhomiak@colliergov.org; dianeebert@colliergov.org; markstrain@colliergov.org; stanchrzanowski@colliergov.org Subject: Arthrex Building Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Ursula & Felix W. Zulauf 8787 Bay Colony Drive NAPLES, FL 34108 From: Mark H. Ferguson [mhferguson@sorlinglaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:26 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Co. Dear Planning Commission Member: My wife and I are property owners in Naples. While I am a part-time resident, my wife is a Naples resident and voter. I am writing today regarding the proposal of Arthrex Co. to make major modifications to property near our Bay Colony home and golf course. We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members (including my wife and I) are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonably limited amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Sincerely, Mark H. Ferguson Phone: 217-544-1144 Fax: 217-522-3173 mhferguson@sorlinglaw.com 1 North Old State Capitol Plaza, Suite 200 P.O. Box 5131 Springfield, IL 62705 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e- mail, including attachments, is not intended or written by Sorling Northrup to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. From: Verne Istock [vgistock@charter.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:13 PM To: StrainMark Cc: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex project Dear Chairman Strain, My wife and I have been members of Bay Colony Golf Club for the past 16 years and have a home on Mashie Court with sight lines to the proposed tower. While we would not like to see the tower itself, our biggest concerns are the impact this project will have from an environmental and density standpoint. The Immokalee road is already a highly congested area and this project will make it far worse in addition to eliminating one of the roads behind the shopping center. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject this project in its entirety. Very truly yours, Verne and Judy Istock 9659 Mashie Court. 21.txt From: Basil Anderson [basil.and@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:46 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex project- please reject! Dear Planning Commission Member, My wife and I selected Naples as our primary residence because of the unique nature of this town. We happily sold our place on the East Coast and have been delighted to live here. We strongly oppose the proposed plan to build the Arthrex building as a 205 foot tall building. The reasons for our opposition are fourfold: 1. Once such a building is approved, the "genie is out of the bottle" and that will set a precedent for future buildings of similar height; 2. Such a tall building changes the architectural view of North Naples which makes it unappealing versus the current buildings in the area. If approved, we would move towards the unattractive "East Coast" model; 3. We joined the Bay Colony Golf Club and love the serene nature of that club. If approved, this new building absolutely destroys the look and feel of an outstanding club which attracts successful people to Naples. I believe your Commission would do Naples a tremendous dis favor if such a monstrosity is approved. 4. There are many many sites to develop business and office spaces without changing the very nature of Naples that has attracted so many of us to this part of Florida. I urge you to reject this project as proposed. Thanks for your consideration. Basil and Patti Anderson 239-206-4481(o) Sent from my iPad Page 1 From: sepeers@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:29 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Proposai Dear Planning Commission Members I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative impact that the approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on Bay Colony Golf Club, the golf course and the local residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to the Club property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Also closing down Creekside Blvd. will have major traffic implications and environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Sylvia Peers From: japeers@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:02 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Proposal Dear Planning Commission Members I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative impact that the approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on Bay Colony Golf Club, the golf course and the local residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to the Club property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Also closing down Creekside Blvd. will have major traffic implications and environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Jim Peers From: Hamilton, Robin M [Robin.Hamilton@morganstanley.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:41 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Revisions Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Robin Hamilton Robin M. Hamilton Senior Vice President I Financial Advisor Investment Management Consultant I Family Wealth Advisor Morgan Stanley Wealth Management 8889 Pelican Bay Blvd, Suite 300 I Naples, FL 34108 Direct: 239-449-7863 Toll Free: 800-326-9921 E Fax: 1-239-243-9753 robin.hamilton@morganstanley.com NMLS# is 1290382 Designated Family Wealth Advisor, focused on helping families plan for generations. Please visit my website at http://www.morganstanley.com/fa/robin.hamilton Sharpen your financial focus. Simplify your financial life. Learn more – watch the three minute OneView Video. Connect with me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/robinhamiltonmorganstanley Follow me on Twitter: @RHamiltonMSSB NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By communicating with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing and to the voice recording of conversations with personnel of Morgan Stanley. From: Phil Warren [pwarren@warrencommercial.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:25 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex spot zoning request Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact the approval of the proposed 205 feet Arthrex building will have on our club, Bay Colony Golf Club, and the surrounding area and residences. In addition, the closing of Creekside Blvd. will have major traffic implications to the area. Never in my 30 years as a commercial real estate developer have I seen such a flagrant deviation from current zoning laws with this proposed project which would allow spot zoning totally out of character for the existing area. There is absolutely no basis for any reasonable land planner to even consider the height and magnitude of this development in this area of our community. This proposed 205 feet building is less than 400 feet from single family residents! It’s hard for me to believe this application is even being considered. Also, I find it quite unbelievable this project is being fast tracked at a time when most residents and neighbors affected by this project are not in Naples. I urge you to do the responsible thing and reject this project. Sincerely, Sarah and Phil Warren 645 Via Mezner Naples , Florida 34108 Phillip A. Warren Warren Commercial Real Estate, Inc. 5217 Maryland Way Suite 300 Brentwood, TN 37027 pwarren@warrencommercial.com 615-309-0781 x 102 (o) 615-812-8366 (m) From: Betty Paluszak [BPaluszak@crawfordgrp.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:17 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex update Attachments: Arthrex update 9-7-16.pdf Richard Crawford asked I send you the attached thank you Betty Paluszak Accounts Payable/Accounts Receivabe The Crawford Group/ Crawford Group Investments Phone 239-593-6160 Fax 239-593-6167 E-mail – bpaluszak@crawfordgrp.com From: Thomas Dolphin [tpd@21stcenturybank.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:31 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Cc: JerryT@baycolonygolfclub.com; ECBeecher@CBBURNET.COM Subject: FW: ARTHREX / From two Bay Colony Club Members Dear Planning Commission Members: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. Finally we offer that after having spent the past Labor Day weekend at the Club and envisioning the intrusion that this project will have on the serenity of the grounds that we all enjoy, we must urge you to reject the application in its entirety. This seems like a really bad idea for a neighbor to the human recreation aspects of the club and it wild life sanctuary. Thank you for your consideration of our feelings on this important matter. Tom Dolphin and Ellen Beecher, 14 year Bay Colony Club Members Thomas P. Dolphin CEO Blaine Office 763-767-21ST MPLS Office 612-378-21ST Blaine Direct 763-792-3712 MPLS Direct 763-792-3712 Blaine Fax 763-784-9127 MPLS Fax 612-372-4399 9380 Central Ave NE 17 Washington Ave Suite 200 Blaine, Mn 55434 MPLS, MN 55401 tpd@21stcenturybank.com Note: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone other than the recipient is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. From: Court Larkin [cplarkin@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:11 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Fwd: Collier County Planning Commission Email Addresses Corrected Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environment concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. Collier County's Planning Commissioners: Planning Commissioner Email Address Karen Homiak, Vice Chair karenhomiak@colliergov.net Diane Ebert dianeebert@colliergov.net Mark Strain, Chair markstrain@colliergov.net Stan Chrzanowski stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact the proposed Artrex tower will have: Bay Colony Golf Club 9740 Bent Grass Bend Naples, FL 34108 239-592-9515 Click Here to Stop future Mailings From: Dave Minella [David@MinellaCap.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:36 PM To: HomiakKaren Cc: ChrzanowskiStan; EbertDiane; StrainMark Subject: Major Concerns on Arthrex Building Application Process Dear Planning Commission Members: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. David A. Minella Managing Member Minella Capital Management LLC 9864 Brassie Bend Naples, FL 34108 Fax: 239-514-5056 Cell: 203-979-2776 From: Tstallkamp [tstallkamp@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:02 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Proposed Arthrex Variance Dear Mr. Strain, As an owner of a residence directly impacted by the proposed Arthrex expansion tower, I want to express my strong negative opinion of their proposal. We invested in our home based on the surrounding harmonious environment. Our neighborhood contributes significantly to the tax base of Collier County and we believe the Arthrex proposal would greatly reduce our property value and resale potential. Further, I am appalled that the Planning Commission would "fast track" this proposal at a time when many Naples property owners are not in residence. This action is even more difficult to understand when the notice period for comments to your commission was unreasonably short (Sept 8th deadline). This makes us suspicious of the intent of the 'fast track" action. Finally, the leverage used by Arthrex of job creation in Collier County is understandable, but the Commission must realize that the jobs would not be unique to this location or design. The jobs would be part of any other building site that would have better access and less environment impact than the Creekside location. Promises of jobs are often forgotten but this building will be something that can not be erased. This building, if built as proposed, would be a permanent negative influence on our community. As elected officials, please consider the investments taxpayers have already made and not just to for profit business interests. Thank you for your consideration, Thomas T. Stallkamp 1112 Dormie Drive Naples, FL 34108 From: Tstallkamp [tstallkamp@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:02 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Proposed Arthrex Variance Dear Mr. Strain, As an owner of a residence directly impacted by the proposed Arthrex expansion tower, I want to express my strong negative opinion of their proposal. We invested in our home based on the surrounding harmonious environment. Our neighborhood contributes significantly to the tax base of Collier County and we believe the Arthrex proposal would greatly reduce our property value and resale potential. Further, I am appalled that the Planning Commission would "fast track" this proposal at a time when many Naples property owners are not in residence. This action is even more difficult to understand when the notice period for comments to your commission was unreasonably short (Sept 8th deadline). This makes us suspicious of the intent of the 'fast track" action. Finally, the leverage used by Arthrex of job creation in Collier County is understandable, but the Commission must realize that the jobs would not be unique to this location or design. The jobs would be part of any other building site that would have better access and less environment impact than the Creekside location. Promises of jobs are often forgotten but this building will be something that can not be erased. This building, if built as proposed, would be a permanent negative influence on our community. As elected officials, please consider the investments taxpayers have already made and not just to for profit business interests. Thank you for your consideration, Thomas T. Stallkamp 1112 Dormie Drive Naples, FL 34108 From: Robert M Amen [rmamen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:28 PM To: StrainMark; HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan Dear Planning Commission Chariman and Members: I want to express my strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. I urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Robert Amen 7983 Vizcaya Way Naples,FL Bay Colony member From: Lysa Neitzke [lneitzke@gatr.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:49 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Anthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. 35.txt From: Stavropoulos Linda [ilindastav@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:00 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Anthrex Dear Mr. Strain: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Bill and Linda Stavropoulos Page 1 From: Kerridge, Joyce [jfkerridge@thehighlandgroup.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:29 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Anthrex Dear Mr. Strain (Chair): My husband and I would like to express our serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and extensive planned unit development revisions proposed by Anthrex would have on the residences, golf club, golf course within the Bay Colony Golf Club community. The proposed revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height of everything within site of this community and closer to our property than anything else in the area. The proposed building is absolutely NOT compatible with local surroundings. Most discouraging is the fact that this would imply “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a mere fraction of the size. Of great concern is the fact that the Anthrex request has been “fast tracked” and processed knowingly during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. At issue: Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major negative traffic implications, environmental impact needs to be considered, new zoning given the existing state of development within the surrounding area needs to be addressed. While we are grateful that Anthrex has selected Naples for their business base and offers employment opportunities for our citizens, we believe that there must be a reasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes and their potential impact to our surrounding community. The citizens of the Bay Colony community rely on you as the Chair of the Collier County Planning Commission to properly manage the development our community. Protection of the investments made by residents should be at the top of your priority list and not the intrusive expansion plans of our corporate citizens. We ask that you act in a manner that is fair and equitable. Today, we urge you to reject the current Anthrex building expansion application in its entirety. Thank you. Joyce and Jim Kerridge residents, Bay Colony This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be legally privileged, and are intended solely for the use of the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail in error and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, e-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. From: Warren Wilson [warrenjwilson1@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:57 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Warren and Sara Wilson Bay Colony Estates 9730 Niblick Lane Naples, FL 34108 From: Mark Aschliman [maschliman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:14 PM To: EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan; HomiakKaren Subject: Arthex Proposal Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Mark and Patricia Aschliman 8990 Bay Colony Drive #103 Naples FL 34108 414-530-4136 The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact the proposed Artrex tower will have: From: Bryan Haryott [Bryan@qmf.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:40 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrax Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Bryan Haryott From: Peter Negri [pnegri@jamaicabearings.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:27 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Peter Negri President Bay Colony Golf Club Peter Negri / Chief Executive Officer ph 516.326.1350 fx 516.355.0336 c 516.459.3133 www.jamaicabearings.com pnegri@jamaicabearings.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is intended for the named recipient only. The transmission may contain confidential and proprietary information. In that regard, business, financial, customer, supplier and technical information is confidential and proprietary information of Jamaica Bearings and Jamaica Bearings has an expectation that such information will be kept confidential, will not be disclosed without specific written authorization and will only be used to promote business relations with Jamaica Bearings. If you are not the named recipient, please be advised that any review, use, dissemination or unauthorized copying of the transmitted information (including attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you received From: Jack Shilling [jack.shilling@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:28 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Jack and Suzanne Shilling, Members Bay Colony Golf Club, Residents and Owners, Bay Colony, Naples, Fl From: Louise Penta [lpbeach143@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:29 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Louise Penta From: David@DWAnaples.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:29 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: I want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. David Auston, Bay Colony Golf member Notice of confidentiality: This transmission contains information that may be confidential and that may also be proprietary; unless you are the intended recipient of the message (or authorized to receive it for the intended recipient), you should not copy, forward, or otherwise use it, or disclose its contents to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately and delete it from your system. “The information, content, materials, or products contained herein are subject to change and may not be relied upon. David William Auston, PA shall not be liable for any information contained herein including, but not limited to direct, indirect, special, incidental, punitive, consequential damages or any damages arising out of or in any way connected with the use of information contained herein." From: Betty Fagan [bfagan@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:35 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Betty M. Fagan From: Thomas Stallkamp [tomstallkamp@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:39 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. From: hphoopis@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:42 PM To: StrainMark Cc: jerryt@baycolonygolfclub.com; pnegri@jamaicabearings.com Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Harry P. Hoopis | Chief Executive Officer Hoopis Performance Network 790 W. Frontage Rd., Ste 300, Northfield, IL 60093 Ph: (847) 716-1821 | F: (847) 716-1801 www.hoopis.com From: Elizabeth Munz [lizmunz45@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:11 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: RE: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest “spot zoning” on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been “fast tracked” and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Thomas and Elizabeth Munz 1249 Waggle Way Naples, Fl 34108 The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact the proposed Arthrex tower will have: PuigJudy From: L Jaskol <Ijaskol@gmail. com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:51 PM To: HomiakKaren, EbertDiane; StrainMark; stanchrzanowski@colliergove.net Subject: ARTHREX Dear Planning Commission Members, We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course, and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our properties than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Boulevard would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety Thank you. Lynn A. and Leonard R. Jaskol, Full-time Residents The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club PuigJudy From: Dan Murphy <DanMurphy@idealease.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:06 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety Thank you. Dan Murphy Member Bay Colony Golf Club Disclaimer Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail, and any attachments and/or documents linked to this email, are intended for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by law. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited. This notice serves as a confidentiality marking for the purpose of any confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the original sender. PuigJudy From: Wayne Press <hyroller@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:10 PM To: StrainMark Subject: ARTHREX Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Toby & Wayne Press hyroller@aol.com 1 Puig,judy From: L Jaskol <Ijaskol@gmail. com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:25 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: ARTHREX Dear Planning Commission Members We want to express our strong and serious concerns about the negative impact that the approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course, and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue, with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes . We respectfully urge you to reject this application in its entirety. Thank you. Lynn A. and Leonard R. Jaskol Full-time Residents The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club PuigJudy From: Steve Kalmanson <skalmanson@new.rr.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:06 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Steven R Kalmanson 920 540-5683 PuigJudy From: Edward Galante <ed.galante@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:21 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic Arthrex planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety Thank you. Cathie & Ed Galante PuigJudy From: TOBY PRESS <tapress204@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:39 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Mr Strain. I am sending this email out of concern that I have about the proposed Arthrex building. At 206 feet tall, it is way too big for the location. towering over anything around it. Also , the traffic in that area is way too congested already, and there is no room to expand. This building has no place in the middle of so many residential areas either, where it can be seen from many backyards. Naples used to be a beautiful town. I've lived in Collier since 1973 , and have seen a lot of changes. Some of the changes were truly needed, some , not so much. This is a building that does not belong in this location. That is a fact. Please vote against this proposal. Thanks, Toby Press , 8665 Bay Colony Dr, Naples, FL 1 PuigJudy From: cnicholson65@gmail.com on behalf of Colleen Nicholson <colleen@smartcomputing.