The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 12/13/2016 Item # 9D 9.D 12/13/2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ***This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 92-08, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development,by increasing the maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels by 18,000 square feet for a total of 165,000 gross square feet of floor area; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional .35+/- acres of land zoned Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Courthouse Shadows PUD; by adding a Membership Warehouse Club with associated liquor store use and ancillary Facility with Fuel Pumps as a permitted use; by revising the development standards; by amending the master plan; and adding deviations. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/- acres; and by providing an effective date [PUDZ-PL20120001515]. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staffs findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this Planned Unit Development Rezone petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant is requesting approval to rezone an existing PUD and adding an additional 0.28 acres of property adjacent to the northwest PUD boundary. The applicant is also requesting to add an additional use of Membership Warehouse with associated liquor and facilities with fuel pumps, and increase in the maximum commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet. The applicant is intending on changing the intent of the PUD, from a "shopping center,"to general uses comparable and permitted in an Activity Center. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed PUD Amendment application. 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. A finding of consistency with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the Collier County GMP as discussed in the attached CCPC Staff Report. Staff believes that the Packet Pg. 50 9.D 12/13/2016 proposed Amendment may also be found consistent with the FLUE, GMP Transportation Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Therefore, Zoning Division staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on November 3,2016. The CCPC heard testimony from the Applicant's agent and County staff. A motion was made by Commissioner Schmidt and seconded by Commissioner Homiak to recommend approval, with the following conditions: 1. Add Deviation #4 Exhibit to the PUD Document. This is a limited area of the existing Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot. This exhibit shall be part of the PUD Document. 2. Deviation#9 approved subject to adding the following language to the PUD Exhibit: The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree planting shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and shall not interfere with any County or State traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, County or State, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the City, County or State may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. 3. The proposed new-revised parking island layout shown on the Master Plan is conceptual and is not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries,parking islands,and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order(SDP/SDPA). 4. To address the proposed re-development project and existing roadway conditions on Peters Avenue add the following developer commitment: The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five-foot sidewalk along Peters Avenue up to the sum of$50.000.00,which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site. Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the PUD. 5. The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the TIS dated March 18, 2016. 6. For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria,as the date of this PUD rezoning approval. 7. Revise Master Plan, relocating labels for Deviation's#3 and#5 outside of drainage easement. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. There was audience opposition to the proposed change. This item will not go on the Board Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a planned unit development amendment and a site specific Packet Pg. 51 9.D 12/13/2016 rezone from the Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay(C-3-GTMUD-MXD)Zoning District to a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for PUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: 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. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: 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. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: 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. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Packet Pg.52 9.D 12/13/2016 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change 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? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning?(a"core"question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: 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. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved for form and legality. An affirmative vote of four is necessary for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board approves the Courthouse Shadows PUD Rezone, subject to the attached PUD Ordinance. �. Packet Pg. 53 9.D 12/13/2016 Prepared by: Daniel James Smith, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Staff report-PUDZ-PL20120001515-Courthouse Shadows PUD (PDF) 2. Ordinance- 111616(1) (PDF) 3. [linked] Courthouse Shadows-Back-up with Deviation Exhibits (PDF) 4. GMP Consistency Review-PUDZ-PL20120001515-Courthouse Shadows PUD (PDF) 5. E-Mails-PUDZ-PL20120001515-Courthouse Shadows PUD (PDF) 6.Legal ad-Agenda ID 2331 (PDF) 7.CCPC minutes 11.3.16 -excerpt(PDF) 8. Courthouse Shadows-Facility with Fuel Pumps--Waiver Criteria (DOCX) Packet Pg.54 9.D 12/13/2016 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.D Item Summary: ***This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m.*** This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 92- 08, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels by 18,000 square feet for a total of 165,000 gross square feet of floor area; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional .35+/-acres of land zoned Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay(C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Courthouse Shadows PUD;by adding a Membership Warehouse Club with associated liquor store use and ancillary Facility with Fuel Pumps as a permitted use; by revising the development standards; by amending the master plan; and adding deviations. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/-acres; and by providing an effective date [PUDZ-PL20120001515]. Meeting Date: 12/13/2016 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal—Zoning Name: Daniel Smith 11/08/2016 11:35 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director-Planning and Zoning—Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 11/08/2016 11:35 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 11/21/2016 4:20 PM Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 11/22/2016 10:39 AM Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 11/22/2016 2:31 PM County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 11/22/2016 3:01 PM Growth Management Department David Wilkison Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 11/25/2016 3:53 PM Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 11/28/2016 10:17 AM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 11/28/2016 2:26 PM County Attorneys Office Scott Teach Level 3 County Attorneys Office Review Completed 11/28/2016 4:20 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 11/29/2016 11:01 AM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/04/2016 11:42 AM Packet Pg.55 9.D 12/13/2016 Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/13/2016 9:00 AM ,.0m\ Packet Pg. 56 (smopegs esnoglino3 : 1.££Z) and smopegg asnownoo-st•gmouoz,d-zafld-:odeJ}}els :luewgoeuy ci' AGENDA ITEM 9-A m` a; a. a) rte, Coiner County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DANIEL JAMES SMITH, AICP ZONING DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2016 SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONE(PUDZ) -PL20120001515; COURTHOUSE SHADOWS APPLICANT/OWNER KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St. Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46204 AGENTS D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail N.,Suite 300,Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to make a recommendation on the adoption of an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 92-08, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels by 18,000 square feet for a total of 165,000 gross square feet of floor area; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional _35+/- acres of land zoned Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Courthouse Shadows PUD; by adding a Membership Warehouse Club with associated liquor store use and ancillary Facility with Fuel Pumps as a permitted use; by revising the development standards;by amending the Master Plan; and adding deviations. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of U.S. 41 and opposite Airport-Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 20.35+/- acres (See location map on page 2). PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 1 of 21 (sMopegS esnoypnoa : i.c ) and sMopeyS asnoqpno3-51.Si000Z1.0Z1d-Zand-JodaJ lie;S :}uauayoel; ' 00 0 in ai a) a m - . •31gir li° . ' " 1! 5 , ..*%. - . .._. 1 - isor 0,, . 0 . iorri it t °R1 0 �"` 47<0 At n : fi m1 �I 11 ;Qvoo1 . x �g , i PeIE© seees`(Q ii b • t. p p LIMAN 1.101123110 411, 1 1 II, PIIMEMAIIII1191. . ‹c $ -�` J N 1111p. '11'... t I:'�,� i, MIDI..„___ G 2 6 , c��►10 11 3.� , ,a S\, �'_ IUMI Milmuml a n 41 � y o � O i.°)1, rl Ix ” i,11:."°mss t. , T;g"' ,+'1 II — I Z (IC r)) MON DWIlnd—t�den I 4 7 V'— 1 1 /!i "',. 19 „1„,..,...,44,■ s4-:-. 2 tNTSE�iNO�iy- wtgiii . N' I .- a; bri L ,. r , IIIIININIINNNIIIIPINNIIIIIIIINP � � tlife�e�o e •. a� V®� wincm ce [� If '2- to n ■■:.a ■a. a ■� �.� �r.. rnr irl LIMNS MUNN i�I( le)i�n. 1■1a4�461■l.Ir=1.'Idrrie� `p ■ �,`..a�p�■dr�aw••�.o s N 211 _i ��;Qt�lB•Y 3 IIii Llia sb�i•si •. ` . s o asuru aa+n ANA a RtB ca+e 1 ocean "1'"o WO/tm� 1.0"D14. N J Q I TIM an.i.. J N Naa D 0. 1 Z L usnam:,xwvvHro vim, '—.. P �. O ER "g n ti(..c 11.." 1� �7-1 22 =o g VI `V� i 1/ 1�– i_l 3 I �»a �, 11 f II ( .wnu.N, year WIN E .v • 5d L+ 1!Lam' `o t P ani ao.,sr. ° " {^ „ 5`-' - W F 0 i I 11 it Q< it g1 : 4 — n `� 1 k4S t € Q i 2 r 11 11 ni 5111111 41‘` i 'Ilif\-, 1 '`I'l ,,c.1Z 1\ r� -. : iI I fit i ( I- nvna n,■1'nd•11K,fyu '?-Y.1 '^J �'9^, -, -. I ffla R L _I A Vx �� i r ll-.�! , , PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016. CCPC Page 2 of 21 (smopegs asnoipJno3 : {.EEZ) and snnopeys esnoglJno3-91,91,000ZLOZId-Zofid-liodeJ gels :luauag3e}lti CI a a) V co Ry 1 s4 �m..1yg11) � - a. is 1 414 p I- :W� \\ g 'a' y 4 Ak\ Q y% % \ ,..c4 e \ V 4 z w C 8 `� ¢ +w O LL LL. •....�y.., /� !-.I.:1' j 5 il Q � 1 N \ O ill 11 2 i ! 1 , ,c, ,,,, „,,,,p „.„.... , c::,,, ,,,,,... •-eb i 1 1 g. \ i it : 1'.‘ 61 ei g 1 ill &//Z":6)*/ 'i°‘° -c ) s' i'D ; aa,a ,44/... ,1„/ / Oisw: l 1 6 I 3 / ,/ , J 9 A /,' J � /� it c i 1'... iii,/,\ .'' e^ ,1 P -I / I., wg th oemW i 1 °'" .r a°a 5 2 a�1 , ow -ME L� {-naa / s z. E COURTHOUSE SHADOWS MASTER PLAN PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 3 of 21 (smopegg asnog4ino0 : 1.££Z) and smopegS esnowno3-S691.000Z1.0Z1d-Zatld-podaJ gels ci o) a PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Property was originally rezoned in 1985 from Residential Multi-family and Commercial zoning district to Planned Unit Development (PUD) per Ordinance 85-11. The ordinance approved the development of a mixed use commercial center with a hotel. The ordinance was repealed with the adoption of Ordinance 92-8, which rezoned the project from PUD to PUD wherein the name Courthouse Shadows was associated with the project. That approval removed the hotel use. The applicant is requesting approval to rezone an existing PUD and to add additional 0.28 acres of property adjacent to the northwest PUD boundary(see aerial on page 6). The applicant is also requesting to add an additional use of Membership Warehouse with associated liquor and to increase the maximum commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet. The applicant is intending on changing the intent of the PUD, from a "shopping center" to general uses comparable and permitted in an Activity Center. The property is located within Activity Center #16 and the proposed uses are consistent with the commercial uses permitted in the Activity Center. The PUD Master Plan is proposing a membership only"Facility with Fuel Pumps" as an ancillary use to !i the Membership Warehouse. Because a "Facility with Fuel Pumps" currently exists within the PUD (Chevron)on an adjacent parcel, a distance deviation is required. The applicant is also asking for the following deviations: 1. Deviation#1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires three loading spaces for the first 50,000 square feet of each retail store, warehouse,wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 square feet but not over 50,000 square feet plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet or major fraction thereof which would require seven loading spaces to instead allow a total of five loading spaces measuring 10 feet x 20 feet (200 square feet). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 2. Deviation # 2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15-foot landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. 3. Deviation#3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the stormwater management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5 feet wide level planted area,to allow the water management system to encroach 100%into the perimeter landscaping buffer. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 4 of 21 (smopegs esnogJnoa : 1.££Z) and smopegs asnoy}.no0-91,91,000Z1.0Z1d-Zofid-podei gels :;uetugoemi � a ' 4. Deviation#4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC,which requires all rows of parking spaces a shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island,to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. is 5. Deviation#5 seeks relief from Section's 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6 feet away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district,to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5,05.05.B, which requires separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps to a minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a distance less than 500 feet for the fuel facility separation and less than 250 feet separation from residential. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25 feet to remain. 8. Deviation#8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area, a maximum length,or uninterrupted curve of any facade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit A-11. 9. Deviation#9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width,to permit a minimum width of 15 feet with an average width of 20 feet as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. 10. Deviation#10 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC,which establishes landscape standards for facilities with fuel pumps where they are within 250 feet of residential districts, to permit an alternative landscape buffer consistent with the proposed Deviation#10 Cross Section Exhibit. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING(Subject property highlighted in yellow on page 6) North: Tamiami Trail East(U.S. 41), existing and vacant commercial with a zoning designation of C-3 GTMUD-MXD, Collier Government Complex. West: Peters Avenue, single family homes with zoning designation of RMF-6 BMUD-Rl South: Collie Court, single family homes with a zoning designation of RSF-4 BMUD-R1, canal, single family homes with a zoning designation of RSF-4, existing commercial with a zoning designation of C-3. East: Tamiami Trail East(U.S. 41), Collier Government Complex, Commercial(Walmart)with zoning designation of C-5. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 5 of 21 — (sMopeyg asnoq inoo : 4££Z) and smopeyg esno4pno3-91.g 6000ZI.OZld-zand-lJodeJ,}}e;g :;uawgoepd r N Q1 a a ) x cY,. ". —. `'.:-`.,'."4241,., `.r L J Ma, II ¢ fit 11 b-t rI 'iF F. ; .jf'�" I t 4 l tl.� `It 111, a I? ��?. ,..� ro: :riuN t ry I f �i .i eq '.. 2.. . 1 PU�4 kab I9PLE...:;.: ,r.._..�W f � �' R� �' j 11141 t 1 o aa, s� ' C-3 property to I ^ .r l ir1111 , , �F (. IIk1 ,. rY 1 �*, be added to PUD r ute. 0 -E ' of ; �. rano . '-' - A unlnJ.nX,6y �,S3 �� 111:4 1 � . Te'n't f D7. `` • n , Existing Chevron 014` r ill I 7 ci 'E' o- a.+ i > f T ,rJH'nN ,w I` - 1 l" � I s�w '1' I i-tit ; r, 14 .yr, ' kt k'`' ,. r li i ' Viz. �� _ 1 ii S c _ I ,.,i,.., . 1�a-. I _ i3 1 f L,- r 4s i e y', '4q s d » Lt A�.: � - W `tea �"• �S 1 " , �. y.. hr m? Aerial Photo/PUD Boundary (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban— Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict — Activity Center #16), within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), and is in the Coastal High Hazard Area, all as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The concept of Mixed Use Activity Centers "is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community." Based upon staff's analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan(See"Consistency Review Memorandum" attachment). Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Native vegetation required to be retained for the PUD was identified on the Site Development Plan (SDP) for the SDP amendment for the OfficeMax at Courthouse Shadows (SDP-98-75). The native vegetation shown to be retained on the SDP represents the minimum native vegetation retention (preserve) requirement for the PUD pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 6 of 21 (smopegs asnog4noa : 6££Z) and smopegs asnogpnoa-g 1,g1.000Z60Zld-Zafd-JodaJ gels :luewgoel;b m coa' Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document a to address environmental concerns. This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project does 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 Courthouse Shadows PUD was originally approved by Ordinance No. 85-11, with native vegetation subsequently identified for retention on the Site Development Plan (SDP) amendment for the Office Max at Courthouse Shadows (SDP-98-75), The area of retained native vegetation on the SDP, excluding that portion within the drainage easement recorded in OR Book 1339 Page 1670, represents the minimum native vegetation retention(preserve)requirement for the PUD. There is also a drainage easement on site along Haldeman Creek, which was previously granted to the Florida Department of Transportation in 1953 (Deed Book 28 Page 193). Although vegetated with native vegetation, vegetation within the FDOT drainage easement is exempt from County native vegetation retention requirements pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07 B.2.c and CCME Policy 6.1.1 (11). The easement allows the FDOT to clear vegetation and excavate within the easement for construction and maintenance of outfall and drainage ditches. Although vegetation within the easement can be cleared pursuant to the drainage easement, aerials available on the Property Appraiser website show vegetation within the easement has not been cleared since 1975, the year of the oldest aerial on the Property Appraiser website. At the time this staff report was written, environmental data for the petition had not been provided by the applicant. Nor has the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained for the PUD, as shown on the amendment to the SDP for the OfficeMax at Courthouse Shadows, been identified and included in the PUD Document. Previously, the applicant indicated the need to satisfy the County's on-site preserve requirement off-site, to accommodate additional stormwater retention. Since the preserve required for the site is less than one acre, off-site retention of native vegetation is allowed pursuant to LDC section 3.05.07 H.l.f. A stipulation addressing options for on and off-site retention of native vegetation for the PUD has been included in this staff report. The applicant has requested to move forward with the petition and address, as a recommendation of approval,the stipulation at the public hearing. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP) using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current 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 PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 7 of 21 (smopeys esnoq.Jnoa : 6E£Z) and smopegg esnoy}moa-5t,56000Z40Z1d-Zafld-3iodei nelS luew4oe1Iy 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 662 total net new PM peak hour 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 Airport-Pulling Tamiami Trail C 2,700/South 1,084 Road (CR 31) East to Goodlette-Davis Boulevard(6 lane divided) Tamiami Trail Davis Boulevard C 2,900/East 1,153 East(U.S. 41) to Airport- Pulling Road(6 9 lane divided) Tamiami Trail Airport-Pulling D 2,900/East 311 East(U.S. 41) Road to Rattlesnake Hammock 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 notes that the proposed development is located within the South 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) which allows exemptions from concurrency requirements as long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated consistent with GMP Policy PL20120001515; Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 8 of 21 oda(smopegg asnogpnoa : ►.£EZ) and smopeys asnog.no3-;I.9I.QOOZI,OZId-Zafld- }}e;g :;uewgoe;;b ci Cr; m a ) 5.4. The proposed development is not requesting this exemption and not proposing TCEA mitigation a measures at this time, ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: -Include a commitment for a preserve and acreage of the preserve in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document (PUD Section 3.7). Label "Preserve" on the PUD Master Plan (LDC ,. Section 3.05.07 H.1.a) and include the acreage of the preserve on the PUD Master Plan. If the preserve required is to be satisfied offsite, indicate so in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document and identify in the commitment,the acreage of preserve required to be satisfied offsite. The landscape plan and clearing plan for the Site Development Plan (SDP) amendment for the Office Max at Courthouse Shadows (SDP-98-75) shows existing native vegetation in the SW portion of the shopping center to be retained. This area, excluding that portion within the drainage easement recorded in OR Book 1339 Page 1670, is the minimum native vegetation retention (preserve) requirement for the PUD pursuant to GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME)Policy 6.1.1. Stormwater Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: -For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria, as the date of this PUD Rezone approval. -Revise Master Plan, relocating labels for Deviation's#3 and#5 outside of drainage easement. Landscape Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: -Adding Deviation #4 Exhibit to the PUD Document. This is a limited area of the existing Buffalo Wild Wing's parking lot. This Exhibit shall be part of the PUD Document. -The County's Landscape Maintenance Manager approving the landscape plan for Deviation #9. Underground utilities may not allow for landscaping in these proposed areas. P1,20120001.515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 9 of 21 (smopeys asnoy}anon : I,EEZ) and smopeys esnoylinoD-S LS LOOOZ 60Zld-ZOfld-Jodei He :4uaw4o co co, 0 ofa. m Transportation Review: Staff recommends approval subject to: - The proposed new-revised parking island layout shown on the Master Plan is conceptual and is not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries,parking islands,and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order(SDP/SDPA). s' IP -To address the proposed re-development project and existing roadway conditions on Peters Avenue, add the following developer commitment: The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five-foot sidewalk along Peters Avenue up to the sum of$50,000.00 which shall represent a' its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site.Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the PUD. -The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the TIS dated March 18, 2016. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allow use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space, and location. Staff is of the opinion that the design standards and uses are compatible with surrounding uses. Staff has reviewed the PUD Document and Master Plan and recommends approval. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking ten deviations. The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest, . . Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and has provided the analyses and recommendations below. Deviation #1: Deviation#1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires three loading spaces for the first 50,000 square feet of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity,terminal,market,restaurant,funeral home,laundry,dry cleaning establishment,or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 square feet but not over 50,000 square feet plus one additional off- street loading space for each additional 25,000 square feet over 50,000 square feet or major fraction thereof which would require seven loading spaces to instead allow a total of five loading spaces measuring 10 feet x 20 feet(200 square feet).This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 10 of 21 (smopegg asnog}anoa : 4E£Z) and smopegg asnogpno0-9454000Z40Z1d-Zafld-Podea}}e;g :;uauagoe;;y 4 t-.: a n. Justification: The Sam's Club proposed currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 CL square feet. According to Code for this size of a store, a total of seven loading docks would be required. Sam's Club currently shows a total of five loading docks (12 feet wide by 90 feet long). Based on business knowledge and historical information, this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam's Club operates their own vehicle fleet and controls the timing of all truck deliveries. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. Deviation#2: Deviation#2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC,which allows a shared 15-foot landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. !' Justification: The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist between the parent tracts and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an eight feet wide planting area and is even greater in some areas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. Deviation 3: Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the stormwater management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side,rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a five feet wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100%into the perimeter landscaping buffer. Justification: The existing stormwater management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional stormwater management system. The stormwater management areas will have a planting shelf along the perimeter to support the required landscaping within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibits. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not consistently meet the 20 feet wide minimum for activity centers adjacent to roadways. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows the in intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. Deviation #4: Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island, PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 11 of 21 (smopegs esnogpnoa : 1.££Z) and smopegs esnoqpno0-9�SI000Z60Zld-Zatld-PodeJ;}e;g :;uauayoe;;y c ci a Justification: There are existing areas in the shopping center in the northern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscaping island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows a limited area for this deviation which is currently Buffalo Wild Wings. Deviation#5: Deviation#5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC,which requires a wall or fence to be six feet away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. Justification: The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security and safety for nearby residents by creating a barrier from the projects surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows additional landscaping being added to a currently vegetated area. Deviation #6: Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.B, which requires separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps to a minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a distance less than 500 feet for the fuel facility separation and less than 250 feet separation from residential. Justification: The proposed Sam's Fuel Station canopy is located approximately 293 feet away from the existing Chevron Fuel Station canopy located along the project frontage. The gas station for this development is an accessory use to the main membership warehouse use of the redevelopment and is not open to the public without a membership. This location is the least intrusive for the public and ideal for access by customers and fuel tank delivery trucks. The gas station use could be developed elsewhere on the site in such a way to meet the separation requirement on the site; however, that will put it immediately at the Airport-Pulling and Tamiami Trail intersection and further away from the main building. No reduction from residential is necessary if the applicant can measure the separation from the fuel canopy as the fuel canopy to the nearest residential property line is approximately 300 feet. This deviation is justified because the property is separated from the nearby residential use by an existing canal and mature landscape buffer. The applicant also proposes to install a 6-foot high wall, which will result in a total wall height of approximately 10 feet above grade of the nearby residential lots. The applicant proposes to deviate from the requirement to center the proposed wall by locating the screen wall in the area closest to the project parking and to have the required landscaping located at the property line and adjacent to the wall as shown on Deviation #6 exhibit. This requested buffer meets the intent of the LDC required buffer. The active parts of the fueling facility are the fueling stations. There is no convenience store associated with the fueling facility. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 12 of 21 (sMopegs esnogJnoa : I.££Z) and sMopeys asnoypno0-5696000UOZ'ld-Zafld-podai}}els :;uewttoe;;y a>. D' of a) Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows the intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. Deviation #7: Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25' to remain. £: Justification: The redevelopment proposes to update the existing pole signs to be monument signs that are consistent with the architecture for the redeveloped site. Although fewer than 8 tenants are anticipated to occupy the site if the warehouse club use is constructed, the signage structures exist and it would be more cost effective to retrofit the existing sign structure, rather than to remove and replace. A base will be constructed on the signs and landscaping will be installed consistent with the code. Please see the included exhibits for reference. ii Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. The exhibit shows a more attractive sign. Deviation #8: Deviation #8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area, a maximum length, or uninterrupted curve of any façade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit A-11. Justification: The proposed building massing, articulation, and materials are appropriate for the style and scale of the building type, and the context of existing buildings in the area. The overall massing, building elements (i.e., canopies, pitched roof, overhangs, etc.), and upgraded building materials such as stone are concentrated near the entrance and kept at a pedestrian level so that customers can experience these architectural features. Likewise,landscaping including foundation plantings are incorporated on all sides of the building to enhance and further break up the articulation of each facade, Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval. Deviation #9: Deviation#9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15 feet with an average width of 20 feet as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. Justification: The existing project perimeter buffer for the developed portion of the project varies from approximately 13 feet in width to 20 feet, The deviation will permit the property owner to install a buffer more consistent with that immediately adjacent to the 0.28± acre parcel being added to the PUD. Please see Deviation#9 Buffer Exhibit. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval subject to the buffers not containing any State or County traffic devices and/or utilities. It is unknown at this time what utilities are affected if landscaping is proposed in the areas depicted in the Exhibit. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 13 of 21 (sMopegs asnogpnoa : (.££Z) and snnopegs asnog .ino0-9 1.000ZLOZId-Zaftd-3.1odai jje}s :luewgoe4V 0 ci • CL II Deviation#10: Deviation#10 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC,which establishes landscape standards for facilities with fuel pumps where they are within 250 feet of residential districts, to permit an alternative landscape buffer consistent with the proposed Deviation#10 Cross Section Exhibit. Justification: The applicant is offering an alternative buffer between the facility with fuel pumps and the nearby residential use. The proposed buffer will be approximately 44 feet wide and consist of two landscape buffer areas and solid wall. The proposed seven-foot solid wall is at an elevation that will achieve the same height otherwise required by code, Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff concurs with the justification and recommends approval of this deviation. The exhibit shows intent of Code can be met with the alternative plan submitted as an exhibit. FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall 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 Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold,non-italicized font): PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation,the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria." 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant and staff's recommended with stipulations and conditions should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. Z, Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 14 of 21 (smopegs esnogpno3 : ££Z) and smopegs esnoypnoD-SI•Swo0Z6ond-zafld-podaa}}els :;uawgoe4y• ti • a) o r 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies a of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, Planning and Zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff believes that the proposed uses and associated deviations, with conditions of staff, will provide compatibility, both internal and external of the PUD. 5.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of usable open space meets code and serves the development. 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 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. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 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. S. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking approval of ten deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts. This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval with conditions of all deviations proposed. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 15 of 21 — (smopeyg esnoyfnoa : 1.E£Z) and smopeyg esnowno0-91.g 1.000Z wZid-zafld-podei}}etS :}uewyoe�t/ N C � ) 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 I 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. The Growth Management Consistency Review provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with adjacent neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD Application consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The petition can be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of r' this report. Staff believes the proposed PUD is appropriate given the development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance and the conditions and stipulations proposed by staff. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD with conditions and stipulations would not create an isolated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries. 5.Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such an amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD,with the commitments made by the applicant and the stipulation and conditions offered by staff,has been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies and LDC that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 16 of 21 (smopeys asnotninoa : 4££Z) and smopeys esnownoo-g1.91,000Z1.0Zld-Zafld-podaa}.j.e;g :;uaLugoe;;y M• a. O) co 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. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Stormwater BMPs, flowathss treatment, and storage from this P � g project will be address through Environmental Resource Permitting with SFWMD and County staff will evaluate all required stormwater calculation, site plans, and documentation during the development review process. Additionally, the proposed project shall be treated as a redevelopment project; therefore, comply with the existing, as the date of this PUD amendment approval, off-site allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria. 9.Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If this PUD petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD Document. The setbacks and project buffers will help ensure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan through the proposed PUD, 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 PUD does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest, 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action, PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 17 of 21 (smopeyg esnoy}inoD : {.££Z) and smopen asnoypno3-S1.51-000Z60Zld-Zotld-iodai}}e}S :}uawyoe}}d ati Q F O> The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. ( The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of the Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the PUD development standards and commitments with conditions and stipulations will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and County. 15. Whether it's impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the proposed GMPA and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by County staff who are responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and County staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 18 of 21 smo a asno }ono sono a asno no oda e G � p 4S 4 � � LEEZ) and p uS 4� D-56S6000Z60Z"Id-Zafld-� gels :;uawyoe;;�y ai a • F U NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: a The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on July 13, 2016, at the Collier County Government Center. Please see the attached NIM summary provided by the agent. The applicant's agents also conducted a presentation in front of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Development Local Authority on September 13 (See Attachment 5). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on October 19,2016. 7'. PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 19 of 21 (smopeyg esnogJnoa : .££Z) and smopeyg asnoypno0-51.91,000Z40Z'ld-Zafld-Podai}}e;g :}uewyoet}v LI.< RECOMMENDATION: Gam, c Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward PETITION PUDZ- PL20120001515 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: 1. Add Deviation #4 Exhibit to the PUD Document. This is a limited area of the existing Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot, This exhibit shall be part of the PUD Document. 2. Deviation#9 approved subject to the buffers not containing any State or County utilities or traffic control devices. 3. Include a commitment for a preserve and acreage of the preserve in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document (PUD Section 3.7). Label "Preserve" on the PUD Master Plan (LDC Section 3.05.07 H.1.a) and include the acreage of the preserve on the PUD Master Plan. If the preserve required is to be satisfied offsite, indicate so in the environmental commitments section of the PUD Document and identify in the commitment,the acreage of preserve required to be satisfied offsite. 4. The proposed new-revised parking island layout shown on the Master Plan is conceptual and is not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries,parking islands, and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order(SDP/SDPA). 5. To address the proposed re-development project and existing roadway conditions on Peters Avenue add the following developer commitment: The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five-foot sidewalk along Peters Avenue up to the sum of$ 50 000.00,which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site. Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the PUD. 6. The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the TIS dated March 18, 2016. 7. For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria, as the date of this PUD rezone approval. 8. Revise Master Plan, relocating labels for Deviation's #3 and#5 outside of drainage easement. Attachments: Attachment 1: PUD Ordinance Attachment 2: Applicant's Backup Material Attachment 3: GMP Consistency Review Attachment 4: E-Mails Attachment 5: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Development Local Authority Board Minutes PL20120001515;Courthouse Shadows PUDZ November 3,2016 CCPC Page 20 of 21 (smoPe4s esnownoo ixEz) and smoPe4s esno4PP00-st.swoomzid-zand-Podei He; :wet-Lamm( Cr; a. PREPARED BY: °/ j/ DANIEL JAME SMITH,AICP DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: • r, I RAYMON V.\BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONIN$ DIVISION z'? MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: -7020 JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 7! es, DAVID S. WILKISON, P.E. DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 9,D.2_ ORDINANCE NO. 16- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-08, THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND OUTPARCELS BY 18,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 165,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL .35+/- ACRES OF LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE 0 DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-3- GTMUD-MXD) TO THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PUD; BY o ADDING A MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE CLUB WITH ASSOCIATED LIQUOR STORE USE AND ANCILLARY FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS AS A PERMITTED USE; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER M PLAN AND ADDING DEVIATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41 AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS 11, 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 20.35+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZA-PL20120001515] °; c �a WHEREAS, KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS, LLC represented by D. Wayne Arnold, o AICP of Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 1 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 11/16/16 Packet Pg. 78 9.D.2 SECTION ONE: ZONING CLASSIFICATION The zoning classification of approximately .35 acres of the herein described real property located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district and when combined with the existing Courthouse Shadows PUD provides for a 20.35+/- acre project in accordance with Ordinance No. 92-8, as amended by this Ordinance. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. Tic O i SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF 2 ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 co The Table of Contents of the PUD document attached to Ordinance Number 92-8, PUD is hereby amended as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS M M N PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii Z4; STATEMENT OF INTENT iii SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 1-1 coSECTION II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2-1 SECTION III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 3-1 0 w EXHIBIT—"A"MASTER PLAN co EXHIBIT—"B"LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT—"C"DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT—"D" BUILDING SIGNAGE Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 2 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 11/16/16 Packet Pg. 79 9.D.2 SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The first paragraph of the Statement of Compliance of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92=8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to express the interest of Collier Development Corporation KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC to develop 20.0g20.3± acres of land located in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO THE STATEMENT OF INTENT OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDNANCE NO. 92-8 To' The Statement of Intent of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit"A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: co The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of the developer Collier Development y Corporation to commence development of a commercial activity center planned unit of development. It is the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to continue the development of architecturally unified commercial establishments built on the project site and on the concept of planned arrangement and unified management control. The unified development approval under the PUD district designation willCsi ensure that theroiect is aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient. It will allow an efficient pattern of internal circulation to be established, and limited points of vehicular ingress and egress. These functional and aesthetic advantages, which cannot be provided in the conventional strip commercial development configurations, have been maximized and shall be sustained in the approval of this planned unit of development. This planned unit of development shall be limited to specific commercial uses which are compatible with uses permitted within activity centersand inter related to the business 0 operations of a shopping center. It is the interest of the developer Collier Development Corporation to continue development in accordance with the regulations of this Planned E Unit of Development. It is the purpose of this document to set forth the complete plan, regulations and conditions of development along with other information required in accordance with the PUD ordinance. It is further the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to commence development once all necessary permits and approvals have been granted. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-0l 190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 3 of 9 PUDZA-PL201 2000 1 5 1 5 11/16/16 Packet Pg. 80 9.D.2 SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.2 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 1.2 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The subject property is currently under the control of Collier Development Corporation, 3003 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 339'IOKRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC, 30 S. Meridian St.. Suite 1100, Indianapolis, IN 46204. SECTION SIX: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD ACREAGE Section 1.3 of the PUD Document, attached as "Exhibit A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by: N i See Exhibit B, Legal Description, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. � r = SECTION SEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.1 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 M n! Section 2.1 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for development of the proposed 20.0g20.3± acre Planned Unit Development identified on the Master Plan. co SECTION EIGHT: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 a) Section 2.3 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is w hereby amended as follows: Q 2.3. USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 4 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 11/16/16 Packet Pg.81 9.D.2 A. Principal Uses: 1. Antique Shops 2. Appliance stores 3. Art studios 4. Art supplies 5. Automobile parts stores 6. Automobile service stations, including facilities with fuel pumps. 7. Bakery shops (including baking incidental to retail or wholesale sales) 8. Banks(branch or main office) and financial institutions 9. Barber and beauty shops 10. Bath supply stores 11. Blueprint shops 12. Bicycle sales and services 13. Book stores 14. Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation) 15. Child care centers 16. Cocktail lounges, commercial recreation (indoor) 17. Clothing stores 18. Commercial schools 19. Confectionery and candy stores 20. Delicatessen; drive-in restaurants,drug stores; dry cleaning shops; dry goods •• stores and department stores. 21. Electric supply stores 22. Fish stores; florist shops; food markets (including facilities with fuel pumps); furniture stores; furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 23. Gift shops, gourmet shops 24. Hardware stores; health food stores; hobby supply stores; home for the aged 25. Ice cream stores; ice sales; interior decorating showrooms 26. Jewelry stores c 27. Laundries, leather goods, and luggage stores; locksmiths and liquor stores 28. Meat market; medical office or clinic for human care; millinery shops; motion 0 picture theater; music stores 29. Membership warehouse club with associated liquor store use and ancillary facility with fuel pumps. The facility with fuel pumps may not be open to the general RS public and shall be for only members of the membership warehouse club. 2930. Office (retail or professional); office supply stores 3-031. Paint and wallpaper stores; pet shops, pet supply stores; photographic equipment stores; post office 34-32. Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs; restaurants 3233. Souvenir stores; stationery stores; shopping centers; supermarkets subject to site development plan approval. 3334. Tailor shops; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores 3435. Variety stores; veterinary offices and clinics (no outside kenneling) Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 5 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 11/16/16 Packet Pg. 82 9.D.2 3536. Watch and precision instrument sales and repair 3637. Any other commercial use of professional service normally allowed in C-3 Zoning District with approval of the Zoning Director as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. SECTION NINE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.4 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.4 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.4 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS ********************************** o F. Minimum internal setback from the additional 0.28± acre FDOT surplus y parcel shall be zero (0) feet. 0 SECTION TEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.8 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 M Section 2.8 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: co co 2.8 SIGNS A. Individual Business Signs: Wall, marquee, or hanging sings below the canopy of the rimary 0 retail building, with an area not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total square footage of the front wall or facade area under the canopy, with a maximum E of 250 square feet per rental unit, consistent with the locations shown on Exhibit D - Building Signage. SECTION ELEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.2A OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.2A of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 6 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 • 11/16/16 Packet Pg. 83 9,D.2 , A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan as prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Drawing No. 91 223 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Exhibit "A" Master Plan. The maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels shall not exceed a total of 117,000165.000 square feet. SECTION TWELVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.5 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.5 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 3.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. An adequate access easement shall be provided for access through the shopping center to Haldeman Creek. 0 U B. Petitioner shall obtain a right-of-way permit for all construction within the N Haldeman Creek easement. w C. For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed redevelopment project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore. it will comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria, as the date of this PUD amendment approval. SECTION THIRTEEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.6 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.6 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 0 3.6 TRAFFIC CDE A. The applicant is advised that future development activities are subject to land use (15 controls consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as amended. Such controls may, from time to time, preclude the applicant's ability to initiate, continue and/or to complete the project improvements as presently scheduled. B. The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five foot sidewalk along Peter's Avenue up to the sum of$ 50,000.00, which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site. Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the Site Development Plan for the redevelopment. Words struck are deleted;words underlined are added 112-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 7 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 11/16/16 Packet Pg. 84 9.D.2 C. Upon redevelopment of the site with a single large format retail user such as Sam's Club. the owner shall close the southernmost vehicular access to Peters Avenue. The project shall be permitted to have an emergency vehicle only entrance as shown on the Master Plan. D. The proposed new-revised parking island layout shown on the master P lan is conceptual and is not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries, parking islands, and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order (SDP/SDPA) E. The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the Traffic Impact Statement dated March 18. 2016. N O SECTION FOURTEEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.7 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF L ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 d N Section 3.7 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: w j 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS •• M *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Text break r i H. Native vegetation shall be retained or replanted in accordance with SDP 98-75. As an alternative, the developer may also elect to provide offsite preservation of native vegetation in accordance with the LDC. co SECTION FIFTEEN: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 0 92-8 TO REVISE EXHIBIT"A" MASTER PLAN E Exhibit "A" Master Plan of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit "A", Master Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Words st..,,^' r are deleted; words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 8 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 11/16/16 Packet Pg. 85 9.D.2 SECTION SIXTEEN: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD EXHIBIT"C", DEVIATIONS The PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "C"to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended to add the following: See Exhibit"C",Deviations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION SEVENTEEN: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. 0 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of , 2016. 3 0 ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CV By: By: , Deputy Clerk DONNA FIALA, Chairman a, U l6 Approved as to form and legality: w Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Master Plan Exhibit B -Legal Description Exhibit C—Deviations including Buffer Exhibit Exhibit D—Building Signage Words stru ag#are deleted;words underlined are added [12-CPS-01190] 195 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 9 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 11/16/16 Packet Pg.86 CI N �Z Z - 9.D.2 m =Z Q6 m OCDim"pzy O� 0v 71'4; mmDmm-1 n3.ad40 Od 0y m,,,mz y° ,nN3ANSb �"\ O 0Om'miO _ Z Z-7om SD ° \-- L Cr) i m�v)y 01 gg m 1 �O=mv'm m s� /� n D� 0vymmm 6 z mg g -r�v1mmm m ` p 0' of mm0O�N n � °° mDmomym-I •♦• mc��1 mm Mi 5" �ycry0 ♦ t Smz3toc �'/� �y��r 13,,I, • y_o C n m p / Z n zOmZm-1 ioT / ♦. /_ `,, 21z h91 mZ _ '-zic /,^m P� .1 Am ` �// Q �� inma .g, ° 0990, %-�3 o g< 4 ls.'- -,..,,,,,'t,%, i !Mgi ,' '54� ' ply D +.E,. 0y.)p '/ " #moEl O MS g. 4 o lis a •'a o I w ca rr °� ��} /i �w/,P/ y 1 O irj 1 p Z m /a�y 4. f ii /4AS)_/7 / El ro I/*/ O�/ x/♦/ o /' O 4 '- 4; Coo a \, i of ` Zyz mz .\ (/, O O / w 61 i mnv r j Q cu, s : O M @ ® 0 2c. �� a:q, 41,�. .' Q Q E Al y� '6.' (°,° .' • d my mpS ` O 5 to (pai S mm I \ N\° Q I `C \•\ O O I ▪ 6 CZ '�; Q V u ! - V lQ 40 CO 0 iiii cGa mo Q m ( _ # MB Y� v vy ar O; / ff' 6� A, Zza O o- / C fes., O DQ _ o .F o 0 0 mm m. m z ,�. o TO pc�w CJ a0 Q r m \ o i G m,r m ♦ o D� m± vim> \♦ ��, r 0 720 -02755 (i—m ♦ f $ x M mEn m5> ♦ © o m= mQ vim m m O p ♦ �N. h � D O x \ 4 �,o x m z ♦ � fm cO � MO ♦ n b O mz ♦ 4.4. z�° 2 u u u m m ♦N.eGF m z za ♦.o m pNNp 5 mN r ♦ O p aoM ♦ 1 mi ' 1 0 •♦ f.0 z -f." PI \ I ,q F Cl \ -.S - tn � . Packet Pg. 87 9.D.2 Courthouse Shadows PUD Exhibit B Legal Description BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; cn . 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE •• RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE M NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: p 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 88 9.D.2 Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, "! industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10'x20' (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15' landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each CO abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lots as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan a) with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown c on the Master Plan. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the v water manaqement system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5' wide level N planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.6 of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires o a wall or fence to be 6' away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.B, which requires separation from adjacent Q facilities with fuel pumps to a minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a separation of 0' feet for the fuel facility separation from residential. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25' to remain. 8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area, a maximum length, or uninterrupted curve of any facade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit A-11. Courthouse Shadows PUD,PL20110001515 Last Revised 11/16/2016 Page I of 2 Packet Pg.89 9.D.2._, Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15' with an average width of 20' as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. o ca 10. Deviation #10 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which establishes landscape standards for facilities with fuel pumps where they are within 250' of residential districts, to permit an alternative landscape buffer consistent with the proposed Deviation o #10 Cross Section exhibit. 0 a) to .a L O CD co Courthouse Shadows PUD,PL20120001515 Last Revised 11/16/2016 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg.90 9.D.2 \ ,,,„„, f___,, , NN.\,..., '1';';',',';',4,s rir t AD #' s , CO 1,1,43 a ' f t � ; f [[S say' { *, s,' . o J � O ( �. s cn , - - i 14.....7_,;L. T fl'--. i �...s-'r . ,..� �� t r z E0 O } E °" 1 / M 1 E 1< 1 1 I � �•�� '', to / N air /•j/ J` / ;,,,,,,/;/ e- r. l,, f! tD , 1 '42K87''.'f'..,'• :,•."‘: --,. �a ' lyl 4 /l 7 i4' T co • 4 »� G.� Ow"` $,..s., / I Ycq \ / / /. E I ,, Q o. f ' ,- / / sI a m m `v,'m m m a.-e -' m' 11111111111 II y = a N.m a- - y o X N - � o x aim 0 �€ ,.Q �i (IH1 !ai -t p � 3mvo � ` aax � ,Q c0 mnN'� �m m 3 mz. G m N o T a m D ; X enc v o-t n � n c> = 1 0 D O a v m m •Dt S m p >� @ • 1. F N 2<a p Q w z _@ C. x O ?• N d O� @ j_ N N C C d N F... N 7 @ n Q co N 'Z °' m a 2 w o r m m 3 m a o o m a. i9 o.m m g,' rn N ? Packet Pg. 91 9.D.2 1'-10- ,;I i ,0.0.0, SR v,+ ' u D v f > z m 1 :,k D Z _ w 1III -i ,� t m g • 4 T arc 444 th a#4,. 6 + k f «k Ii o J ,,,,, t, to «�.�� ' IN 1 cri 1 ' N ( zraA *a` L. I4, 4w t M yy.�� a- I rx, e- la .. . I; o as 1 i'.; o i ." 1 'u,-:.'",1: 1 : — Q) J.� 1 it I U sem !6 la_co ,c'J s d 5a _no— ct w .' - - - c _ /J avf m )I I _ t` -`7,5'1# ' S5.0.5-, ..;“:, I. f F,� .F. 4 w St� (: G 5 z'_ iib,j�•�, 4 s E o _ _ F_� "%,...t $ ti • nc ` F - 2.� - g i i9 _, -> ROx ^ -a 04v sT , Svc - Packet Pg. 92 g o_ crla'ogd3 -0 -a � 0 9.D.2 *k <, -, r -, a3 3' o n ri) o < 2 -, HcL - 3; 3'03n °: o c 3 m fD a 3 3 < n tv _< h m CD c: oso) m t^ D tt m fl = n) = =. al 5 cs r- .„ o c CD C �' a E-' _. « n � / / / Z i3O $ gym * =a- 0 MD 3d n °v,2 n o = o v C rD 3 .c fD (D woo. (Th rt --� = gDJ3 � n*, ._ 1 o ria °, m c°qa ni m 4 et 4 E- � ® /7C----- \ 1 • c < -1-1O Z .t 4 m to D fTl (,) ' -p y g k E. g,..= 00•1161\ CO = 3 m 7 4 z rn ---I Z 4) oda o ' I1:1 / o U b a` ` ^ CO r— r M 1\ < m CDrro J g 2 :' > a l S} //j ,\ /0LJ7 ' tr1 d c-.) , skalisi/ t as c -:') / .. O o Ac. . c 70 _ / ! I X Z / Q 2 b W_ 1 C Q.:-:, ' b 111114.) . . • I , ,,, 'Q\>: /._._" , : : ::).•,/ v, O ` D 4n O ° O Cr) \\OGN.LDCAL\FILES\DLANNING\PROJ - PLANNING\CSPUDA- COURTHOUSE SHADOWS(PL2D12DDD1515)\DRAWINGS\BUFFER EXHIBIT(REV2).DWC B/2672016 11 W AN Packet:Pg. 93 9.D.2 CD r a- x i. � y k ,L1 q' Fes; r" s Cr) ., ,,,,,, ,i7„.;..ifk. ,,-,t,,..,,-.,, ...