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:39 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Bill and Colleen Nicholson PuigJudy From: Rebecca Palmer <royalbunnyl956@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 2:44 AM To: StrainMark Subject: ARTHREX Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Collier County's Planning Commissioners: Plannine Commissioner Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Diane Ebert Mark Strain, Chair Stan Chrzanowski Sincerely, Rebecca R Palmer Sent from my iPad Email Address karenhomiakgcolliergov.net dianeebertna colliergov.net markstraingeollier og v.net stanchrzanowskigeollier ov.net PuigJudy From: Bob Fauls <bob@fauls.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:47 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you, Bob & Chris Fauls PuigJudy From: Cheryl Grant <czgrant@twcny.rr.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:17 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Arthur and Cheryl Grant 361 Cromwell Ct Naples, Fl 34108 NThis email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com 1 PuigJudy From: Brad Merkel <merkelbrad@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:01 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Planning Commissioner Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Diane Ebert Mark Strain, Chair Stan Chrzanowski Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. 1 We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Brad & Mina Merkel 12519 Colliers Reserve Drive Naples, FI 34110 PuigJudy From: HAL COHEN <topspeen@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:19 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety Thank you. Hal Cohen PuigJudy From: Tony McMunn <tmcmunn@tricam.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:35 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Tony McMunn 1 PuigJudy From: Sdpryor74 <sdpryor74@ao1.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:00 PM To: StrainMark; HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; stanchranowski@colIiergov.net Subject: Arthrex Dear Commissioners, I am a new resident of Bay Colony Estates and am currently undergoing a major renovation of my home. In making this major investment, I relied on existing zoning restrictions. Erection of a 205 foot building near our property line would erode property and club membership values at Bay Colony and Colliers Reserve to the tune of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. In addition, thousands of motorists each day would be negatively impacted. Beyond that, this building would be a major step in changing the character of Naples from a high-end residential environment to a urbanized one, ultimately IMPACTING THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS. If local citizens were given the opportunity to understand the facts and have their voices heard, I believe that the vast majority would be opposed to this proposed development. > I attended the Arthrex information session and was appalled that the company offered no real answers regarding the impacts on residents, motorists and the environment. Frankly, this major proposal has been handled by Arthrex in a stealthy manner, and rushing it through while a majority of residents are out of town is unreasonable, unjust and unseemly. It would be a failure of duty to the public you serve I urge you to reject the Arthrex proposal in its entirety. Respectfully, Stephen and Katherine Pryor Sent from my iPad PuigJudy From: BWyckoff@tweedy.com Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:45 AM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue – with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. --------------= ===NOTE==— -------------------- The information information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail (postmaster@tweedy.com) and destroy the original message. E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free. We cannot accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this message. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be interpreted as any offer regarding any financial instrument. In accordance with firm policy, all e-mails sent to and from Tweedy, Browne Company are subject to review. Thank you. PuigJudy From: david.mcavoy@nm.com Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:54 AM To: StrainMark Cc: JerryThirion@BayColonyGolfClub.com Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Sincerely, Dave McAvoy Northwestern Mutual David C. McAvoy Managing Partner One Beacon Street, 25th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-742-6200 Fax: 617-227-8797 david.mcavoy@nm.com Northwestern Mutual (NM) is the marketing name for the sales and distribution arm of The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI (NM), and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company, a wholly-owned company of NM and limited purpose federal savings bank. NM is nota partnership or legal entity. David C. McAvoy is a General Agent of NM (life insurance, annuities and disability income insurance) and Northwestern Long Term Care Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI, a subsidiary of NM (long term care insurance). Registered Representative and Investment Adviser Representative of Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC, One Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108, 617-742-6200, a wholly- owned company of NM, broker-dealer, registered investment adviser and member FINRA and SIPC. NM and the Boston Group are not broker-dealers or registered investment advisers. Managing Partners are not in legal partnership with each other, NM or its affiliates. There may be instances when agents of NM represent companies in addition to NM or its affiliates. Your transmission of electronic mail to this address represents your consent to two-way communication by Internet e-mail. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer on which it exists. Northwestern Mutual, its subsidiaries and affiliates may review and retain incoming and outgoing electronic mail for this e-mail address for quality assurance and regulatory compliance purposes. Please be advised that communications with f SECURE MESSAGE} in the subject line have been sent using a secure messaging system. Communications that do not have this tag may not be secure and could be observed by a third party. If you prefer not to receive any e-mail communication from Northwestern Mutual or our Financial Representatives, please click the following link: "E -Mail Opt -out from Northwestern Mutual' In the event that you cannot click on the above link, the Northwestern Mutual E -Mail Opt -out form can be found at the following URL: https:Hservice.nmfn.com/cbpeopt/EmailOptOut.do. Northwestern Mutual 720 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4797. PuigJudy From: Carol Lund <carol@]undcapital.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:12 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Carol Lund PuigJudy From: Tom Lund <tom@lundcapital.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:14 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Tom Lund PuigJudy From: Gaylene Vasaturo <gaylenevasaturo@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:05 PM To: StrainMark Cc: NanceTim Subject: Creekside Commerce Park CPUD Sept. 15th CCPC meeting I am a resident of North Naples and I'm writing to ask that you deny Arthrex's and Creekside East, Inc.'s proposal to expand development of Creekside Commerce Park into a conservation easement protected preserve on the east side of Goodlette Frank Road. Deviation #3 proposes releasing 2.3 acres of the existing conservation easement preserved land to allow development on this portion of the preserve. I ask that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Deviation #3. The preserved area was set aside in a perpetual conservation easement by the owner, Creekside East, Inc., in exchange for the County allowing it to develop the balance of its property. A conservation easement is a contract to protect in perpetuity lands for the benefit of residents, wildlife and water resources. The community relied on this promise. Preserve areas are important to the quality of life in Naples, particularly with so much development occurring in North Naples and elsewhere. Areas of native vegetation are becoming rare in urban Collier County. There seems to be a disturbing trend for developers in Collier County to seek to develop land they previously were required to set aside by conservation easement. This should not be allowed. Please recognize the value of the preserve areas to Collier County residents. In addition, while Deviation #3 is part of Arthrex's application currently going through the County process, as previously noted Creekside East owns the preserve, not Arthrex. Removal of Deviation #3 will not have a direct bearing on Arthrex's proposed improvements to its campus on the west side of Goodlette Frank Road. Denial of expansion into the preserve will have no impact on Arthrex's plans for its campus footprint. Sincerely, Gaylene Vasaturo cc: Collier County Board of Commissioners PuigJudy From: Nancy Walls <Nancy@gcmworks.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 9:05 AM To: StrainMark Cc: Kenneth D Ullman Subject: On Behalf of Kenneth D. Ullman Bay Colony Resident Dear Planning Commission Member We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety Thank you. Kenneth D. Ullman Bay Colony Golf Club Resident 1270 Waggle Way Naples, FL 34108 201-805-7855 1 PuigJudy From: Strain, Charles <CStrain@FarrellFritz.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:18 PM To: karehomiak@colliergov.net; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Proposed Arthrex Development Dear Planning Commission Members: I am a member of the Bay Colony Golf Club and a North Naples resident. I want to express my strong concern about the negative impact of the proposed Arthrex development. If approved, the unprecedented, proposed PUD revisions would represent impermissible "spot zoning" resulting in a development project that is completely out of character with the surrounding community. The proposed height and bulk of the project requires careful and thorough consideration of all of the impacts on the community. The fast tracking of this project by Collier County is untenable and I urge you to reject the application in its entirety.- Charles Strain Charles M. Strain Partner Farrell Fritz, P.C. 1320 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Tel: 516-227-0703 Fax: 516-227-0777 Direct Fax: 516-336-2201 e-mail: cstrain(cDfarrellfritz.com IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax -related penalties under federal, state or local tax law or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer, PuigJudy From: Tom Moore <mooredoctom@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:22 AM To: StrainMark Subject: Proposed building Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Collier County's Planning Commissioners: Plannin¢ Commissioner Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Diane Ebert Mark Strain, Chair Stan Chrzanowski The following photographs taken from the course illustrate the impact the proposed Artrex tower will have: F Email Address karenhomiak(a collier og vnet dianeebert(a colliergov.net markstraingeolliergov.net stanchrzanowski@collier ov.net PuigJudy From: GERALD SOMMERS <jsommers@prodigy.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 5:02 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Re: Arthrex Attachments: Scan0006.pdf Hi Mark, please see attachment, Gerald Sommers September 7, 2016 To: Mark Strain, Chair Planning Commissioner From: Gerald Sommers Re: Arthrex Dear Mark: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Please, please do the right thing for Naples, this is why we have zoning codes to guard against this happening, and only you can stop this from happening. Thank you. Gerald 1 Sommers 9771 Bentgrass Bend Naples, FL 34108 PuigJudy From: Lisa Howard <Ihoward@siriuslp.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:10 PM To: StrainMark Subject: RE: ARTHREX Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Peter Foreman Sirius Partners, L.P. 312.443.5246 peter@siriuslp.com This email message (including any attachments) is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be construed as an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy, any interest in any entity or other investment vehicle. Any information relating to past performance of any of the funds offered by Sirius Partners LP should not be construed as an indication of future results. This email message has been prepared using information believed by the author to be reliable and accurate, but Sirius Partners LP makes no warranty as to accuracy or completeness. This email message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. PuigJudy From: Henry Scharling <he.scharling@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 7:17 AM To: StrainMark; Peter Negri Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. H.E. Scharling PuigJudy From: Frank Hermance <frank.hermance@ametek.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 6:23 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Cc: Cheri Hermance (cherihermance@gmail.com) Subject: Upcoming Meeting Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Frank Hermance 9767 Bentgrass Bend, Naples, Fl. 34108 PuigJudy From: Elwaldron@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:32 PM To: StrainMark Subject: (no subject) Dear Commissioner 5train-we are hopefuul you will NOT approve the Artkrax building currently proposed. It is an eyesore! F velyn & Hicks Waldron PuigJudy From: Aris Kaplanis <ariskaplanis@gmail. com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:44 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthex Dera Commissioner, Please do not proceed with the Arthex zoning amendment and variance. It is far to broad Aris Kaplanis PuigJudy From: Denise Strain <denise.strain@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 10:31 AM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; stranchrzanowski@colliergov.net Cc: Denise.Strain@gmall.com Subject: Arth rex Dear Planning Commission Member: I am a resident of North Naples and a member of the Bay Colony Country Club. I am writing to express my strong concern about the negative impact the approval of the Arthrex project would have on the Bay Colony Country Club as well as the Naples community. Residents and visitors to Naples today appreciate the balance the community leaders have achieved for the needs of the residents, cultural groups, and business concerns. Approving this new building will have a deleterious impact on traffic, the environment and the overall aesthetic appeal of our town. The Planning Commission should also consider the precedential effect of this project. Once approved other business concerns will look to take similar steps to build out their properties. Any change to the zoning rules, especially a change this significant, should be given thoughtful review with input from the community. "Fast tracking" this application is totally inappropriate and should be halted. I urge you to reject this application in its entirety. Thank you for your consideration. Denise Strain Denise.Strain@gmail.com (516)314-6382 PuigJudy From: Donald Redlinger <donredlinger@gmail. com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 10:26 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Building proposal As a local resident and member of neighboring Bay Colony Golf Club, I am opposed to the fast track consideration to the Arthrex proposal to build a skyscraper in our neighborhood. We all appreciate the wonderful things Arthrex has done for our economy and community but believe that their great track record will be undone if their proposed building design is not modified to accommodate their neighbors' concerns. Please help us reach a compromise! Sent from my iPad PuigJudy From: Verne Istock <vgistock@charter.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:13 PM To: StrainMark Cc: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex project Dear Chairman Strain, My wife and I have been members of Bay Colony Golf Club for the past 16 years and have a home on Mashie Court with sight lines to the proposed tower. While we would not like to see the tower itself, our biggest concerns are the impact this project will have from an environmental and density standpoint. The Immokalee road is already a highly congested area and this project will make it far worse in addition to eliminating one of the roads behind the shopping center. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject this project in its entirety. Very truly yours, Verne and Judy Istock 9659 Mashie Court. PuiaJud From: Trina Calarese <trina@caldevel.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 6:58 PM To: EbertDiane; StrainMark Cc: HomiakKaren; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Project Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Roger V Calarese 508-528-3700 I PuiaJud From: DOSE Burnham <sueburnham1@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:21 PM To: HomiakKaren, EbertDiane; Strain Mark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commissioners, As residents of Naples, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the current requested zoning exceptions being made by Arthrex in respect of the building that they propose. The first concern is the height of the proposed building. At 205 feet, it is our understanding that this would be almost 3 times the height of any other off the water building in Naples. There are two parts to this concern. Approval of this tall building will most certainly set and be used as a precedent for other similar buildings in off the water locations, perhaps even locally. Clearly, this size building does not fit within the character of Naples and will have a significant impact on surrounding properties not only in this case but in all future cases as well. One such impact is the amount of and timing of sunlight, one of the key interests of people in Florida. Of course, a second impact is simply the visual of such an unusually tall building all neighbors for quite a distance from its site. This building alone will add to traffic congestion in the area which is of course why they are requesting that the road be rerouted. This is an important road for access by other businesses as well as residents to easily access the Post Office and travel from both Tamiami and Goodlette Frank. As regular users of this road, it will create a significant disadvantage to us and likewise to others who may not even realize that the changes are being considered. The fast tracking of this project during the off season when many residents, and taxpayers, who spend more than half of the year in Naples has a very bad sense about it. A project of this significance seems to warrant the full exposure during "season" to allow the fullest participation by the residents of Naples particularly neighbors and others impacted by this dramatic change in building standards of buildings off of the water. Deferring consideration until full communication and ultimate participation would be a positive outcome and should not measurably alter the proposal. It would however be more in line with the spirit of the Florida Sunshine Law. As members of Bay Colony Golf Club, we as other neighbors, will be impacted by the enormous comparative size of this building. Impacts include sight lines, travel in the area, amount of sunlight at certain times of year and with the precedent set, the probability that other buildings of this size will begin to appear in the area. This will significantly affect the usage and of course, has the potential to affect values of properties of all neighbors. Arthrex has been and is a good neighbor and all wish them continued success and the continued local growth. However, there must be an alternative to this exceptionally high building in an area otherwise populated with buildings of shorter dimension. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, Duane and Susan Burnham 8477 Bay Colony Dr Naples, FL 1 PuigJudy From: James Wagner <jwagner140@ao1.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:44 PM To: StrainMark Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. James A and Diana L Wagner 1 PuiaJud From: Barbara Morrison <barbaralmorrison@gmail. com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:46 PM To: HomiakKaren; EbertDiane; StrainMark; ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205 -foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Barbara and Dale Morrison 1278 Waggle Way Naples, FL 34108 1 • Jerry Thirion From: Thomas Dolphin <tpd@2lstcenturybank.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:31 PM To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net; stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net Cc: Jerry Thirion; ECBeecher@CBBURNET.COM Subject: FW:ARTHREX/ From two Bay Colony Club Members Dear Planning Commission Members: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club,golf course and residences.The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area.This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest"spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition,the request has been"fast tracked"and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples.Closing down Creekside Blvd.would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue—with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. Finally we offer that after having spent the past Labor Day weekend at the Club and envisioning the intrusion that this project will have on the serenity of the grounds that we all enjoy, we must urge you to reject the application in its entirety. This seems like a really bad idea for a neighbor to the human recreation aspects of the club and it wild life sanctuary. Thank you for your consideration of our feelings on this important matter. Tom Dolphin and Ellen Beecher, 14 year Bay Colony Club Members Thomas P. Dolphin CEO Blaine Office 763-767-21ST MPLS Office 612-378-21sT Blaine Direct 763-792-3712 MPLS Direct 763-792-3712 Blaine Fax 763-784-9127 MPLS Fax 612-372-4399 9380 Central Ave NE 17 Washington Ave Suite 200 Blaine,Mn 55434 MPLS,MN 55401 tpd@21stcenturybank.com 1 Jerry Thirion From: hphoopis@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 12:42 PM To: markstrain@colliergov.net Cc: Jerry Thirion; pnegri@jamaicabearings.com Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Harry P. Hoopis I Chief Executive Officer Hoopis Performance Network 790 W. Frontage Rd., Ste 300, Northfield, IL 60093 Ph: (847) 716-1821 I F: (847) 716-1801 www.hoopis.com Jerry Thirion From: Harshman, Rich <Rich.Harshman@ATImetals.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 1:58 PM To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net; stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net Cc: Jerry Thirion Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: My wife and I are members of the Bay Colony Golf Club. We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard J. Harshman Scheryl C. Harshman 8665 Bay Colony Drive #1602 Naples, FL 34108 *ATI Richard J. Harshman Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Jerry Thirion From: Basil Anderson <basil.and@comcast.net> Sent Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:46 PM To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net; stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net Subject: Arthrex project- please reject! Dear Planning Commission Member, My wife and I selected Naples as our primary residence because of the unique nature of this town. We happily sold our place on the East Coast and have been delighted to live here. We strongly oppose the proposed plan to build the Arthrex building as a 205 foot tall building. The reasons for our opposition are fourfold: 1. Once such a building is approved, the "genie is out of the bottle" and that will set a precedent for future buildings of similar height; 2. Such a tall building changes the architectural view of North Naples which makes it unappealing versus the current buildings in the area. If approved, we would move towards the unattractive "East Coast" model; 3. We joined the Bay Colony Golf Club and love the serene nature of that club. If approved, this new building absolutely destroys the look and feel of an outstanding club which attracts successful people to Naples. I believe your Commission would do Naples a tremendous dis favor if such a monstrosity is approved. 4. There are many many sites to develop business and office spaces without changing the very nature of Naples that has attracted so many of us to this part of Florida. I urge you to reject this project as proposed. Thanks for your consideration. Basil and Patti Anderson 239-206-4481(o) Sent from my iPad Jerry Thirion From: Heidi Bogenschneider <hbogen@teel.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:43 PM To: Jerry Thirion; pnegri@jamaicabearings.com Subject FW:Arthrex Good afternoon, have sent the email. Thanks, Jay Smith From:Jay Smith Sent:Wednesday,September 07,2016 1:30 PM To: 'markstrain@colliergov.net'<markstrain@colliergov.net> Cc: 'dianeebert@colliergov.net'<dianeebert@colliergov.net>; 'stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net' <stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net>; 'karenhomiak@colliergov.net'<karenhomiak@colliergov.net> Subject:Arthrex Dear Planning Commission Member: We want to express our strong and serious concern about the negative impact that approval of the unprecedented and drastic planned unit development revisions would have on our golf club, golf course and residences. The revisions would permit the construction of a 205-foot tall building, more than twice the height and even closer to our property than anything else in the area. This would not be compatible with local surroundings and would suggest "spot zoning" on a site that currently has buildings a fraction of that size. In addition, the request has been "fast tracked" and processed during a time when very few residents or members are in Naples. Closing down Creekside Blvd. would have major traffic implications. Environmental concerns are also a major issue — with an unreasonable amount of time allotted to full disclosure and discussion of such major changes. We urge you to reject the application in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. & Mrs. Jay & Pat Smith Jerry Thirion From: DL/SE Burnham <sueburnhaml@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 4:21 PM To: karenhomiak@colliergov.net;dianeebert@colliergov.net; markstrain@colliergov.net; stanchrzanowski@colliergov.net Subject: Arthrex Dear Planning Commissioners, As residents of Naples, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the current requested zoning exceptions being made by Arthrex in respect of the building that they propose. The first concern is the height of the proposed building. At 205 feet, it is our understanding that this would be almost 3 times the height of any other off the water building in Naples. There are two parts to this concern. Approval of this tall building will most certainly set and be used as a precedent for other similar buildings in off the water locations, perhaps even locally. Clearly, this size building does not fit within the character of Naples and will have a significant impact on surrounding properties not only in this case but in all future cases as well. One such impact is the amount of and timing of sunlight, one of the key interests of people in Florida. Of course, a second impact is simply the visual of such an unusually tall building all neighbors for quite a distance from its site. This building alone will add to traffic congestion in the area which is of course why they are requesting that the road be rerouted. This is an important road for access by other businesses as well as residents to easily access the Post Office and travel from both Tamiami and Goodlette Frank. As regular users of this road, it will create a significant disadvantage to us and likewise to others who may not even realize that the changes are being considered. The fast tracking of this project during the off season when many residents, and taxpayers, who spend more than half of the year in Naples has a very bad sense about it. A project of this significance seems to warrant the full exposure during "season" to allow the fullest participation by the residents of Naples particularly neighbors and others impacted by this dramatic change in building standards of buildings off of the water. Deferring consideration until full communication and ultimate participation would be a positive outcome and should not measurably alter the proposal. It would however be more in line with the spirit of the Florida Sunshine Law. As members of Bay Colony Golf Club, we as other neighbors, will be impacted by the enormous comparative size of this building. Impacts include sight lines, travel in the area, amount of sunlight at certain times of year and with the precedent set, the probability that other buildings of this size will begin to appear in the area. This will significantly affect the usage and of course, has the potential to affect values of properties of all neighbors. Arthrex has been and is a good neighbor and all wish them continued success and the continued local growth. However, there must be an alternative to this exceptionally high building in an area otherwise populated with buildings of shorter dimension. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, Duane and Susan Burnham 8477 Bay Colony Dr Naples, FL 1 Jerry Thirion From: Peter Negri <pnegri@jamaicabearings.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 7:47 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Fwd:Arthrex Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Sdpryor74 <sdpryor74@aol.com> Date: September 7,2016 at 7:30:40 PM EDT To: <pnegri(a�jamaicabearings.com> Cc: Pat Corrigan<pat@yellowgroupllc.com> Subject: Fwd: Arthrex Pete,this is the note I sent to the planning commission in response to your email. I may have gotten their titles wrong but hopefully the message is clear. Steve Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Sdpryor74 <sdpryor74@aol.com> Date: September 7, 2016 at 1:59:49 PM EDT To: markstrain@colliergov.net,karenhomiakAcolliergov.net, dianeebert@colliergov.net,stanchranowski@colliergov.net Subject: Arthrex Dear Commissioners, I am a new resident of Bay Colony Estates and am currently undergoing a major renovation of my home. In making this major investment, I relied on existing zoning restrictions. Erection of a 205 foot building near our property line would erode property and club membership values at Bay Colony and Colliers Reserve to the tune of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. In addition,thousands of motorists each day would be negatively impacted. Beyond that,this building would be a major step in changing the character of Naples from a high-end residential environment to a urbanized one, ultimately IMPACTING THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS. If local citizens were given the opportunity to understand the facts and have their voices heard, I believe that the vast majority would be opposed to this proposed development. I attended the Arthrex information session and was appalled that the company offered no real answers regarding the impacts on residents, motorists and the environment. Frankly, this major proposal has been handled by Arthrex in a stealthy manner, and rushing it through while a majority of residents are out of town is unreasonable,unjust and unseemly. It would be a failure of duty to the public you serve I urge you to reject the Arthrex proposal in its entirety. Respectfully, Stephen and Katherine Pryor Sent from my iPad CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:The information transmitted(including attachments)is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,18 U.S.C.2510-2521,and is intended for the named recipient only.The transmission may contain confidential and proprietary information.In that regard,business,financial,customer,supplier and technical information is confidential and proprietary information of Jamaica Bearings and Jamaica Bearings has an expectation that such information will be kept confidential,will not be disclosed without specific written authorization and will only be used to promote business relations with Jamaica Bearings.If you are not the named recipient,please be advised that any review,use,dissemination or unauthorized copying of the transmitted information(including attachments)is strictly prohibited.If you received this transmission in error,please immediately contact the sender and destroy the transmitted information in its entirety,whether in electronic or hard copy format.Thank you. 2 John D.Miller 1274 Waggle Way Naples,FL 34108 239-653-9885 September 7,2016 Mark Strain,Chair Karen Homiak,Vice Chair Diane Ebert Stan Chrzanowski Collier County Planning Commission karenhomiak@colliergov.org Dear Commissioners: We are new residents of Naples having made the decision to relocate from New York in 2015.We have been coming to Naples for a number of years and still own a condominium in The Remington at Bay Colony.When we decided to move to Naples full-time and enroll our daughter in school here,it was clear that we needed more space as well as a community to settle in. After searching out many different neighborhoods,we found a home we love and have invested over$5 million in The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club.Imagine our surprise when we recently learned that Collier County was working with Arthrex Corp.to allow them to build a building the height of which far exceeds what was allowable under the local zoning in effect when we bought our home just a year ago.We were stunned to find out that the proposed building was not just double or even triple the current allowed height but rather almost 6 times the current maximum of 35'at a whopping 205'!To say we are upset is a serious understatement. I recently attended the"dog and pony"show put on at Arthrex meant to allow the surrounding communities the chance to voice their opinions on this matter and came away feeling I had probably wasted several hours on something that seems to be a fait accompli(defined as a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it,leaving them with no option but to accept it).The reactions on the faces to resident's concerns by several of the representatives present all but confirmed my opinion that the meeting was nothing more than a checking the box in a process that was already all sewn up. I'm not going to go into what my personal loss may be from the devaluation of my property value, that is for my attorneys to take up at a later date.What I will tell you is that the entire area will lose over time as this precedent setting event highlights the fact that if allowed,there appears to be no"planning"being done in Collier County. Clearly no area will be safe from drastic changes to zoning and therefore although I moved to an affected community this time,it seems I might not have been safe in any community in Collier County. I chose to move to Naples after looking on the east coast for many reasons including the beauty of the area. I trust that as the members of the Planning Commission,you will do your jobs to represent all of us in keeping our community one which will continue to attract residents who are concerned about where we live.At the very least,I hope you will postpone your decision on a matter that is being rammed through (there wasn't even a final design in place at the meeting)at a time when many of those affected are not even in residence.The plan calls for a loss of a nature area that will affect our waters,closing of a road which will only exacerbate traffic problems that already exist and will change the character of North Naples forever.It seems only prudent that you exercise your fiduciary duties to all of those you represent and at least slow down this process until we all(you included)have seen what will be built and heard from the numerous citizens who will have to live with your decision forever. Respectfully, John D.Miller 2 ft Jerry Thirion 'rom: Joyce Albers <joyce.albers@verizon.net> -sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:21 AM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: FW: Arthrex Corporation Application Dear Jerry, Thank you for keeping us informed. I forwarded your note to a friend who is an attorney and asked for his thoughts. I am forwarding his response so that you have the benefit of his thinking. I'm sure it is not new for you. Georg and I will send you a separate personal letter expressing our concerns. We are scheduled to be back in Naples on Oct. 25t' so hopefully we can attend the mentioned meeting. I know from many land use battles that have been fought here in Princeton, NJ that it makes a huge difference if you have a large turnout at meetings. Perhaps we should all contact our year round friends in Naples to attend the August 30th meeting. If any can attend should I provide you with their names? Best regards, Joyce Albers-Schonberg From: Arnold Chait [ma i Ito: acha it@vccsiaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:01 PM To: 'Joyce Albers-Schonberg' Subject: Arthrex Corporation Application Joyce: I am providing my thoughts without the benefit of knowing the land use restrictions that govern the Creekside ^ommercial Planned Unit Development ("CCPUD"). The communities and adjacent neighbors should retain a licensed planner to review the previously approved Development Plan, the applicable land use restrictions, and the current application and plans. The concerns and objections of the neighboring communities should be backed up at the hearing by the testimony of a qualified land use planner. Land use applications tend to have a political dimension. There is a tension between encouraging and accommodating new ratables and uses that benefit the general public vs protecting the existing neighboring taxpayers from adverse impacts. Voting Board tend to count noses at public hearings to assess the political impact of their decision. It is therefore very important that there be an impressive attendance of objectors at each public meeting on the application and that objectors utilize the hearing opportunity to verbally express their objections. 3. In terms of objections written or oral the following appear to be relevant: a. The CCPUD was previously approved and deemed satisfactory to the Board and Applicant. How will the reasons for modifying the CCPUD beneficial to existing residents as distinguished from the economic benefit to the applicant? b. The proposed deviation permitting an increase in height from 46 feet to 205 feet is excessive. There is ample land available to accommodate the proposed additional square feet of building area. c. The 205 foot height is grossly out of proportion to the character of the area and destroys the planned open space and views. d. Permitting a 205 foot structure in this area creates the opportunity for other applicants to seek similar height deviations. Arnold H. Chait, Esq. Vogel, Chait, Collins and Schneider, P.C. 25 Lindsley Drive, Suite 200 Morristown, New Jersey 07960-4454 Phone: (973) 538-3800 Fax: (973) 538-3002 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. 2 Jerry Thirion 'rom: Jay Moorin <jaym@proquestvc.com> cent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:19 AM To: Jerry Thirion Cc: Elaine Moorin; pat@yellowgroupllc.com Subject: RE: Arthrex Jerry, When we bought our home in the Estates of Bay Colony we actually checked the zoning laws to make sure that no hi rise building would be built in proximity to our neighborhood. If we wanted a tall building looking over our house or golf course, we would have bought in a different area. This proposed change, is not fair, and not what we bought. There is also a big issue with the increased traffic that this development would cause on the roads around our neighborhood. We .should do everything possible to stop this unfair development. Jay and Elaine Moorin From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM To: Jay Moorin <jaym@proquestvc.com> abject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. Jerry Thirion 'rom: Denny McGonigal <dennis@mcgonigal.org> ,ent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:24 AM To: Jerry Thirion Cc: 'sheila kay' Subject: RE: Arthrex If there is anything we can do ,please let us know as we do not want this to happen. Denny&Sheila Denny McGonigal dennis@mcgonigal.org 847-226-9916 From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM To: Dennis McGonigal Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. I Jerry Thirion 'rom: Tony Panzica, P.E. <tonyp@panzica.com> .ent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:58 AM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: RE: Arthrex I agree with the comments in the Pritt report. Therefore asking for more time to study all the issues raised , would be prudent. Tony Tony Panzica, P.E. President / CEO Direct Dial: 440-449-4110 Mobile: 216-469-1421 tonypt D_panzica.com Panzica Construction Company 739 Beta Drive Layfield Village, Ohio 44143 40-442-4300 // F: 440--442-4179 www.panzica.com 2016 - Celebrating 60 Years of Building Excellence! Confidentiality Notice: The information in this e-mail message, and any attachment, is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it was addressed. This e-mail may contain information which is privileged and confidential and which may be protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it, or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this message in error please e-mail the sender and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments From: Jerry Thirion[mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM To: Tony Panzica, P.E. <tonyp@panzica.com> Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Jerry Thirion from: Carol Lund <carol@lundcapital.com> ent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 4:16 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Thank you, Jerry. We believe this is a total violation of all written and implied agreements on commercial building codes in this area of town. We should fight this w/ all available resources. Count on us to contribute to this defense. Please keep us updated. Kind regards, Tom & Carol Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolonygoifclubLa mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples Jerry Thirion "7rom: Kim Rosenberg <krosenb@hotmail.com> .ent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 1:01 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: RE: Arthrex The Rosenbergs are supportive of the effort to reduce the impact of the proposed Arthrex building. Kim Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:02:09 -0400 Subject: Arthrex To: krosenb@hotmail.com From: baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples I Jerry Thirion 7rom: Edward Galante <ed.galante@mac.com> :ent: Sunday, August 21, 201612:49 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry, I support the position the club is taking in this matter. It appears to me that, at this juncture, there are more questions than answers; including why they would allow so tall a structure that is out of character with the community surrounding it? What's the hurry? Why not take the time to answer all the questions in the Pritt summary plus others that members of their community might have? All the best, Ed Galante On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirioncbaycalonygolfclub(@mailenmemfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. I Jerry Thirion prom: UR <Irutig@aol.com> ent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 11:12 AM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry Having a 22 story building overlooking our golf course is certainly a reason for concern Planned development restrictions such as building height is meant to protect existing and future property owners from radical changes in the character of the environment. This change if approved would have a negative effect on golf club member recruitment and therefore membership cost and equity value. Lou Rutigliano On Aug 19, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ba colon olfclub mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click ;•sere to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from Jerry Thirion From: John Griswold <jgriswold@me.com> .ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:49 PM To: Jerry Thirion Cc: Debra Griswold; Peter Negri; Pat Corrigan Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry - I am sorry that I cannot attend the meeting. I am pretty much up to speed on this as I have been briefed several times in my roe as a board member of the Bay Colony Estates Homeowners Association. However, I want to respond to you so my voice can be included. I very much oppose this huge overreach by the Arthrex Corporation and the local and state politicians who are backing this obvious significant change to existing regulations that are attached to the PUD. My wife and I specifically invested in Bay Colony Estates because we did not want a residence that looked at tall buildings. In my opinion, this proposed change is un called for and unnecessary. Arthex should live with the development deal they originally made and not be allowed to modify their buildings after others have invested based upon the limitations of the PUD and other local development restrictions. The county commission and planning committee should retain the existing limits on this development. It is absurd for the local politicians to approve a modification to the PUD to allow such a large and tall building, (that adds to the traffic count, reduces open space and may well reduce property values in near by neighborhoods) to be built in this area! John and Debra Griswold On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ba c olfclub ,,,mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? flick Herato View as a Web Pace Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and Jerry Thirion rrom: Thomas Dolphin <tpd@21stcenturybank.com> .ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 5:55 PM To: Jerry Thirion Cc: ECBeecher@CBBURNET.COM Subject: RE: Arthrex- A Bay Colony Members Opinion Jerry, Thank you for the update on the Arthrex project that has been proposed to the north of Bay Colony Golf Club. As a members of the club Ellen I would encourage our Board to do all we can to deter the building of such a visual invasion of our Bay Colony Club and its surrounding residential community and nature preservation area. The height scale of this project in relation to everything else around it is doesn't seem to make any sense to us. There appears to be ample land to spread the project thus cut down on the height scale. I do not see anything of 205' which at 12' per floor that is 17 stories high building anywhere throughout Naples, except the condos on the beach areas. I would hope that our government officials are concerned with setting a height precedent in our area and near other residential areas around Naples. Also that they will take into consideration the mostly low rise structures near the proposed project. This structure will clearly be out of place. Because of its height it will we viewed for miles and it will stick out like a sore thumb. Let me know if there is anything else that Ellen and I can do to help point out this egregious invasion of our visual space in the Bay Colony Estates and Golf Club Communtiy. Sincerely, Tom and Ellen Thomas P. Dolphin EO Blaine Office 763-767-21 ST Blaine Direct 763-792-3712 Blaine Fax 763-784-9127 9380 Central Ave NE M111 -S Office 612 -378 -21sT MPLS Direct 763-792-3712 MPLS Fax 612-372-4399 17 Washington Ave Suite 200 Blaine, Mn 55434 MPLS, MN 55401 tr@2 i s#centu_ryba_nk.corn CM_UCMUWWWC From: Jerry Thirion[mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:02 PM To: Thomas Dolphin Subject: Arthrex The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Jerry Thirion Grom: Csteffensr <csteffensr@aol.com> ant: Saturday, August 20, 2016 5:21 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry, This is an example of a frequently used tactic to attempt to secure a zoning variance when a significant portion of those who have an interest in such a variance are not in residence. We have seen this in several of the seasonal communities in which we have had residences. It is unfortunate that the governing bodies responsible to grant such variances do not go out of their way to promote all tax paying affected citizens the opportunity to express their views on matters such as this. We would object to this variance as it detracts from visual enjoyment offered by Bay Colony and based on the summary provided by outside counsel has some other features that would argue against it being granted, notwithstanding the precedent that may be set with this approval. Chris and Mary Sue Steffen On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ha colon olfciub mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. Jerry Thirion ';rom: Betty Fagan <bfagan@aol.com> ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 4:03 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Hi, Jerry, Summer fun and games! This will teach all those snowbirds to fly off in May! More seriously, this move on the part of Arthrex and Barron Collier obviously creates a situation that demands a response. The height of the building alone will certainly affect the whole neighborhood, to say nothing of the impact of the attendant services, traffic, etc. I have heard that the county has already granted Arthrex tax abatements and other concessions to entice them to stay in the county, so I really wonder how much anything we do can help, at this point. And we know that the timing of the meetings was not just by chance. It also suggests that the whole area, including the space on the corner that is currently occupied by that poorly performing shopping center might soon be up for rebuilding. We could possibly see any number of mini -skyscrapers go up in that ryuadrant .pith ancillary medical -related businesses. Both sides of Goodlette-Frank along Immokolee may become a medical park. Well, whatever...... If there is a vote to be taken or a petition to be signed, count me in! I'll hold your coat while you go and do battle! Just what you were looking for at this time of year..... Fond regards, Betty -----Original Message ----- From: Jerry Thirion<baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net> To: Betty M. Fagan <bfagan@aol.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 5:02 pm Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? 1 Jerry Thirion 'prom: Trerice Jr Byron <bytrerice@aol.com> .ent: Saturday, August 20, 201612:02 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Dear Jerry, The information sent concerning the request by Anthrax for a zoning change raises far more questions than answers . I would hope that you are able to persuade reasonable minds to slow down the process until those that are most closely effected will have a chance to understand what is being asked for and why. It is imperative for continued neighborly respect that this consideration be made. Byron On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <bg+� cvlanygolfcL_2mailer.memfrst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. Jerry Thirion crom: Gillian Lieberman <glieberm@gmail.com> ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 11:26 AM To: Jerry Thirion Cc: Stephen Petersen Subject: Re: Arthrex Hi, Steve is sitting here with me, this is from both of us. Thx for giving us the opportunity to voice or serious concerns about this new building project. It is an eyesore and does not blend at all with the surroundings. It will alter the peace and enjoyment for the members of the club , homeowners and increase traffic . I think it will impact our future membership--- I know we would not have joined if we saw this building from the veranda when eating lunch. A large appeal is the peaceful rolling greenery and fountains, and a feeling that you are getting away from urban development and being surrounded by nature. This building would be jarring. Thx Gillian Lieberman and Stephen Petersen > On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net> ,`rote: > current Jerry Thirion crom: Hamilton, Robin M <Robin.Hamilton@morganstanley.com> ant: Saturday, August 20, 2016 9:35 AM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: RE: Arthrex Jerry, If you think more bodies are helpful, I can be there the 30th at 5:30. Scot is traveling. Thank you to you and Pete for getting in front of this. Send quite sneaky planning the mtg the end of August. Robin. Robin M. Hamilton Senior Vice President Wealth Advisor Morgan Stanley Wealth Management 8889 Pelican Bay Blvd, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34108 'irect: 239-449-7863 E Fax: 239-236-1296 Robin.hamilton@morganstanley.com NMLS# is 1290382 Sent via Good -----Original Message ----- From: Jerry Thirion fl2 colonygolfclub@maiier.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 05:02 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Hamilton, Robin M (Wealth Mgmt MS) Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of device Collier Jerry Thirion Brom: Frank Hermance <Frank.Hermance@ametek.com> znt: Saturday, August 20, 2016 8:34 AM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Hi Jerry, Thanks for update. Here are my comments The magnitude of the requested variances is extreme and should not be granted. As a relatively new home owner in the Estates at Bay Colony one of the key reasons I selected this home was the feeling of seclusion. By granting these variances my concerns are many. First, the feeling of seclusion will be compromised and lower the value of my home. Second, the proposal will allow for even more buildings along the Estates fence which my home faces with similar extreme variances and further reduce my home value. Third , the traffic patterns on Immokalee Road will become much worse then today compromising access to the many stores and restaurants in the area and Fourth, the proposal has been offered when many of us are away and can not voice our strong concerns in person which is a concern given the magnitude of the proposal. If these variances were in place when I was house hunting I would not have bought the home I am in. I never envisioned our county allowing a change of this magnitude. I am significantly opposed to this proposal. yank From: "Jerry Thirion"<baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net> To: "Frank Hermance" <frank.hermance@ametek.com> Date: 08/19/2016 05:02 PM Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most ioticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace Jerry Thirion -rom: Marybeth Noonan <mbnoonan3@gmail.com> ,ent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 7:55 AM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Hi Jerry We are concerned about the impact of the addition to the arthrex building however, we are unable to attend on August 30th. Please communicate our concerns to the governing board at the meeting. Thank you MIke &Marybeth Noonan Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolony_golfclub(a)mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples Jerry Thirion 'nom: Richard Crawford <rcrawford@crawfordgrp.com> ,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 10:07 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry: I think the proposed changes in the PUD would be very detrimental to Bay Colony residents and members as well as the entire region. The height of the building would be aesthetically very unfortunate. There are no other buildings of this height within view of the club. It would dominate the skyline. The other major issue would be the impact the changes would have on traffic. Immokalee Rd is one of the main roads that give access to 175. As such, it is already overcapacity. It has taken me as long as 30 minutes in season to get from 41 to 175. Additional traffic would make the situation even worse. Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolonygolfclub(a�mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 111 green, the practice area and an aerial view. For Jerry Thirion MEMEMM rom: Vince Pettinelli <vdp1503@gmai1.com> ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:56 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: RE: Arthrex Jerry, I like many others strongly oppose the Arthex building plan. Vince Pettinelli From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM To: Vincent Pettinelli <vdp1503@gmail.com> Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11 th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile away. The white building, which depicts the proposed Arthrex 1 Jerry Thirion -nom: Tom Stallkamp <tomstallkamp@comcast.net> .jent: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:16 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex I am disgusted at the total lack of adherence to existing planning standards by the fast -tracked proposal of the requested Arthrex variance. Intelligent community planning requires establishment of zoning standards that allow development to grow along predictable guidelines. The total disregard of the requested variance reinforces the criticisms of many rapidly expanding areas in Florida. We had hoped that Naples was approaching development with a more thoughtful plan. A ten story plus building is impossible not to impact the residential environment surrounding the proposed variance. The argument that the project it may incremental create jobs is understandable, but is not be limited just to this specific site. Further, business conditions change, as with Hertz in Bonita Springs, and a building is often more permanent than operating a business. Once it is built, the impact on the surrounding residential areas will be a permanent negative influence. I urge your rejection of the variance and a full impact study be considered if they wish to proceed. Thomas Stallkamp Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building Jerry Thirion 'rom: john j <remondi@hotmail.com> .sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 7:42 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry, where does the 400 bed facility fit in? Not sure what you can do to stop this but I agree we sure should know what it will look like. Are there any noise or shadow concerns? John Remondi Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolonygolfclub&m_a_iter.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Paoe Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11 th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile away. The white building, which depicts the proposed Arthrex Jerry Thirion "rom: Tony Rossi sr <Tony@rmk.com> .ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:23 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: RE: Arthrex Hello Jerry Although I have no knowledge of the local entitlement procedures I have been involved in so many of these that I do have some comments. I would focus on the local traffic and congestion issues as best you can and the fact that the height is not in keeping with the surrounding communities. We, most likely, have no right to protect our views. A neighbors view is generally not a consideration in zoning matters. I would be surprised if our opinion mattered at all in the process. Also the fact that it appears to be "fast tracked" especially before the snow birds return, probably means this is already a done deal. In short, I would not waste a lot of money on legal fees. This is most likely a big pickup in real estate taxes and maybe jobs and the opinion of a lot of rich guys at a county club may not mean much. From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 4:02 PM To: Tony Rossi sr <Tony@rmk.com> Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For Jerry Thirion 7rom: Drmsrubin <drmsrubin@yahoo.com> gent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:19 PM To: Jerry Thirion; annedrubin@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry Excellent summary. Please express our strong displeasure with this Arthrex proposal. Given that there are a number of other sites for commercial buildings in Naples and furthermore given the resources of the Arthrex company there should be no issue with them finding an alternative site which is much more suitable for their project in that way they can do their expansion without impinging on our residential area. I too would be most concerned about the environmental impact. I would think that most of the membership would have strong reservations regarding this Arthrex proposal. Mark Rubin On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolony. olg felubamailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For Jerry Thirion 'rom: John M.Brilbeck <johnbrilbeck@comcast.net> .,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 6:10 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry, I would agree that answers to the attached questions would be significant but as we all know this is probably pre -ordained and the process just a formality.Naples is so desperate to diversify its economy that i am sure none of the planners or commissioners would dare vote against it and it would give the tax base a pretty good shot.l am sure Arthex said they need this now and if they do not receive quick approval they will go someplace else. A chance the county does not want to take. I would suggest an alternative approach would be to get some concessions from an infrastructure and aesthetic standpoint.e.g.widening goodlette -frank,landscaping color,etc. On the surface I do not necessarily oppose the project on the surface it is an office building after all not a steel mill,but again there are not enough specifics other than the height of the building to take a stand I wish we could see it like the NDN building to understand the scope. 205ft is about 18-20 stories is that right. That is a big building but done right may actually be attractive. Is Arthex a good neighbor? Anyways those are my thoughts. John Brilbeck On Aug 19, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <b&ycolonyigolfclub@mailer.memf rst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to VIeW as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building Jerry Thirion prom: Robert Saba <pegbobsaba@comcast.net> .ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:51 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Hello Jerry, While I am unable to attend the August 30th meeting I remain very concerned about this project going forward. If this Arthrex project gets approval what's to stop similar high rise building in the future. I will support the Club in any way I can. Thank you and regards, Bob Saba. Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <ba cy olonygolfclubgmailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile Jerry Thirion 7rom: gerald clark <g1219c@yahoo.com> .ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:48 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry, I hope all is well with you this summer.Kathy and I have had a nice summer, but we did not expect the Naples" weather that we have been having here in NJ for most of August. My initial reaction is "job, jobs, jobs,"! That, as is appropriate, is what means the most to the community and the individuals involved. Also, there would be little sympathy on the part of any zoning board, or city council, for the potential visual problems which it would cause for some of the members of BCGC. That is also the risk that a club in a very dense, high income area, has to experience. What I would ask at this stage is what are our possible alternatives to propose which would reduce some of problems that we would experience. Couldn't Pritt give us now, or in the near term, some ideas without committing to anything? Thanks, Jerry On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolony_golfclubamailer.memlirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to Mew as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and comtilunity. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. Jerry Thirion `nom: Robert M Amen <rmamen@gmail.com> ,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:41 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry Clearly the size of the proposed building is out of keeping with the entire surrounding area. It is multiples larger than any commercial and would have significant impact on the residential area. My guess is they want something half the size and are going about this to negotiate something more reasonable The city fathers will see his as a nice benefit so we have a problem. Please make sure that A they follow all the regs on timing, reviews ,etc. B What zoning regs exist for the area and nearby areas that may set a limit C Lastly we need to push back the timing to enable all the residents who may have an interest to return and be heard. They are being slick with their timing. Our goal is delay, delay, delay. This really would be ugly. Shouldn't be taller than NCH. I guess I'm not too old to go on a picket line! Let me know how I can help Rob On Friday, August 19, 2016, Jerry Thirion <baycvlonygolfclub mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental a building of the size proposed is out of keeping wi issues. Jerry Thirion 'rom: Court Larkin <cplarkin@aol.com> ,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:32 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex We certainly need more information! I use Creekside at least once a week. It would seem better for them to build at Ava Maria where they are currently expanding and would not interfere with Bay Colony, Pelican Marsh, NCH etc S Sent from my iPad On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <bgycolon goIfelLib(d)niailer,illernfirst,net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click mere to WON as a WQ0 Pacie Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples Jerry Thirion 'rom: Jrsifer@aol.com .jent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:25 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Dear Jerry, This proposed construction of a 205 foot high building by Arthrex at the location noted is totally unacceptable and should not be allowed to be constructed. It will ruin the view from the golf course, looks totally out of place with the surrounding areas, and will have a significant negative impact on the clubs ability to attract new members. Furthermore, such an odd looking obstruction will definitely decrease the value of property surrounding the Bay Colony Golf club. This must be stopped!!! Dick Stonesifer In a message dated 8/19/2016 5:02:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net writes: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 111 green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. Jera Thirion -rom: Al Gamper <gampera908@ao1.com> ,sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:19 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry. Is there any way to suggest a bigger footprint for building and cut height in half Also is pelican marsh effected? Will they join us? Al Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion<baycolonyizolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Pane Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. The deviation, if granted, would allow for a number of changes and have significant impact on the Bay Colony Golf Club and community. The most noticeable would be the construction of a 205ft. high building that would replace the current building which stands 46 ft. high. Other changes would have serious consequences on traffic and possibly environmental issues. The site is located on the north side of our golf course and the pictures attached, which are to scale, would show views from the 11th green, the practice area and an aerial view. For comparison, the pictures also show the current views from the same location — namely the Naples Daily News building, 72ft. high, and about 1700 ft. from our site, and the Naples Community Hospital, standing 102ft. high and approx.. 1/2 mile away. The white building, which depicts the proposed Arthrex Jerry Thirion -From: Harry Debes <harry@debes.us> :ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:10 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: RE: Arthrex Jerry — here are my comments: I am very much opposed to the "fast track" process that is taking place — at a time when many residents are away for the summer. In order for Collier County to properly and adequately canvass the concerns of the local taxpayers, the information meeting and also the meeting to vote on this proposal should be re -scheduled to a later date. regards, Harry From: Jerry Thirion [mailto:baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:02 PM To: Harry Debes <harry@debes.us> Subject: Arthrex Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click Here to View as a Web Page Jerry Thirion From: Robert A. Clifford <rac@cliffordlaw.com> _ient: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:09 PM To: Jerry Thirion Cc: Angela Smith Subject: Re: Arthrex Jerry, I say "Sue the Bastards!!" Seriously, I would instruct our lawyers to inject themselves into this process to make sure that the community gets a fair hearing --when people are around and available. The "fast-track" and off-season timing are red flags that something may be off. Ask our lawyers if we can and if we could move to enjoy them and tie this up until the season when people return. Robert A. Clifford 120 N. LaSalle Street Suite 3100 Chicago, IL, 60602 Phone: 312-899-9090 rac(a-),cliffordlaw.com nvw.CliffordLaw.com FEI 0 Sent from my iPad. Please forgive my typos. On Aug 19, 2016, at 5:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolon oYg lfclub ,mailer.rnemfust.net> wrote: Having Trouble Viewing this Email? Click hl@re_to View as a web Page Dear Friends and Bay Colony Golf Club members, Quite recently, the Arthrex Corporation, a medical device manufacturer and a respected corporate citizen of Collier County, filed an application to seek a very substantial deviation from their current planned unit development document. Jerry Thirion 'prom: Basil <basil.and@comcast.net> ,ent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:07 PM To: Jerry Thirion Subject: Re: Arthrex We must object to this complex. Naples foes not need this monstrosity and the value of our golf club would be degraded They can move further East Basil Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 19, 2016, at 11:02 PM, Jerry Thirion <baycolonygolfclub@mailer.memfirst.net> wrote: > application PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 1 of 13 September 2, 2016 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20150002550 - MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PUD [Companion Item: RZ-PL20160000382] ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT & AGENT: Owner: Agent: Collier County Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP c/o Real Property Management Hole Montes, Inc. 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34112 Naples, FL 34110 Applicant: Justin E. Lobb, Airport Manager Collier County Airport Authority 2005 Mainsail Drive, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34114 REQUESTED ACTION: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners (Board) of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended, the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development (PUD), providing for amendment to the PUD document to remove 6.5± acres from the PUD; providing for amendments to the legal description; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-256, which granted a parking exemption; and providing for an effective date for property. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 6.5± acres, is located near the Marco Island Executive Airport in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. Collier BLVDTamiami TRL E CHARLEEESTATES REGALACRES MARCO SHORESCOUNTRY CLUB MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'SCRK MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'SCRK MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'SCRK MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'SCRK MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'SCRK WALNUTLAKES PARADISEPOINTE RVRESORT COPPER COVEPRESERVEPELICANLAKE A.S.G.M. BUSINESSCENTER (EX) RIVERBEND SILVERLAKES ARGOMANATEE PORT AU PRINCE DRIVE COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )OCHO RIOSSALINAS DRIVEMOON BAY STREETISLE ST. THOMASSHE LL ISLA ND ROA D BE NT CREEK CT CREEK WAYBENTFIDDLER'S MALLA RDSPOI NTMALLARDS POINT CREEK MALLARDSWAYFIDDLER'S CR EE K PARKW AY PARKWAYCOLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )FIDDLER'S CREEK PARKWAYCLUB CENTER BOULEVARD BOULEVARDCENTERCLU B MA R SH DRIV E MAJORCA LANE CL UB C E N TER B O U LE VA R D RUNAW AY LANEFIDDLER'S CREEK PARKWAYPE PPERTREE WAYFIDD LE R 'S CR E E K P KWY BELLAGIO DRIVECOLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )MAINSAIL DRIVE MAINSAIL DR COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )MAINSAIL DR COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )RUNA WAY COU RTRUNAWAYLANE RUN AW AY LAN EHYAC IN TH D RIVE HYAC INTHDRIVE 22B TRACT B DIAMOND SHORES CONDO PHASE I(F/K/A WOODLAKE CONDO) TRACT A TRACT A DIAMOND SHORES CONDO PHASE II(F/K/A WOODLAKE CONDO) TRACT B-51D TRACT L-4A ED TRACT L-7A PHXIV TRACT C-51 PH XIII F GTRACTC PH XII TRACT L-7A-51 TRACT L-1 TRACT RTRA CT F -49 B WHISPER TRACECONDO TRAC T B-5 0C PH X PH XI TRACT L-5 TRACT B -51 C TRAC T B-5 0B TRA CT F PH VIII TRA CT B-1TRACT B-5 0ABPH IXTRACT P-1 TRA CT B-51 B TRACT R TRACT R TRA CT EA PH VII TR B-51A PH VITRACT A TRACT RTRACT L-6 BTRACT DPH V TRACT L-4PH IV ATRACT L-3 TRACT BTRACT L-2 PH III BPH II PH I BLDGA TRA CT ATR CTRACT B-2 TRACT F-1 ATRACT B-1 TRACT FC-1 TRAC T B-2 A TRACT D-1 TRACT FC-3 PH XIX A Golf Course Parcel 4 TRACT RTRACT C TRACT R-2TRACT C TRACT F-29 TRACT B-2TRACT B-4TRTRACT FC-2 B-2TRACT B TRACT B-2TRACT F TRACT G TRACTF-47B TRACTGC-5 TRACT B-1TRACTF-26B TRACT F-47 TRACT L-34TRACT G TRACT H TRACT R TRA CT R-4 TRTRTRGC-4BTRACTR-2B-7B B-1TRACT C X TRTRACTB-7A TRA CT R-3TRACT FGC-1TR A C T ATRACT F-47ATRACT E TRACTTRACT L-34A TRACT GC-5 L-65TRACTTRACT GTRACT RGC-4A TRACT R-1TRACT B-1TRB-7C TRACTTRACTBL-35 TR B-1 TRTRACT FGC-8TRACT R GC-4CTRACT RTRACT FC-3 TRACT FH TRACT L-34BGTRACT B-1 TR U-1 TRAC T B-5 0D TRACT C TRF-143TRTRACT B B-8TRACT 6421412 TRACTTRACT L-9 TRACTFC-4403 L-36439538 376 TRACT L-8 367 358 34933103211 3112 3013 14 29 15 28 TRACT B-41627 TRACT A 17 26 2518 19 2420212223 TRACT FC-3 CONSERVATION TRACT #10 TRACT A MAINSAIL IICONDO MAINSAIL ICONDO TRAMAINSAIL IIICONDO TRACT TRACTU1 FAIRWAYS II ATMARCO SHORES CONDOU2 TRACT U3(L AKE ) CONSERVATION TRACT #9 TRA CT LTRACT O(LAKE) TRACT M(LAKE) FAIR WAYS IATMARCOSHORES CON DO MAINS AIL IVCONDO TRACT PTRACT T (LAKE)TR L CONSERVATION TRACT #9 TRACTTRACT C K TRACT A TRACT K TRA CTB TRACTHTRACT G(GO LF COURSE) RIA LTO ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TRACT J(GO LF COURSE)TRACTF(LAKE) TRACT E TRACT I(LAKE) TRACT Y(LAKE)TRACT D GOVT LOT 3 GOVT LOT 2 GOVT LOT 4 1 AVERSANA ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TRACT B TRACT "N" TRACT "P"TRACT T(LAKE)TR TRACT "Q""M" TROPIC SCHOONERCONDO MAR CO ISLA ND AIRP OR TTRACT E TRACT S(LAKE) TRACT N TRACT R(LAKE) MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT GOVT LOT 1 GOVT LOT 8 GOVT LOT 5 GOVT LOT 6 GOVT LOT 7 GL 1 GL 4 BEARPOINT GL 5 GOVT LOT 9 TRAC T Z TRAC T X (LAKE) TRAC T W (LAKE) CONSERVATION TRACT #6 DEVELO PMENT TRACT #B CONSERVATION TRACT #5 CONSERVATION TRACT #5 DEVELO PMENT TRACT B CONSERVATION TRACT #4 CONSERVATION TRACT #2 CONSERVATION TRACT #3 CONSERVATION TRACT #1 DEVELO PMENT TRACT ADEVELOPMENT TRACT ADEVELOPMENT TRACT A DEVELO PMENT DEVELO PMENT TRACT A DEVELO PMENT TRACT A GL 1GL 1 GL 4 TRACT V (GOLF COURSE) TRAC T A GL3 GL 5 GL 5 GL 4 GL 4 GL 3 GL 2 GL 2 GL 1 PH XIII PH XIV PH XV PH XVI PH XVII PH XVIII PH 19 PH 20 PH 21 PH 22 PH 23 PH 24 PH 25 PH 26 PH 27 PH 29 PH 30PH 31 TR B TRACT A TRACT A TRACT C TR D SER ANO ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TRAC TB-1 TRACT B-2 PH XXXII PH XXXIII LESINA ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO PH 28 84 47 TRAC T B-50E PH XVPOO L 37 160 159 157 155 153 158 156 154 152 150 148 146 144 151 149 147 145 143 142 TRACT B5 111 TRACT D BLDGC BLDGB BLDGE BLDGG BLDGD BLDGF BLDGI BLDGH BLDGK BLDGL BLDGJ BLDGM BLDGN TRACTGC-5 TROPIC SCHOONERCONDO BORGHESE ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TRACT ATRACT DISLES OF CAPRIPADDLECRAFTPARK X4 À1 À2 À21A À22A À41 À42 À61 À62À3À4À21BÀ44À63À64À5À6À23À24À45À46À65À66À7À8À25À26À67À48À68À9À10À27À28À49À69À50X8À70 À1.2À11À12À29À30À51À52À71À72À13À14À31À32À53À54À73À74 À1.1À15À16À33À34À55À56À75À76À17À18À35À36À57À58À77À78À1.3À19À20À38À59À60À79À80 À79A À80A À140 À120À139 À119 À81 À82 À118À138 À117À137 À83 À136 À116À135 À115 À85 À86 À134 À114À133 À113 À87 À88 À132 À112À131 À89 À90 À130 À110À129 À91 À92 À108À128À127 À107 À93 À94 À106À126À125 À105 À95 À96 À124 À104À123 À103 À97 À98À141À122À102À121À101À99À100 À49À43 À1À11À50À1À44À1À20À51À1À21À10À45À52À22À19À9À46À1À23À18À8À40À47À41À24À1À39À42À17À1À7À38À48À37À16À6À36À1À15 X1 À5À1 À35À20À21 À14À19À4À22À34À1À18À23À13À33À3À1À24À17À12À32À2À16À31À25À1À15À1À1À30À26À14À1À1À29À13À27À28À6À12À37À1À1À2À5À1À11À36À20À4À10À35À1À3À9À19À1À34À8À2 À1 À33À18À1À7À1À1 À1 À32À17 À31À16À30À15À1 À29À14À1À2À3À1À13À28À4À5À12À1À6À7À8À27À9À11À1À10À1À1 À2À3 À18 À2 À4 À17À5 À19À6À1À1À7À16À8À20À9À15À10À11À12À13À14À21À1À1À22À1 À23À1 À1À1 X3 À10 À35À11À24À36À10À11À37 À23 À38À9À39À12À40À8À22À41À13À7À42À21À43À6À1À14À44À20À5À45À1À46À15À19À4À47À1À1À3À16À48À1À18À3À49À2À17À50À1À1À1À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 X5 À1 À1 À1 À1À1À8À7À1À1À6À5 À1À4À1À1À1À3À1À9À2À1 À1À1À10À1À1À19À11À1 À1À1À18À1.1 À1À1À12 À1À1À17À1À1À1À13À16À35À1À1.1À1À1À14À34 À1À33À1 À1À15 À1 À32À31À30À25À29À26À28À27 À1À28À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1À1À43À1À1 X1À1À42À1À2À41À3À40À4 À1À39À5 À1À38À6À1À37À1 À7 À36 À8 À35 À9 À34 À10 À33 À26 À11 À32À25À12À31À13À24À30À14À29 À1À15À28 À1 À16 À27 À26À18À17À25À19À24À20À1À21À22À23 X2 X4 X1 X3 X1 À1 À2À4À1 À2 À1 À1 À9 À1 X1.1 À1 À1À5 À1 À1 À1À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1À1 À1À2 X1 À1 À6 À1 À1 À1 À1 ÀB1 À5 À5 À1 ÀB1 À4 À2 À3 À1 ÀA1ÀAÀA3ÀA X4 ÀA2 X2 X1 À1 À1 X6 À2À1 À1 À1À1.3À1 X2 À1 À1À1 À1 À1À1.2 À1 À1 À1À1 À1 X1 X2 X1 X2 X1 ÀA ÀA1 X1 X1.1 X1 X1 X1 X1 X1.1 À1 X1 X1 X1 X2 X1 À1 À1.1 À1.1 À1.1 À2 X4.1 X4.1 X4.1 X1 X1 X4.1X4.1 À1 À1 À1 À2 À2 À1À2À3À4À5À6À7À8 À9 À10 À1 À1 À3 À43 À109 X9 X113 X5 À1.1 À1.1 À1 X7 X1 À1 À2 À3À4À5À6À7À8À9À10 À11 À12 À13À14 À15 À16 À17À18À19À20À21À22À23À24À25À26À27À28À29 À30 À31 À32À33 À34 À35 À36 À37 À38À39 À40 À41 À42À43À44 À45À46À47À48À49À50À51À52 À53À54À55À56À57 À58À59 À60 À61 À62 À63 À64 À65 À66 À67À68 À69À70 À71 À72 À73 À74 À75À76À77 À78À79 À80 À81À82À83À84À85À86À87 À88 À89À90 À91À92 À93 À94À95À96À97 À98 PE PUD RSF-3A RSF-3 A PUD PUD CON-ST CON-ST MH A-ST A CONCON P PUD CON-ST MARCO SHORESCOUNTRY CLUB MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'SCRK Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2015-2550 PROJECTLOCATION SITELOCATION ¹ PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 2 of 13 September 2, 2016 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant is requesting to amend this PUD in order to remove the 6.5± acres from the PUD and rezone to Public Use (P) in connection with the companion petition RZ-PL20160000382. The proposed changes can be found in the proposed ordinance (see Attachment #1 — Proposed Ordinance). The applicant is also requesting to have Resolution 09-256 repealed as it would no longer be needed if this petition were approved. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject parcels: North: State-owned preserve, zoned Conservation-Special Treatment (CON-ST). East: Airport (Marco Island Executive Airport), zoned P. South: Tract Z of Hammock Bay (golf course maintenance facility) of Marco Shores Golf Course Community, zoned PUD and state-owned preserve, zoned CON- ST. West: Tract P of Marco Shores Unit One (designated park site) of Marco Shores Golf Course Community and Tract Z of Hammock Bay (golf course maintenance facility) of Marco Shores Golf Course Community, all of which are zoned PUD. (See aerial map on the following page) PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 3 of 13 September 2, 2016 Aerial (County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). CHHA provisions, for the most part, apply to residential development and pose no limitations upon this request. The existing Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (Ord. 81-6, as amended by Ord. 85-56 and Ord. 94-41) allows residential-golf course development at a density of approximately 4.9 DU/A (1,530 DUs on 314.5± acres). The part of these companion petitions pertaining to the PUD amendment request does not increase the density or add uses. Applicable FLUE policies were evaluated by staff as part of the original (1981) PUD request. The proposed changes do not necessitate new re-evaluation of applicable FLUE policies. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible wi th the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Subject Property PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 4 of 13 September 2, 2016 Based upon the above analyses, the proposed planned unit development amendment and rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE (see Attachment #3 - Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner’s Traffic Impact Memo randum noting that, “The rezone, in and of itself, does not have any associated traffic impacts. It simply provides for unified zoning of the Airport property”. Additionally staff confirmed that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to continue to accommodate this PUD amendment within the five (5)-year planning period and found it consistent with the applicable policies of the transportation element. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found the rezone and amendment to the PUD to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The land covered by this application has been previously cleared and filled, and located in an area identified for development pursuant to the Deltona Settlement Agreement. In addition to identifying areas for development, the Deltona Settlement Agreement also set aside much of the land covered under the Settlement Agreement, for conservation purposes, most of which were deeded over to the state of Florida. These conservation lands were previously determined by the Planning and Zoning Manager to satisfy the onsite preserve requirement pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1, for land to be developed under the Deltona Settlement Agreement. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications for amendments to, or rezoning to, the PUD shall be in the form of a PUD master plan of development along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 5 of 13 September 2, 2016 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 Planning staff has reviewed both the PUD and companion petitions to address environmental concerns. The petitions do not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since they did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The land covered by the rezone and amendment to the PUD has been previously cleared and filled, and identified as an area to be developed pursuant to the Deltona Settlement Agreement. Preserved lands surrounding the PUD, as shown on the master plan, were required by the Deltona Settlement Agreement to be either deeded over to the state of Florida or placed in a conservation easement. These preserved lands are not a part of the PUD and are now owned and managed by the state of Florida as part of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. They are also included in the Conservation Designation on the County Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Landscape Review: Staff has no objections to this request. It should be noted, however, that all future development must be compliant with the LDC requirements with respect to landscaping and buffering. While not labeled on the proposed master plan, staff believes there is adequate space on Tract Z of Hammock Bay and on Tract P of Marco Shores Unit One to accommodate required landscape buffers along the new PUD boundary where abutting the property to be rezoned. Conflicts with existing easements, if any, would be addressed at the time of SDP or plat approval. Transportation Review: Approved. Utilities Review: The Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District boundary but is excluded from County service area pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island, which provides both water and wastewater services to that development, referred to as the Hammock Bay Service Area. Pursuant to that agreement, the City of Marco Island purchases bulk water from the Collier County Water-Sewer District via a master meter near the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Mainsail Drive. The City of Marco Island has reviewed this PUD amendment, and has determined the proposed conceptual development will have an impact on its water and sewer infrastructure within the area being rezoned. The City does not object to the rezoning so long as the County pays for and relocates the affected City infrastructure via an Interlocal Agreement to be executed prior to redevelopment of the area. Zoning Services Review: The Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Document, including the master plan, would be amended by deducting 6.5± acres, which would be rezoned to P (in connection with the companion petition RZ-PL20160000382). The 6.5± acres is comprised of Tract Q of Marco Shores Unit One and a portion of Mainsail Drive. Staff has no objection to the requested changes to the PUD Document. The request would also repeal Resolution 09-256, which allows the construction of an off-street parking area (for the Collier County Airport Authority) to serve the employees and patrons of the Marco Island Executive Airport. Staff has no objection to PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 6 of 13 September 2, 2016 repealing this resolution. With respect to open space, this requirement would be achieved as stated in the backup material (see email from Paula McMichael to Eric Johnson in Attachment #2 – Application and Support Material). The drawing labeled Aerial Photograph (see Attachment #2 – Application and Support Material) reveals the subject property is currently vacant (except for the improvements to Mainsail Drive), so no known non-conformities would be created if this petition were to be approved. Likewise, rezoning to P would not cause the existing building on Tract Z of Hammock Bay to become non - conforming with respect to setbacks because the setback required on GC sites within the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD is where buildings would abut a residential district, which would not be the case with the companion petition. If the companion petition is approved, the maximum building height will be forty-five (45) feet above finished grade of the lot for any buildings proposed on the property to be rezoned to P. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 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 in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: 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 existing area is suitable for the proposed PUD amendment with respect to the characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities (if any). The City of Marco Island currently provides water and wastewater service to the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD. The County will relocate the City’s affected water and sewer infrastructure at no cost to the City to accommodate the proposed improvements. The County will execute an Interlocal Agreement with the City prior to 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. PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 7 of 13 September 2, 2016 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The Marco Island Executive Airport currently exists and operates today. This petition seeks to deduct 6.5± acres from the PUD and add it to the airport property. Staff determined the internal and external compatibility of the PUD would be satisfied. The drawing labeled Building Area Plan (Future Build-Out) shows the closest building is 50 feet from the new PUD boundary along the east perimeter where abutting the property to be rezoned to P. While not labeled on the proposed master plan, staff believes there is adequate space on Tract Z of Hammock Bay and on Tract P of Marco Shores Unit One to accommodate required landscape buffers along the new PUD boundary where abutting the property to be rezoned. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The proposed amendment would remove 6.5± acres from the PUD. The updated master plan (see Exhibit C of the PUD Document) shows the project would provide 182.2 acres of GC – Golf Course, Club & Open Space, which represents 57.8% of the total area. If the Parks and category is added (5.2 acres), this increases the open space area to 187.4 acres or 59.5%. According to the applicant, there are other areas in the PUD that qualify for useable open space, up to 67.7% of the total land area (see email from Paula McMichael to Eric Johnson). 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The applicant asserts, “All necessary improvements and facilities are already in place to serve this development.” The proposed rezoning is net neutral in the number of peak hour trips according to the transportation memo provided by the agent as part of this petition. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order [site development plan (SDP) or plat (PPL)]. Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 8 of 13 September 2, 2016 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 water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continue 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. If developed in the future, the remaining portion of the PUD where abutting the property to be rezoned (i.e., Tract Z of Hammock Bay and Tract P of Marco Shores Unit One) will be required to comply with the landscape and buffering requirements of the LDC at the time of SDP or plat approval. Conflicts with existing easements, if any, would be addressed at such time. No deviations are being requested with this petition. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable”: 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. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning portion of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. No isolated zoning district would be created because the abutting p roperty (Marco Island Executive Airport) is already zoned P. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Tract Q of the Marco Shores Unit One plat and a portion of Mainsail Drive comprise the land area to be rezoned in connection with this petition. Both are already owned by Collier PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 9 of 13 September 2, 2016 County. The new PUD boundary would be consistent with the easternmost boundary of the plat for Tract Q and the westernmost extent of Mainsail Drive. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate the deduction of 6.5± acres from the PUD for the use of the Marco Island Executive Airport would adversely impact living conditions in the PUD. No residential land uses directly abuts the subject property to be rezoned. As of August 12, 2016, Code Enforcement has not received any complaints against the Marco Island Airport in the last five (5) years. 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 proposed rezoning is net neutral in the number of peak hour trips according to the transportation memo provided by the agent as part of this petition. The project’s development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of SDP or PPL review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change will not create a drainage problem, as the applicant will be required to submit a SFWMD permit and all required stormwater documentation to County staff to be evaluated during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the 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 PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 10 of 13 September 2, 2016 is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the proposed amendment would be a deterrent to the improvement of the vacant land to the surrounding 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 GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The current PUD Document does not list “airport” as a permitted principal use. The property owner is choosing to rezone the property to P rather than requesting to add “airport” as a principal use in the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff’s opinion the proposed transfer of 6.5± acres from the PUD to the Marco Island Executive Airport is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not specifically 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 SDP, and again later as part of the building permit process. PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 11 of 13 September 2, 2016 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff 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. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. 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 Board during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent, Mr. Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes, Inc., along with Mr. Justin Lobb, Airports Manager of the Collier County Airport Authority, conducted a duly noticed NIM on June 22, 2016 at the Collier County South Regional Library at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. This meeting served as the required NIM for this petition as well as for the companion rezoning application (RZ-PL2016000382). The meeting commenced at 5:30 p.m. and finished at 6:07 p.m. The NIM Summary is included in Attachment #2 – Application and Support Material. Mr. Lobb stated the proposed building height on the subject property would be two (2) stories [at about forty (40) feet to forty-five (45) feet tall]. Later in the meeting, Mr. Mulhere mentioned he thought the maximum zoned height in the P district is forty (40) feet. Mr. Lobb indicated that the maximum height could be no greater than fifty-five (55) feet because of F.A.A. regulations. However, as detailed in the Zoning Review portion of this staff report, the maximum height (for the subject property) will be forty-five (45) feet above the finished grade of the lot. During the NIM, because of concerns of future damage to Mainsail Drive when construction activity commences, the applicant suggested that a pre-construction video be created to assist in any damage assessment. To address the concerns of the residents, the applicant has now offered to provide said video (see Conditions of Approval). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on August 31, 2016. PUDA-PL20150002550 – Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Page 12 of 13 September 2, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application & Support Material 3) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 4) Density Map 5) Letters from Conservancy of Southwest Florida and Memorandum of Understanding ORDINANCE NO. 16 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 81-6, AS AMENDED, THE MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT TO REMOVE 6.5f ACRES FROM THE PUD; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 09-256, WHICH GRANTED A PARKING EXEMPTION AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20150002550] WHEREAS, on September 8, 1998, The Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 81-6, which established the Planned Unit Development (PUD) now known as the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD zoning classification; and WHEREAS, the PUD was amended by Ordinance Nos. 85-56 and 94-41 and Collier County Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-29; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Airport Authority, represented by Robert Mulhere, of Hole Montes, Inc. petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, to remove property from the PUD that will become part of the Marco Island Executive Airport. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION I: AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT, OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 81-6, AS AMENDED The Planned Unit Development Document to Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended, is hereby amended and superseded by Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. [16 -CPS -01527] 63 Marco Shores Country Club PUDA 8(30(16 Page 1 of 2 SECTION II: AMENDMENT TO MASTER PLAN Exhibit E, Site Plan also known as the Master Plan, is hereby amended and replaced with Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Legal Description, Exhibit G of the Development Plan, is hereby amended to remove the 6.5 acre parcel described in Exhibit G attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION IV: REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 09-256 WHICH GRANTED A PARKING EXEMPTION Resolution No. 09-256 is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION V: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A — Planned Development Document Exhibit E — Master Plan Exhibit G — Legal Description [ 16 -CPS -01527163 Marco Shores Country Club PUDA 8/30/16 2016. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Page 2 of 2 DONNA FIALA, Chairman PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT N E MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY • •. • _ Fir•TiT• Exhibit A INDEX Exhibit G Legal Description Exhibit H EIS Waiver Exhibit J Statement of Conditions for Approval Page 2 of 23 Words underli are added; words stmek thretigh are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx Page List of Exhibits ii- 2 Statement of Compliance iii 3 Property Ownership & Description - Section I 444 Project Development - Section II 2-46 Utility Services - Section III -3-1- 9 Multi -Family - Section IV 4-411 Golf Course - Section V -5-416 Utility Area - Section VI 6-419 Development Commitments - Section VII -7-421 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit B Vicinity Map Exhibit C Aerial Photograph Exhibit D Boundary Map Exhibit E Master Plan Exhibit G Legal Description Exhibit H EIS Waiver Exhibit J Statement of Conditions for Approval Page 2 of 23 Words underli are added; words stmek thretigh are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 324 314.7 acres of property in Sections 26, 27 and 28, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, as a Planned Unit Development to be known as Marco Shores Golf Course Community will comply with the planning and development objectives of Collier County. These objectives are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan which includes the Growth Policy and Official Land Use Guide, all of which were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 14, 1974. Marco Shores Golf Course Community will meet the planning and development objectives for the following reasons: (1) The project is vested under the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The determination of vesting provided for in Chapter 380.06(4)(a) has been completed. The project is vested for 1980 residential units. (2) The project is in compliance with Collier County Ordinance Number 77-66 requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S) prior to rezoning. An E.I.S. Waiver, Exhibit H, has been approved in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance Number 77-66. (3) The project is in compliance with Collier County Comprehensive Plan and Official Land Use Guide. (4) The project has adequate community facilities and services as defined in Section 48, Paragraph 5 of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance as provided by existing services and facilities or to be provided by the developer as indicated within this PUD Document. (5) The project shall comply with the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and all other County and State laws dealing with platting and subdividing of property at the time improvements and plat approvals are sought. Page 3 of 23 Words underlined are added; words stfuek thwagk are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.01 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE It is the intent of The Deltona Corporation (hereinafter called "applicant" or "developer") to establish and develop a planned unit development on approximately 324 314.7 acres of property located in the Marco Island community, Collier County, Florida. It is the purpose of this document to provide the required detail and data concerning the development of the property. 1.02 NAME The development will be known as Marco Shores Golf Course Community (hereinafter called "Marco Shores"). 1.03 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The legal description is as described in Exhibit G, Legal Description. 1.04 TITLE TO PROPERTY The property is partially developed, and ownership is in multiple parties at the present time. The Johnson Bay Development Corporation is the contract purchaser of currently platted Tracts B, C-2, D, E-2, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, P and R as depicted on Exhibit "E". 1.05 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA The general location of Marco Shores is illustrated by Exhibit B, Vicinity Map. The project site contains approximately 31.314.7 acres of property. It is bordered on the west by State Road 951. At the time of this application, the property was zoned A. A portion of the property at the western boundary includes approximately 0.5 acres of tidally influenced wetlands composed of both excavated drainage canals and mangrove areas. Within the boundary of the project site, there presently exists a golf course with supporting clubhouse and maintenance facilities and a road providing access to the golf course and the Marco Island Airport located to the east of the subject area. Page 4 of 23 Words underlined are added; words stwek4hfetg are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx 1.06 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The entire site, except for a small portion of the wetland area (mangroves) adjacent to SR -951, has been subject to previous construction alterations. Development of man-made lakes outside and along the northern limits of the site, as well as several lakes within the property boundary, were the source for the fill material used to bring the site to its present elevational setting. Elevations within the site range from a maximum of +15' N.G.V.D. to approximately +5' N.G.V.D. along the top of bank adjacent to both the unnamed lake to the north and the mangrove area bordering Macilivane Bay to the south. Lower elevations are found immediately adjacent to and within the internal lake areas. The topography generally slopes gently towards the internal lakes or the boundaries of the site. The soils of the site are composed of the sands, shells and crushed limerock deposited as the spoil fill material from lake construction within and adjacent to the project area. Aside from the landscaped and grassed areas of the golf course and support facility, the vegetation of the site is characterized by scrub ground cover which normally establishes itself on disturbed fill area. Page 5 of 23 Words underlined are added; words struelct#r-eegh are deletions H;\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016),docx SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to describe the general plan of the development and delineate the conditions that will apply to the project. 2.02 GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT The general plan of development of Marco Shores is for a planned residential community of multi -family dwelling units and golf course. 2.03 SITE PLAN APPROVAL When site plan approval is required by this document, a written request for site plan approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Administrator for approval. The request shall include materials necessary to demonstrate that the approval of the site plan will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this document, will not be injurious to the neighborhood or to adjoining properties, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Such materials may include, but is not limited to the following, where applicable: A. Site plans at an appropriate scale showing proposed placement of structures on the property; provisions for ingress and egress, off-street parking and off-street loading areas, refuse and service areas; and required yards and other open spaces; B. Plans showing proposed locations for utilities hook-up; C. Plans for screening and buffering with references as to type, dimensions and character; D. Proposed landscaping and provisions for trees protected by County regulations; and E. Proposed signs and lighting, including type, dimensions and character. 2.04 LAND USE Unless otherwise stated, what is discussed in this Section is the 320 acres of upland depicted in Exhibit E. This in turn is part of Unit 30 for purposes of planning and land management. For purposes of this Ordinance, Unit 30 shall mean that area which is more specifically described on that joint permit application of Applicant filed on May 3, 1977 with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the U.S. Army Corps of Page 6 of 23 Words underlined are added; words struele through are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx Engineers. A schedule of the intended land use types subject to this Section, with approximate acreages and total dwelling units, is shown on Exhibit E, Site Plan. Minor variations in acreages, not to exceed 3% of the total 320 upland acres, shall be permitted at final design to accommodate final development plans. The specific location and size of the individual tracts and the assignment of dwelling units on the 320 acre uplands site shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Administrator at the time of Site Plan approval of each development phase. Approval is hereby given to construct up to 500 dwelling units on the 320 -acre Marco Shores site. Beyond the initial 500 units, construction of additional units requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the standards set forth below. While the 500 units are hereby approved, it has been determined that the Marco Shores site will accommodate construction of the number of units allowed by the Land Use Element of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan dated May 8, 1979 (the Collier County Comprehensive Plan) subject, however, to the following: Traffic improvements as required to alleviate congestion and improve safety on Route 951, such as widening to accommodate additional traffic lanes, traffic signals, turn lanes, reduced speed limits, or alternatives as may be required in accordance with Section 8.04.13 of this Ordinance. 2. Reduction of wetlands now proposed by applicant for development in Unit 30. Such efforts may include clustering, more intensive use of uplands, and land trades that would shift development to uplands. In determining the maximum number of allowable dwelling units on the 320 -acre Marco Shores site, consideration shall be given to Applicant's overall development plans for the Marco Beach Subdivision, including a review of: A. The status of permitting as it affects property in the Marco area which is owned or being required by Applicant, including Unit 30; B. The status of any completed or pending land exchanges through which Applicant has obtained, or has the prospect of obtaining, developable property located in the Marco area; C. Combined density for the 320 -acre Marco Shores site, the rest of the Unit 30 site, and any contiguous land which Applicant has acquired or may acquire through exchange; and D. Based upon proper land management considerations, principally involving a preference for upland as opposed to wetland development, the most suitable distribution of density over the property Applicant may develop as part of the Marco Beach Subdivision. Page 7 of 23 Words underlined are added; words stmek thwugh are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPCWIarco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx If, as a result of the foregoing review, it is determined that the maximum number of dwelling units on the 320 -acre Marco Shores development should be other than the number allowed by the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, this Ordinance shall be amended with respect to the maximum number of dwelling units to be permitted on the Marco Shores site. In order to afford flexibility to the County in determining the maximum number and distribution of dwelling units on the 320 -acre Marco Shores site, Applicant shall not make irrevocable commitments to purchasers with respect to land uses on the unsold portions of the 320 -acre site, or any other portion of the Unit 30 planning site. 2.05 PROJECT DENSITY The total acreage of the Marco Shores property is approximately 324 314.7 acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 1580. The number of dwelling units per gross acres is approximately -4-.9 5_0. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project will vary according to the type of dwelling units placed on each parcel of land. 2.076 AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE Both the County and the developer, with knowledge that the long range development plan permitted by the ordinance will not be complete for a period of 3 to 10 years, recognize that exceptions, variances or amendments to this ordinance may be necessary in the future. There may be changes in planning techniques, engineering techniques, transportation methods, and other factors that would warrant this ordinance being amended to meet standards of the time. All petitions or requests for exceptions, variances and amendments shall conform with the procedures existing at the time of the application for the exception or amendments. 2.097 TREE REMOVAL All clearing, grading, earthwork, and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with the approved PUD site plan and all applicable codes. 2.098 DEFINITIONS Definitions shall be as contained in the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County. 2.4-009 FRACTIONALIZATION OF TRACTS Each fractionalized tract shall be a minimum of five acres. Page 8 of 23 Words underlined are added; words stwek-threegh are deletions H;\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx SECTION III UTILITY SERVICES TO MARCO SHORES 3.01 WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT FACILITIES Marco Island Utilities, Inc. will provide water supply and treatment facilities to the project. Untreated water is available from 12" and 14" Marco Island Utilities, Inc. water mains adjacent to State Road 951 on the west boundary of the property. Location of the water treatment facility is indicated on Exhibit E, Site Plan. 3.02 SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES Marco Island Utilities, Inc. will provide sewage treatment facilities to the project. Location of the sewage treatment facility is indicated on Exhibit E, Site Plan. 3.03 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION Solid waste collection for the Marco Shores project will be handled by the company holding the franchise for solid waste collection for the County. 3.04 ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE Florida Power & Light Corporation will provide electric service to the entire project. 3.05 TELEPHONE SERVICE Telephone service will be supplied to the Marco Shores project by United Telephone Company of Florida. 3.06 TELEVISION CABLE SERVICE Television cable service will be provided by Gulf -Coast Cable -Vision, Inc. of Naples. 3.07 EASEMENTS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES On-site utilities such as telephone, electrical power, TV cable service, wastewater collection, water distribution, etc. shall be installed underground. Except that electrical feeder lines serving commercial and other high use areas, water pumping stations, lift stations, transformer banks, etc. shall be permitted above ground. Easements shall be Page 9 of 23 Words underlined are added; words souek Brough are deletions H;\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx provided for all utility purposes. Said easements and improvements shall be done in accordance with subdivision regulations. Page 10 of 23 Words underlined are added; words stfuslc thFough are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx SECTION IV MULTI -FAMILY 4.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulation for the area designated on Exhibit E, Site Plan, as Multi -Family. 4.02 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum number of 1580 dwelling units may be constructed subject to stipulations in attached Exhibit J. 4.03 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (1) Multi -family residential buildings and single family detached. (2) Parks, playgrounds, playfields and commonly owned open space. (3) Water management facilities. (4) Golf Course uses (1), (5) and (6) as set forth in 5.02.A. B. Principal Uses Requiring Site Plan Approval: (1) Non-commercial boat launching facilities and multiple docking areas with a maximum extension into the waterway of 20 feet. (2) Residential clubs, intended to serve the surrounding residential area. (3) Individual housing units including townhouses, zero lot line, villas and cluster housing. (4) Boardwalks, viewing stands or docks, and nature trails not associated with any particular multi -family development. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: (1) Customary accessory uses and structures, including parking structures. Page 11 of 23 Words gnderlined are added; words steuek thFough are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx (2) Signs as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County. (3) Model homes, apartments and sales offices shall be permitted in conjunction with the promotion of the development. 4.04 REGULATIONS AS TO RESIDENTIAL TRACTS Regulations as to Tracts A, T, U and Tracts C-1 and E-1: 4.04.01 MINIMUM LOT AREA: Multi -Family: One (1) net acre. Single Family Detached: 7500 square feet. Other Residential Types: In conformance with approved site development plan. 4.04.02 MINIMUM YARDS: MULTI -FAMILY A. From right-of-way lines of public and private roads, thirty (30) feet or one-half (1/2) the height of the structure, whichever is greater. B. From the tract boundary lines, twenty (20) feet or one-half (1/2) the height of the structure, whichever is greater. C. Distance between any two principal structures, one-half (1/2) the sum of their heights but not less than twenty (20) feet on the same tract. D. In the case of the clustered buildings with a common architectural theme, these distances may be less provided that a site plan is approved in accordance with Section II. 4.04.03 MINIMUM YARDS: INDIVIDUAL UNITS A. Single Family Detached: (1) Front setback 30' (2) Side setback 7-1/2' (3) Rear setback 20' B. Other than single family detached: All setbacks in accordance with the approved site plan. Page 12 of 23 Words underlined are added; words sWaek thr-ough are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx 4.04.04 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: A. Seven (7) stories above the finished grade with option of having one (1) floor of parking beneath the allowable seven (7) stories. B. Accessory structures shall be limited to a maximum of thirty (30) feet above finished grade of the lot. 4.04.05 MINIMUM LIVING AREA OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES: Principal use structures shall contain a minimum of seven hundred and fifty (750) gross square feet of living area per dwelling unit within principal structures. 4.04.06 OFF-STREET PARKING: Principal uses shall provide a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. An additional one-half (.5) space per unit must be reserved for future parking if needed. This reserve area shall be grassed or landscaped. 4.04.07 OFF-STREET PARKING LANDSCAPING: Landscaping shall be provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County. 4.04.08 USABLE OPEN SPACE: For each multi -family dwelling unit, a minimum of one -hundred (100) square feet of usable open space, exclusive of the golf course area, shall be provided on the site. This space may be provided as swimming pools, pool decks, tennis courts, landscaped area or other common recreational facilities. 4.05 REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL ONE 4.05.01 MINIMUM LOT AREA: Multi -family: One (1) net acre. Single Family Detached: 7500 square feet. Other Residential Types: In conformance with approved site development plan. 4.05.02 MINIMUM YARDS — MULTI -FAMILY A. Setbacks from parcel boundaries — thirty feet (30'). Page 13 of 23 Words underlined -are added; words stfuek tltreuare deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).doex B. Distance between any two principal structures, one-half (1/2) the sum of their heights but not less than twenty feet (20'). C. Setbacks from edge of pavement of roadways (public or private) — thirty feet (30'). D. In the case of clustered buildings with a common architectural theme, setbacks may be reduced pursuant to a site development plan approved by the Development Services Director. E. Principal structures shall be set back a minimum of 500' from the pavement edge on Mainsail Drive and a minimum of 500' from Tract T. 4.05.03 MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES A. Principal structures — twenty (20) stories above required flood plain or two (2) levels of parking. B. Accessory structures — thirty feet (30') above required flood plain or two (2) levels of parking. C. Principal structures — a maximum of five (5) on this residential parcel. 4.05.04 MINIMUM LIVING AREA OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES Principal use structures shall contain a minimum of one thousand (1,000) gross square feet of living area per dwelling unit within principal structure. 4.05.05 OFF-STREET PARKING Principal uses shall provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. 4.06 REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO 4.06.01 MINIMUM LOT AREA: Multi -family: One (1) net acre. Single Family Detached: 7500 square feet. Other Residential Types: In conformance with approved site development plan. 4.06.02 MINIMUM YARDS — MULTI -FAMILY Page 14 of 23 Words underlinedare added; words Am& through are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx A. Setbacks from parcel boundaries — twenty feet (20') or one-half (1/2) the height of the structure, whichever is greater. B. Setbacks from edge of pavement of public roadways — thirty feet (30'). C. Distance between any two principal structures, one-half (1/2) the sum of their heights, but not less than twenty feet. D. In the case of clustered buildings with a common architectural theme, these distances may be less provided that a site development plan is approved by the Development Services Director. 4.06.03 MINIMUM YARDS — SINGLE FAMILY A. Single Family Detached: (1) Front setback: 30' (2) Side setback: 7-1/2' (3) Rear setback: 20' B. Other than single-family detached: All setbacks in accordance with the approved site plan. 4.06.04 MAXIMUM HEIGHT A. Principal structures — three (3) stories above the required flood plain elevation or one level of parking. B. Accessory structures — twenty feet (20') above required flood plain elevation. 4.06.05 MINIMUM LIVING AREA OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES Principal use structures shall contain a minimum of seven hundred and fifty (750) gross square feet of living area per dwelling unit within principal structure. 4.06.06 OFF-STREET PARKING Principal uses shall provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Page 15 of 23 Words underlined are added; words stN& thFOUgh are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx SECTION V GOLF COURSE 5.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the area designated on Exhibit E, Site Plan, as Golf Course. 5.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: (1) Golf Course (2) Golf Clubhouse (3) Tennis Courts (4) Tennis Clubhouses (5) Transient lodging facilities not to exceed 50 units. (6) Water management facilities; lakes, including lakes with seawall and other types of architectural bank treatment. (7) Sales Office. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: (1) Pro -shop, practice driving range and other customary accessory uses of golf courses, tennis clubs or other recreational facilities. (2) Small commercial establishments, including gift shops, golf and tennis equipment sales, restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses, intended to exclusively serve patrons of the golf course or tennis club or other permitted recreational facilities, subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County. (3) Shuffleboard courts, swimming pools, and other types of facilities intended for recreation. Page 16 of 23 Words underlined are added; words straw are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx (4) Signs as permitted in the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County. (5) Maintenance shops and equipment storage. (6) Non-commercial plant nursery. 5.03 PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Plans for all principal and all accessory uses shall be submitted to the Director who will review these plans and approve their construction. All construction shall be in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The perimeter boundary of the overall golf course tract shall be recorded in the same manner as a subdivision plat. A. General Requirements: (1) Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structures, location of access streets and parking areas and location and treatment of buffer areas. (2) Buildings shall be setback a minimum of fifty (50) feet from abutting residential districts and the setback area shall be landscaped and maintained to act as a buffer zone. (3) Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring properties from direct glare or other interference. (4) A site plan shall be provided showing pertinent structure locations and landscaping. (5) Tracts T, U, and E-1 as depicted on the PUD Master Plan and the Marco Shores Unit One Plat, are not owned by Petitioner, and are developed or under development. These tracts are currently contiguous to the golf course. Petitioner agrees that in any reconfiguration of the golf course, these tracts will continue to have an equal or greater amount of contiguity with the golf course tract as described on the record Plat of March Shores Unit One. 5.04 MAXIMUM HEIGHT Forty-five (45) feet above the finished grade of the lot. 5.05 MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING As required by the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County, Page 17 of 23 Words underlined are added; words s4uek4hreugh are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx 5.06 OFF-STREET PARKING LANDSCAPING Landscaping shall be provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance of Collier County. Page 18 of 23 Words undglinetare added; words stmek-thmugk are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx SECTION VI UTILITY AREA 6.01. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for the area designated on Exhibit E, Site Plan, as Utility Area. 6.02 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (1) Potable water treatment and distribution facilities. (2) Sanitary waste water collection treatment and disposal facilities. (3) Utility services equipment, storage and maintenance. (4) Utility services offices. (5) Lawn or golf course maintenance shops and equipment storage. (6) Any other use associated with maintenance or utility services when approved by the Director. (7) Water management facilities. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: (1) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the uses permitted in this district. (2) Signs as permitted in the zoning ordinance. 6.03 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS A. From right-of-way lines of public and private roads, thirty (30) feet. B. All other, none. Page 19 of 23 Words underlined are added; words struek dough are deletions H;\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx 6.04 MAXIMUM HEIGHT Thirty-five (35) feet above the finished grade of the lot. 6.05 MINIMUM FLOOR AREA None. Page 20 of 23 Words underlined are added; words s>ruelc-threagh are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).doex SECTION VII DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 7.01 NATURAL RESOURCES Prior to undertaking any alterations within or affecting the tidally -influenced wetland included in the site, the applicant shall: A. Obtain all necessary permits, approvals, or waivers from the County, state and federal agencies; and, B. Limit the extent of alterations within the wetlands areas to reduce short and long term environmental impacts; and, C. Insure that no alteration or filling within the wetland area shall be conducted except as required to improve the access road at its intersection with State Road 951 unless otherwise approved by the Director for work required by the future development of Unit 30, Marco Shores, 7.02 DRAINAGE A. Upland Areas (1) The applicant shall provide all necessary detailed drainage plans, studies and specifications to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County for approval prior to issuance of permits by Collier County. The detailed drainage plans shall include the data requested by the South Florida Water Management District in their letter dated August 29, 1980 and which is made a part of this PUD Document. (2) The minimum building floor elevation shall be as indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Collier County. B. Wetland Area The applicant shall provide necessary detailed drainage plans, studies and specifications to the Environmental Advisory Council, Water Management Advisory Board, Coastal Area Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the South Florida Water Management District for approval prior to the issuance of any construction/development permits by Collier County. Page 21 of 23 Words underlined are added; words struelk through are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx C. Upland and Wetland Areas (1) Detailed site drainage plans demonstrating extensive use of "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) for all impervious surfaces shall be submitted to the County Engineer for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by County Engineer. (2) Petitioner shall modify S.F.W.M.D. Surface Water Permit No. 11-00202- (, reflecting the proposed modifications prior to the issuance of any building permit in the P.D.A. modified area. 7.03 PUBLIC FACILITIES A. Sewage Treatment Facility Marco Island Utilities, Inc. will provide sewage treatment facilities for the project. Marco Island Utilities, Inc. will provide necessary detailed plans and specifications for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage from this development to the Department of Environmental Regulations and Collier County for approval prior to the issuance of development permits. B. Water Treatment Facilities Water treatment facilities will be provided by Marco Island Utilities, Inc. Marco Island Utilities, Inc. will provide necessary detailed plans and specifications to the Department of Environmental Regulations and Collier County for approval prior to the issuance of development permits. Deltona Corporation will construct additional raw water transmission facilities from the rock pit southward along SR 951 and to the Marco Island Water Treatment Plan by 1984. 7.04 TRANSPORTATION A. Internal The project will be served internally by a system of public and private roads. Public roads will be located within public rights of way as indicated in Exhibit E,, Site Plan. Private roads will serve the individual multi -family tracts. B. External Subject to the approval of the Florida Department of Transportation, the developers shall provide improvements as indicated in the attached Exhibit J. Page 22 of 23 Words underlined are added; words stmek threes are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx C. Improvements within the right-of-way Mainsail Drive is a divided, multi -lane, public right-of-way with a center median, and provides access to the development parcels in Marco Shores Golf Course Community and to the Marco Executive Airport. Landscaping within the platted right-of-way would improve aesthetics, and be of benefit to the community and Marco Executive Airport. Landscaping within the right-of-way is encouraged, and conceptual approval is hereby given for landscaping and signage within the public right-of-way, including the median, subject to the permits required pursuant to Ordinance 93-64, as that ordinance may be amended. 7.05 FIRE PROTECTION The applicant shall provide for the strategic placement of fire hydrants as required in the Collier County Subdivision Regulations. A fire station shall be constructed in accordance with the Southern Standard Building Code and as approved by the East Naples Fire Department on a site approved by the East Naples Fire Department. 7.06 MOSQUITO CONTROL Through proper engineering design and closely coordinated construction activities, a positively graded drainage system without numerous or extensive isolated depressions (stagnant water areas) will be created. Those assurances, in conjunction with appropriate lake maintenance operations, will reduce the potential for increasing mosquito breeding areas within the property. Page 23 of 23 Words underlinedare added; words stfuelE thFough are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD (PUDA-PL20150002550) (8-25-2016).docx A,.. L" NOTES: 2.6 Ac. Mainsail Drive CA LANDSCAPED BUFFER, WITH AN AVERAGE WIDTH OF 10 FEET, WILL 1.4 Ac. GC - Golf Course, Club & Open space - BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ENTRY ROAD. THIS Residential 64.2 Ac. BUFFER WILL BE SIMILAR TO A TYPE "B" BUFFER AS IDENTIFIED IN 38.8 Ac. Total - THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, EXCEPT THAT THE _ h MAINSAIL DRIVE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PLANTS MAY BE CLUSTERED IN ORDER TO 2.9 ACRES PROVIDE VISTAS AND FILTERED VIEWS OF THE ADJACENT GOLF _ COURSE. THE INTENT OF THE BUFFER CLUSTERS SHALL BE TO ACHIEVE 70% OPACITY WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PLANTING. A BUILDING SEPARATION BETWEEN FAIRWAYS 1 CONDOMINIUM AND I� GOLF CLUB PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES SHALL BE 600 FEET. 3. LANDS IDENTIFIED AS "NATURAL PRESERVE" ARE CONSERVATION LOCATION MAP D ENLARGED LOCATION MAP D LANDS OWNED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA PURSUANT TO THE DELTONA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ARE NOT PART OF THIS PUD. Naaaal — P— 1 Nene Naeeal ij/ � R.sld.ntw Parcel One R..Id."11.1 Parcel Tao �c GG Land Use Summary Parks 5.21 Ac. Roads 2.6 Ac. Mainsail Drive 20.3 Ac. Existing Utility site 1.4 Ac. GC - Golf Course, Club & Open space - 182.2 Ac. Residential 64.2 Ac. Existing Residential 38.8 Ac. Total - 314.7 Ac. A ® rk 1 P t 1 01 ® 1 Ro.M.�— } Amp.< O —GC MMM.nance Facility Nxaal PnaaK UNPLATTED rc 00 PARK (TEMPORARY UTILITY SITE) O 3.6 ACRES sw MA► AIL W _ h MAINSAIL DRIVE 2.9 ACRES a.a.nxxnnaaanxuxxuaxaanananuaax.xxx.xxxxxax# LAND REMOVED FROM PUD A SCALE: 1"-100' / PUD MASTER PLAN Ap N.T.S. PREPARED BY: WILSON MILLER • PN: 0528414-001 FILE: D-0528.04 IV amm ar 1/0 t 950 Encore Way REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS ��23-16 I T 1 NaP1as.FL.34N0 MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE "`"`°�°� 00000000 0000-00 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS MARCO SHORES �" �. °no„a'.c Cerh42Doo „�. „�. REVISED PER(AUNY COMMENTS ItM + e sole --t i�;=l�'', Fhoriacarar I,w COMMUNITY PUD MASTER PLAN a m a ® EXHIBIT "E" ° ""1= "'E EMNERSf�RAl9MRVEYORS AutMdzaaon No 1772 2015.089 ®1 OF 1 EXHIBIT G LESS AND EXCEPT: TRACT Q, MARCO SHORES, UNIT ONE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14 PAGE 38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 3.6 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN A PORTION OF MAINSAIL DRIVE MARCO SHORE UNIT ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT 14 PAGES 33-38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT Q, MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, AT PAGES 33-38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SI 1 059'55"E, ALONG THE EAST LIINE OF SAID TRACT O FOR A DISTANCE OF 332.93 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF MAINSAIL DRIVE OF SAID MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED• THENCE CONTINUE S11'59'55"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S79°48'17"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 435.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N84°45'47"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 153.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N00052'45"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 208.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENTIAL CIRCULAR CURVE; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1305.00 FEET AT A BEARING OF N00052'47"E THEREFROM THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12058'26" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 294.87 FEET AT A BEARING OF N84023'34"E, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 295.50 FEET; THENCE RUN N77°54'19"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 241.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING 2.9 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS REFER TO THE EAST LINE OF TRACT Q, MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14 AT PAGES 33-38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA AS BEING S 11 059'55"E. Words underlined are added; words ugh are deletions H:\2015\2015089\WP\PUDA\CCPC\Exhibit G - Legal Description .docx GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Eric Johnson,AICP, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt,AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: August 12, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Reviews of the Marco Shores Country Club Planned Unit Development Amendment&Rezone to Public Use (3rd memo) PETITION NUMBERS: PLs-20150002550 & -20160000382— REV: 3 PETITION NAMES: Marco Shores Country Club Planned Unit Development(PUD)Amendment& Public Use Rezone REQUESTS: To amend the Marco Shores Country Club PUD to remove areas of parking lot, road right-of-way and vacant right-of-way allowing for different parking lot and stormwater retention features at the Marco Island Executive Airport, and further update the PUD accordingly. These uses are in the area of the PUD-to-Public Use rezone, which is consistent with the remainder of Airport property. The proposed changes intend to reconcile these features to allow for the relocation of airport parking and a terminal building,and to allow for new aircraft hangers. Changes are achieved by a combination of re-designating the subject property to "P" (Public Use) via a rezone,vacating a ROW, and amending the subject PUD. LOCATION: The ±6.5-acre property is located approximately 1.6 miles east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951),on the north side of, and making up a portion of, Mainsail Drive, lying adjacently west of the Marco Island Executive Airport property,in Section 26,Township 51 South,Range 26 East. The subject property is comprised of two individual parcels, as follows: 1) A±2.9-acre parcel,including the easternmost ±537-foot portion of Mainsail Drive right-of-way, Marco Shores Country Club PUD; and, 2) A ±3.6-acre parcel located adjacent to Mainsail Drive right-of-way, in Marco Shores Country Club PUD. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). CHHA provisions,for the most part, apply to residential development and pose no limitations upon this request. The existing Marco Shores Country Club PUD(Ord.81-6,as amended by Ord.85-56 and Ord.94-41)allows residential- golf course development at a density of approximately 4.9 DU/A (1,530 DUs on ±314.5 acres). The part of these companion petitions pertaining to the PUD amendment request does not increase the density or add uses. Applicable FLUE policies were evaluated by staff as part of the original (1981) PUD request. The proposed changes do not necessitate new re-evaluation of applicable FLUE policies. The existing Marco Island Executive Airport site was rezoned (via LDC-91-102) as P, Public Use, allows airport operations. The part of these companion petitions pertaining to the rezone request does not introduce residential density or add uses. The PUD was found to be consistent with the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, predecessor to the present GMP. The PUD's density is not consistent with the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict cap of 4 DU/A in the GMP. However, it is, in effect,deemed consistent by policy with the GMP. Thus,via FLUE Policy 5.1,the proposed PUDA and rezone may be found consistent with the FLUE. The airport is recognized as and limited to this single use by the 1982 Deltona Corporation Settlement Agreement. The subject PUDA-Rezone combination affects land areas already agreed to for airport expansion. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Based upon the above analyses, the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment and Rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2016 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120161RZIRZ-PL2016-382 CntyAirportAuthority R3 .„....:__ ,,,,, n ,. ,.....„:;:,.,„_ ,,,,-,'.-' : - ,..,,,,.,_,,,,,,,,tr,,,,.,..44,,i,'-.„'--...-,,-...,-...7.:*11 -=tom f . � naa rr�Q4 MARCis_ -. ,�,, . ., MARC. SHRS/ DL,R'S ;: 4r `r/i✓/ � Density:2.08 l'-== Density:2.08 -.41,#s 40.D J m, _W 3I or UI Zoning: CON-ST i II 11. SUBJECT PROPERTY: MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PUD x .'7,'4t,::.,,,;: :4".4 „ ,_ - . -_ _ 14:/,,,--/"-6;::::::'-:11.:',.1111: .1, "r--- ' 4 - - -.ming: Pi ..,...:, r ,. -: -_,t,, ,-, < ��.+ - 9�a.. i' � f ,,,‘;','''4:7, ft. a 3 t,, i( i F ,/'f art: ' 4', i Zoning: CON-ST 1;;;;,,....-- . GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) 5°° '°°° 2,000 3,000 N Feet FOR MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY Prepared by: th Yang,A1CP PUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CoitiEr County GrowthManagementDepaitment Date:August,2078 \ 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:26 AM To:JohnsonEric Subject:MOU and Deltona Settlement Map Attachments:Deltona Map - Color Version.pdf; MOU - Marco Island Airport - Deltona Settlement Signatories - 9-11-01.pdf; Map - Marco Airport - Allowed Dev't Area and Area of Violation - 3-11-16.docx Hi Eric, For your reference during our discussion in a few minutes. Thanks, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres or 13,068 sq. ft. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres (13,068 sq. ft.); Yellow polygon represents 0.51 acres (22,216 sq. ft.); Blue rectangle represents approximately 0.74 acres (32,234 sq. ft.) Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres or 13,068 sq. ft. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres or 13,068 sq. ft. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres (13,068 sq. ft.); Yellow polygon represents approximately 0.51 acres (22,216 sq. ft.); Blue rectangle represents approximately 0.74 acres (32,234 sq. ft.) 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:14 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Fwd: Marco Exec Airport NIM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Brad Cornell <millercornell@mindspring.com> Date: June 22, 2016 at 5:07:25 PM EDT To: Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Cc: Nicole Johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Subject: Marco Exec Airport NIM Hi Bob, I’m writing because I cannot attend tonight’s NIM on the Marco airport rezone for moving the terminal. While Audubon does not object to making the airport safer through moving the terminal, we do object to proceeding without first resolving how past environmental destruction violations of the MOU with Deltona signatories will be addressed AND seeking an amendment to the MOU to expand the footprint of the development area for the airport, as required by the MOU. Without any assurance or commitment by the Airport Authority to either of these straightforward actions, Audubon must object to this rezone application. I’m interested in discussing this with the Authority and signatories to the MOU and you. Please let me know when that can be arranged. Brad Brad Cornell Southwest Florida Policy Associate Audubon of the Western Everglades/Audubon Florida 1020 8th Avenue, South, Suite 2 Naples, FL 34102 239-280-6278 bcornell@audubonwe.org 1 JohnsonEric From:Susan Scott <susans@conservancy.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:55 PM To:LobbJustin Cc:WilkisonDavid; AshtonHeidi; JohnsonEric; OchsLeo; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; TaylorPenny; NanceTim; HenningTom Subject:Rezone Application PL20160000382 re Deltona Settlement Attachments:8-16-16 Collier County Airport Authority re Deltona Settlement Agreement.pdf Dear Mr. Lobb: Attached is correspondence from Nicole Johnson, Director of Growth Management and Planning at the Conservancy and Charles Lee from Audubon of Florida, James Tripp with the Environmental Defense Fund, Brad Cornell of National Audubon Society and Michael Chenoweth from Izaak Walton League of America. Thank you for taking the time to review the letter along with the Attachments that follow in support of our concerns. Susan Scott Administrative Assistant to Policy & Science Depts. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 (239)262-0304 ext. 232 Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Friday, August 19, 2016 1:55 PM To:LobbJustin Cc:OchsLeo; WilkisonDavid; AshtonHeidi; JohnsonEric; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; TaylorPenny; NanceTim; HenningTom; kathy worley Subject:Marco Airport Scope of Services for Mangrove Restoration Attachments:Letter - CCAA RE Scope of Services for Mangrove Restoration - 8-19-16.pdf Justin, Attached, please find the Conservancy’s recommendations regarding the Scope of Services for restoration of the mangrove clearing outside the allowed Development Area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Friday, August 19, 2016 3:40 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Hi Eric, Yes, this looks like the entire packet of information. Thank you for compiling for the CCPC. Do you have a meeting date scheduled? Thanks, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:37 PM To: nicole johnson Subject: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Nicole, Does the attached appropriately represent all the emails/letters of objection and attachments that you sent me regarding the PUDA and RZ applications? It is proper for me to include your correspondence in the packets that will be reviewed by the Commissioners. Please advise. Thanks! Respectfully, 2 Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department - Planning & Regulation Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Friday, August 19, 2016 3:42 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Great! Thank you! From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:41 PM To: nicole johnson Subject: RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ The applicant is requesting the September 15 CCPC hearing. Eric Johnson Principal Planner From: nicole johnson [mailto:nicolej@conservancy.org] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:40 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Hi Eric, Yes, this looks like the entire packet of information. Thank you for compiling for the CCPC. Do you have a meeting date scheduled? Thanks, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. 2 From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:37 PM To: nicole johnson Subject: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Nicole, Does the attached appropriately represent all the emails/letters of objection and attachments that you sent me regarding the PUDA and RZ applications? It is proper for me to include your correspondence in the packets that will be reviewed by the Commissioners. Please advise. Thanks! Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department - Planning & Regulation Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 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. AGENDA ITEM 9-C Cottle-le County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 SUBJECT: RZ-PL20160000382 — MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PUD REZONE (TO BE KNOWN AS COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY REZONE) [Companion Item: PUDA-PL20150002550] PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT & AGENT: Owner: Agent: Collier County Robert J. Mulhere,FAICP do Real Property Management Hole Montes, Inc. 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34112 Naples,FL 34110 Applicant: Justin E. Lobb,Airport Manager Collier County Airport Authority 2005 Mainsail Drive, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34114 REQUESTED ACTION: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County (Board), 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 the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development zoning district to the Public Use(P)zoning district. RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 1 of 11 September 2, 2016 i _> ¢ 1iI 0011...°11...."."°" .*"e0610111111111.1 II cN CO CO 0 N Z CL J ALS W Ory o�7p`V Ops D Z 4, �. F Z 0 �a V O a. Q O 0- re O Q J CO !W$ a' 2 1y gip �� c _1 fr O v Shihil co o 1 p p Y w8a os ff s i p J CA iamo3 _. gp GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 6.5±acres, is located near the Marco Island Executive Airport in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject 6.5±acre site from the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD to the Public Use (P) zoning district. This petition is in connection with the companion petition PUDA-PL20150002550. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject parcels: North: State-owned preserve, zoned Conservation-Special Treatment(CON-ST). East: Airport(Marco Island Executive Airport), zoned P. South: Tract Z of Hammock Bay (golf course maintenance facility) of Marco Shores Golf Course Community, zoned PUD and state-owned preserve, zoned CON- ST. West: Tract P of Marco Shores Unit One(designated park site) of Marco Shores Golf Course Community and Tract Z of Hammock Bay (golf course maintenance facility) of Marco Shores Golf Course Community, all of which are zoned PUD. (See aerial map on the following page) RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 2 of 11 September 2, 2016 Subject Property ARCO SHORES 11,COUNTRY;CLTUB;y W ..r 4;E'13'-+-. X a ZoAnin g p C '{> F . { • Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area(Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). CHHA provisions,for the most part,apply to residential development and pose no limitations upon this request. The existing Marco Island Executive Airport site was rezoned(via LDC-91-102)as P,Public Use, which allows airport operations. This rezoning request does not introduce residential density or add uses. The PUD was found to be consistent with the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, predecessor to the present GMP. The PUD's density is not consistent with the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict cap of 4 DU/A in the GMP. However, it is, in effect, deemed consistent by policy with the GMP. Thus, via FLUE Policy 5.1, the proposed PUDA and rezoning petitions may be found consistent with the FLUE. The airport is recognized as, and limited to, this single use by the 1982 Deltona Corporation Settlement Agreement. The subject PUDA-Rezone combination affects land areas already agreed to for airport expansion. RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 3 of 11 September 2, 2016 Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Based upon the above analyses, the proposed rezoning request and companion amendment to the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE (see Attachment#3 - Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Memorandum noting that, "The rezone, in and of itself, does not have any associated traffic impacts. It simply provides for unified zoning of the Airport property". Additionally staff confirmed that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to continue to accommodate the rezone within the five (5)-year planning period and found it consistent with the applicable policies of the transportation element. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found the rezone and amendment to the PUD to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The land covered by these applications has been previously cleared and filled, and located in an area identified for development pursuant to the Deltona Settlement Agreement. In addition to identifying areas for development,the Deltona Settlement Agreement also set aside much of the land covered under the Settlement Agreement, for conservation purposes, most of which were deeded over to the state of Florida. These conservation lands were previously determined by the Planning and Zoning Manager to satisfy the onsite preserve requirement pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1, for land to be developed under the Deltona Settlement Agreement. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and has reviewed the criteria on which a determination must be based.These criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.02.08.F of the LDC. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners(Board),who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as part of the Zoning and Land Development Review RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 4 of 11 September 2, 2016 provided below. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed both the rezoning and companion petitions to address environmental concerns. The petitions do not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since they did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The land covered by the rezone and amendment to the PUD has been previously cleared and filled, and identified as an area to be developed pursuant to the Deltona Settlement Agreement.Preserved lands surrounding the PUD, as shown on the master plan, were required by the Deltona Settlement Agreement to be either deeded over to the state of Florida or placed in a conservation easement. These preserved lands are not a part of the PUD and now owned and managed by the state of Florida as part of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. They are also included in the Conservation Designation on the County Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Landscape Review: Staff has no issues with this rezoning petition. It should be noted that rezoning the property to P will require the appropriate buffering between the subject property and the remaining Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD. Any required buffering can be addressed at the time of site development plan (SDP) or subdivision platting(PPL) review. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. Transportation Planning staff can recommend approval of this project. Utilities Review: The Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District boundary but is excluded from County service area pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island, which provides both water and wastewater services to that development, referred to as the Hammock Bay Service Area. Pursuant to that agreement, the City of Marco Island purchases bulk water from the Collier County Water-Sewer District via a master meter near the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Mainsail Drive. The City of Marco Island has reviewed this rezone request,and has determined the proposed conceptual development will have an impact on its water and sewer infrastructure within the area being rezoned. The City does not object to the rezoning so long as the County pays for and relocates the affected City infrastructure via an Interlocal Agreement to be executed prior to redevelopment of the area. Zoning Services Review: Zoning staff has reviewed this petition and concurs with the findings of Comprehensive Planning. The proposed rezone and use is found to be consistent with the GMP. According to LDC Section 2.03.05,the purpose and intent of the P district is to accommodate only local, state and federally owned or leased and operated government facilities that provide essential public services. The P district is intended to facilitate the coordination of urban services and land uses while minimizing the potential disruption of the uses of nearby properties. RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 5 of 11 September 2, 2016 With respect to building setbacks, the conceptual site plan shows two (2) buildings are proposed near the center of the subject property. The southernmost building, which is the building that is closest to any property line, is shown to be fifty (50) feet from the south property line. This complies with the minimum setback required in the P district. With respect to maximum building height permitted in the P zoning district, Table 2 in LDC Section 4.02.01 requires buildings located within 100 feet of an adjoining district to be limited to the height of the most restrictive adjoining district. The most restrictive and relevant zoning district abutting the subject property is the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD. The updated master plan in the companion petition shows the abutting land use category is labeled "GC Maintenance Facility," which is regulated in accordance with Section V of the PUD Document. This means that the maximum height on the subject property (to be rezoned to P) would be forty- five (45) feet above the finished grade of the lot. It should be noted the other abutting land use within the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD master plan is labeled "Park," which is not specified in the PUD Document; therefore, the maximum building height will be determined by the known height in the aforementioned "GC" land use. The drawing labeled Aerial Photograph reveals the subject property is currently vacant, so no known non-conformities would be created if this petition were to be approved. 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": 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. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning portion of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. No isolated zoning district would be created because the abutting property (Marco Island Executive Airport) is already zoned P. RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 6 of 11 September 2, 2016 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Tract Q of the Marco Shores Unit One plat and a portion of Mainsail Drive comprise the land area to be rezoned in connection with this petition. Both are already owned by Collier County. The new PUD boundary would be consistent with the easternmost boundary of the plat for Tract Q and the westernmost extent of Mainsail Drive. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate the deduction of 6.5±acres from the PUD for the use of the Marco Island Executive Airport would adversely impact living conditions in the PUD. As of August 12, 2016, Code Enforcement has not received any complaints against the Marco Island Airport in the last five (5) years. 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 proposed rezone is net neutral in the number of peak hour trips according to the transportation memo provided by the agent as part of this petition. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of SDP or PPL review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change will not create a drainage problem, as the applicant will be required to submit a SFWMD permit and all required stormwater documentation to County staff to be evaluated during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 7 of 11 September 2, 2016 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. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Staff does not anticipate the proposed amendment would be a deterrent to the improvement of the vacant land to the surrounding 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 GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The current PUD Document does not list "airport" as a permitted principal use. The property owner is choosing to rezone the property to P rather than requesting to add "airport" as a principal use in the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed transfer of 6.5± acres from the PUD to the Marco Island Executive Airport is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 8 of 11 September 2, 2016 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 SDP, 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 amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff 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. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. 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 Board during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent, Mr. Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes, Inc., along with Mr. Justin Lobb, Airports Manager of the Collier County Airport Authority, conducted a duly noticed NIM on June 22,2016 at the Collier County South Regional Library at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. This meeting served as the required NIM for this petition as well as for the companion rezoning application (RZ-PL2016000382). The meeting commenced at 5:30 p.m. and finished by 6:07 p.m. The NIM Summary is included in Attachment#2—Application and Support Material. Mr. Lobb stated the proposed building height on the subject property would be two (2) stories [at about forty (40) feet to forty-five (45) feet tall]. Later in the meeting, Mr. Mulhere mentioned he thought the maximum zoned height in the P district is forty (40) feet. Mr. Lobb indicated that the maximum height could be no greater than fifty-five (55) feet because of F.A.A. regulations. However, as detailed in the Zoning Review portion of this staff report, the maximum height (for the subject property) will be forty-five (45) feet above the finished grade of the lot. RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 9 of 11 September 2, 2016 During the NIM, because of concerns of future damage to Mainsail Drive when construction activity commences, the applicant suggested that a pre-construction video be created to assist in any damage assessment. To address the concerns of the residents, the applicant has now offered to provide said video (see Conditions of Approval). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on August 31, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval of this petition shall be contingent upon the approval of the companion petition (PUDA-PL20150002550). 2. Prior to construction activity, a pre-construction video shall be created by the Owner for the entire length of Mainsail Drive to assist in determining if such activity causes damage to Mainsail Drive. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application & Support Material 3) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 4) Letters from Conservancy of Southwest Florida and Memorandum of Understanding RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 10 of 11 September 2, 2016 PREPARED BY: L. t/t1 g" 3c' // ERIC JOHNSO AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: ty j6 RAYM V. ELLOWS,ZO G MANAGER ATE ZONIN DIVISION ‘11/4- 3a- (c MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 4 00 a 1/3J//4 JAMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT F ,? :11.1- all-Le4-a-k- 8(136/i DAVID . KISON DATE DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT RZ-PL20160000382—Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Rezone(to be known as Collier County Airport Authority Rezone) Page 11 of 11 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 THE MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUBLIC USE (P) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 6.5± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [RZ- PL20160000382] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP of RWA, Inc., representing the Collier County Airport Authority, 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 real property more particularly described in Exhibit A, located in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development zoning district to the Public Use (P) zoning district for a 6.5± acre project which will become part of the Marco Island Executive Airport, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit B. Exhibits A and B are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 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. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. [16-CPS-01526J 65 Marco Shores Country Club Rezone 1 of 2 8/19/16 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 F. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko \ Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Legal Description Exhibit B —Conditions of Approval [16-CPS-01526 f 65 Marco Shores Country Club Rezone 2 of 8/19116 LEGAL DESCRIPTION MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT REZONING RZ-PL2016-0000382 Tract Q, Marco Shores, Unit One, According to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 38, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Containing 3.6 acres, more or less. AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN A PORTION OF MAINSAIL DRIVE, MARCO SHORE UNIT ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT 14, PAGES 33-38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT Q, MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, AT PAGES 33-38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S 11°59'55"E, ALONG THE EAST LANE OF SAID TRACT Q FOR A DISTANCE OF 332.93 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF MAINSAIL DRIVE OF SAID MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE, THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE S11°59'55"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S79°48'17"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 435.12 FEET; THENCE RUN N84°45'47"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 153.41 FEET; THENCE RUN N00°52'45"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 208.51 FEET, TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENTIAL CIRCULAR CURVE; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1305.00 FEET, AT A BEARING OF N00°52'47"E THEREFROM, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°58'26" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 294.87 FEET AT A BEARING OF N84°23'34"E, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 295.50 FEET; THENCE RUN N77°54'19"E FOR A DISTANCE OF 241.91 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED. CONTAINING 2.9 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS REFER TO THE EAST LINE OF TRACT Q, MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, AT PAGES 33-38 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING Si1°59'55"E Exhibit A Condition of Approval 1. Prior to construction activity, a pre-construction video shall be created by Owner to assist in determining if such construction activity causes damage to Mainsail Drive. Exhibit B GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Eric Johnson,AICP, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt,AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: August 12, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Reviews of the Marco Shores Country Club Planned Unit Development Amendment&Rezone to Public Use (3rd memo) PETITION NUMBERS: PLs-20150002550 & -20160000382— REV: 3 PETITION NAMES: Marco Shores Country Club Planned Unit Development(PUD)Amendment& Public Use Rezone REQUESTS: To amend the Marco Shores Country Club PUD to remove areas of parking lot, road right-of-way and vacant right-of-way allowing for different parking lot and stormwater retention features at the Marco Island Executive Airport, and further update the PUD accordingly. These uses are in the area of the PUD-to-Public Use rezone, which is consistent with the remainder of Airport property. The proposed changes intend to reconcile these features to allow for the relocation of airport parking and a terminal building,and to allow for new aircraft hangers. Changes are achieved by a combination of re-designating the subject property to "P" (Public Use) via a rezone,vacating a ROW, and amending the subject PUD. LOCATION: The ±6.5-acre property is located approximately 1.6 miles east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951),on the north side of, and making up a portion of, Mainsail Drive, lying adjacently west of the Marco Island Executive Airport property,in Section 26,Township 51 South,Range 26 East. The subject property is comprised of two individual parcels, as follows: 1) A±2.9-acre parcel,including the easternmost ±537-foot portion of Mainsail Drive right-of-way, Marco Shores Country Club PUD; and, 2) A ±3.6-acre parcel located adjacent to Mainsail Drive right-of-way, in Marco Shores Country Club PUD. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). CHHA provisions,for the most part, apply to residential development and pose no limitations upon this request. The existing Marco Shores Country Club PUD(Ord.81-6,as amended by Ord.85-56 and Ord.94-41)allows residential- golf course development at a density of approximately 4.9 DU/A (1,530 DUs on ±314.5 acres). The part of these companion petitions pertaining to the PUD amendment request does not increase the density or add uses. Applicable FLUE policies were evaluated by staff as part of the original (1981) PUD request. The proposed changes do not necessitate new re-evaluation of applicable FLUE policies. The existing Marco Island Executive Airport site was rezoned (via LDC-91-102) as P, Public Use, allows airport operations. The part of these companion petitions pertaining to the rezone request does not introduce residential density or add uses. The PUD was found to be consistent with the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, predecessor to the present GMP. The PUD's density is not consistent with the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict cap of 4 DU/A in the GMP. However, it is, in effect,deemed consistent by policy with the GMP. Thus,via FLUE Policy 5.1,the proposed PUDA and rezone may be found consistent with the FLUE. The airport is recognized as and limited to this single use by the 1982 Deltona Corporation Settlement Agreement. The subject PUDA-Rezone combination affects land areas already agreed to for airport expansion. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Based upon the above analyses, the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment and Rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc. Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager,Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2016 G:ICDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120161RZ\RZ-PL2016-382 Cnty Airport Authority R3 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:26 AM To:JohnsonEric Subject:MOU and Deltona Settlement Map Attachments:Deltona Map - Color Version.pdf; MOU - Marco Island Airport - Deltona Settlement Signatories - 9-11-01.pdf; Map - Marco Airport - Allowed Dev't Area and Area of Violation - 3-11-16.docx Hi Eric, For your reference during our discussion in a few minutes. Thanks, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres or 13,068 sq. ft. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres (13,068 sq. ft.); Yellow polygon represents 0.51 acres (22,216 sq. ft.); Blue rectangle represents approximately 0.74 acres (32,234 sq. ft.) Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres or 13,068 sq. ft. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres or 13,068 sq. ft. Purple triangle represents approximately 0.3 acres (13,068 sq. ft.); Yellow polygon represents approximately 0.51 acres (22,216 sq. ft.); Blue rectangle represents approximately 0.74 acres (32,234 sq. ft.) 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:14 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Fwd: Marco Exec Airport NIM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Brad Cornell <millercornell@mindspring.com> Date: June 22, 2016 at 5:07:25 PM EDT To: Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Cc: Nicole Johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Subject: Marco Exec Airport NIM Hi Bob, I’m writing because I cannot attend tonight’s NIM on the Marco airport rezone for moving the terminal. While Audubon does not object to making the airport safer through moving the terminal, we do object to proceeding without first resolving how past environmental destruction violations of the MOU with Deltona signatories will be addressed AND seeking an amendment to the MOU to expand the footprint of the development area for the airport, as required by the MOU. Without any assurance or commitment by the Airport Authority to either of these straightforward actions, Audubon must object to this rezone application. I’m interested in discussing this with the Authority and signatories to the MOU and you. Please let me know when that can be arranged. Brad Brad Cornell Southwest Florida Policy Associate Audubon of the Western Everglades/Audubon Florida 1020 8th Avenue, South, Suite 2 Naples, FL 34102 239-280-6278 bcornell@audubonwe.org 1 JohnsonEric From:Susan Scott <susans@conservancy.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:55 PM To:LobbJustin Cc:WilkisonDavid; AshtonHeidi; JohnsonEric; OchsLeo; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; TaylorPenny; NanceTim; HenningTom Subject:Rezone Application PL20160000382 re Deltona Settlement Attachments:8-16-16 Collier County Airport Authority re Deltona Settlement Agreement.pdf Dear Mr. Lobb: Attached is correspondence from Nicole Johnson, Director of Growth Management and Planning at the Conservancy and Charles Lee from Audubon of Florida, James Tripp with the Environmental Defense Fund, Brad Cornell of National Audubon Society and Michael Chenoweth from Izaak Walton League of America. Thank you for taking the time to review the letter along with the Attachments that follow in support of our concerns. Susan Scott Administrative Assistant to Policy & Science Depts. Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 (239)262-0304 ext. 232 Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Friday, August 19, 2016 1:55 PM To:LobbJustin Cc:OchsLeo; WilkisonDavid; AshtonHeidi; JohnsonEric; FialaDonna; HillerGeorgia; TaylorPenny; NanceTim; HenningTom; kathy worley Subject:Marco Airport Scope of Services for Mangrove Restoration Attachments:Letter - CCAA RE Scope of Services for Mangrove Restoration - 8-19-16.pdf Justin, Attached, please find the Conservancy’s recommendations regarding the Scope of Services for restoration of the mangrove clearing outside the allowed Development Area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Friday, August 19, 2016 3:40 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Hi Eric, Yes, this looks like the entire packet of information. Thank you for compiling for the CCPC. Do you have a meeting date scheduled? Thanks, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:37 PM To: nicole johnson Subject: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Nicole, Does the attached appropriately represent all the emails/letters of objection and attachments that you sent me regarding the PUDA and RZ applications? It is proper for me to include your correspondence in the packets that will be reviewed by the Commissioners. Please advise. Thanks! Respectfully, 2 Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department - Planning & Regulation Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From:nicole johnson <nicolej@conservancy.org> Sent:Friday, August 19, 2016 3:42 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Great! Thank you! From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:41 PM To: nicole johnson Subject: RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ The applicant is requesting the September 15 CCPC hearing. Eric Johnson Principal Planner From: nicole johnson [mailto:nicolej@conservancy.org] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:40 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Hi Eric, Yes, this looks like the entire packet of information. Thank you for compiling for the CCPC. Do you have a meeting date scheduled? Thanks, Nicole Nicole Johnson Director of Growth Management and Planning Conservancy of Southwest Florida 1495 Smith Preserve Way Naples, FL 34102 239-403-4220 | nicolej@conservancy.org www.conservancy.org Protecting Southwest Florida’s unique natural environment and quality of life…now and forever. 2 From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 3:37 PM To: nicole johnson Subject: CSFL Correspondence for Marco Shores PUDA and RZ Nicole, Does the attached appropriately represent all the emails/letters of objection and attachments that you sent me regarding the PUDA and RZ applications? It is proper for me to include your correspondence in the packets that will be reviewed by the Commissioners. Please advise. Thanks! Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department - Planning & Regulation Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 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.