„.„, ., :--Ti -,-.--c- --,-,,.- ..,„,:.,c,..,i1:_ -1 ., _ .„, , ,.. _ , _., 0 .:-.;'.'11::'?-3?-:1,44:n1F't.'".!-' -tl,`:-,., _,'7,,,,-;'""'-i, ' -''47.4,-"'''., 1:::::010:"7;:,* - :,C.., y ,,,:f::,-,1':"4.,-..,,-, � •. �s ++�' s i• om " �` �' tII CIO k . . q a . yam ,tii CD V C cn y_ �mY .._,w ''',.;°::" '•x q`� q,. rte: '"/1-11 N ' 4;e° 1 iC �`: t, • ,(� T r Q � N f yri "-�o ;} T T C) ) (I) # ctc o V op = L as 0- 1 I > .� I Q CD 1 1 ED g 0 CD 1 NI n o -a I 1 I cA KI I ` 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 cp ..... ...,, .,,, c„ „ , , _ , <\ ,T) > mori ::.t. g _u rn\ - -D xpD - - .a W�= m O = CP_ r—,/ - Packet Pg.94 LE£Z) and smopeys asnoypnoD-g I.B6000ZI•OZ1d-ZOfld-MalnaN /Coua;slsuo3 dWO :;uawyoeuv D ci': a GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Dan Smith,AICP, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 26, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed Revisions to the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development—3rd memo PETITION NUMBER: PUDR—PL20120001515—REV: 3 PETITION NAME: Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development(PUD) REQUEST: Revisions to the existing Courthouse Shadows PUD to add "membership warehouse club with associated liquor store" as a Permitted, Principal commercial use, increase the maximum amount of square footage allowed for commercial uses from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet, secure and employ deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC), make a boundary change to the PUD to add an ± 0.28 acre area and, revise the PUD document and PUD Master Plan accordingly. LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of ±20.35 acres, is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Peters Avenue, in portions of Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict — Activity Center#16), is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), and is in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), all as identified on Future Land Use Maps of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The concept of Mixed Use Activity Centers "is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community." Relevant to this petition, the±0.28 ac. area to be added to the existing PUD is zoned C-3—Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District (GTMUD-MXD) in the Collier County Zoning Map, and is within the Mixed Use Activity Center#16. The B/GTRO of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) states that"for parcels within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center#16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. Atoning overlay may be developed for these properties within the Mixed Use Activity Center to provide specific development standards." In this regard, the County's LDC contains development standards for the GTMUD-MXD zoning district (LDC Section 2.03.07.N.). Additionally, LDC Section 2.03:07.N.2.c.states that amendments or boundary changes to PUDs that existed prior to March 3, 2006, are not subject to the overlay requirements. The subject PUD was first adopted in 1985 by Ordinance No. 85-11, and then superseded in 1992 by Ordinance 92-08. Therefore, LDC development standards for the GTMUD Overlay do not apply for the±0.28 ac. area proposed to be added to the subject PUD. Attachment 3 1•EEZ) and sMopeyS esnogpno0-S1,51.000Zl•Orld-Za ld-MaiAael Aoue slsuo3 ago :auawyoelw a) In regard to the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the GMP, rezoning actions are subject to certain a, ', considerations as outlined below[in italics], each followed by staff analysis [in bold]. a. Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum a acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the y; requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. [The revisions include and rezone a C-3- GTMUD-MXD zoned property into the boundaries of the existing PUD.] b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. [Activity Center #16 consists of some residential zoning, the Collier County Government Center PUD, and the remainder is commercial zoning (C-1, C-3, C-4, C-5 and Commercial PUD). Within two road miles, most properties are zoned C-3, C-4 and C-5. The revisions include the rezone of a !a commercially zoned property into an existing PUD that allows, has been developed with and will redeveloped with, commercial uses.] c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. [The revisions include and rezone a vacant [± 0.28 ac] C-3 zoned property into the existing commercial PUD. In staff's opinion, a market study is not necessary.] d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. [Existing land use patterns consist of commercial, residential, and institutional. The subject commercial parcels are located along US 41, which is primarily developed with commercial uses. Therefore, the redevelopment proposed would be consistent with the existing pattern of land use development along US 41.] e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Transportation Planning staff as part of their review of the petition.] f Compatibility of the proposed [re]development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. [The request includes multiple deviations to reduce the perimeter buffer width in order to accommodate larger surface water management features, to construct walls immediately inside property boundaries and to reduce the required landscape buffer width between separately platted commercial lots. Distance deviations are also requested from the fuel station pump facilities to the nearest residence and adjacent fueling facility. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition.] g. Natural or man-made constraints. [Man-made constraints exist. Application materials explain the ±0.28 acres of land being integrated with the Courthouse Shadows PUD is a surplus land remnant from the Florida Department of Transportation related to previous widening of US 41 and/or intersection improvements. Independent development of this small parcel would be difficult because of LDC requirements for commercial development] h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. [The rezoning criteria responses were included with the PUD application. Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Zoning Services to review these criteria.] L Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Transportation Planners to evaluate this criterion.] j. Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type,median opening —, locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and 2 1.££Z) and smopeyS esnognanoa-g I91.000Z1.0Z1d-ZCltld-Nte!Ae l Aoua;slsuaa dlNO 4uawgoe;}y t` r- • internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. [The PUD Master Plan depicts internal traffic circulation and parking areas typical to shopping centers with outlots. Ingress — egress �, ) points are located along Tamiami Trail East and Peters Avenue. The intersection of these two streets is signalized, along with signalization at the main entrance on Tamiami Trail East across 0-s from Espinal Boulevard.] k. lnterconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. [The PUD Master Plan does not depict such interconnection for pedestrians or motor vehicles with abutting projects. Only one location around the perimeter of the subject property does not abut a ( roadway, at the southwest corner where residences sit along Collee Court and back-up to Haldeman Creek.] 1 1. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. [More than 20 deviations or exceptions are being sought by the subject petition from the architectural requirements of the LDC. Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Zoning Services and Architectural Review staffs to review these deviations/exceptions for appropriateness.] FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with, and complementary to, 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. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and use intensities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities, development standards (building heights, hours of operation, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote smart growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects. These Policies were addressed at the time of original approval in 1993, and the Courthouse Shadows PUD was determined to comply with them. Regarding the factors identified in these Policies, no changes are proposed to the PUD that would change that determination and re-analysis by staff is unnecessary. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. cc: Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager,Zoning Services Section David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi,AICP, Director,Zoning Division G:Comp\Consistency Reviews12016 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120161PUDR\PUDR-PL2012-1515 Courthouse Shadows R3.docx 3 (smopeys esnogJnoa : {.££z) and smopeys esnoypno0-94S 4000z 60z1d-Zaftd-sllew-g :;uewyoeut/ 0 O. From: JourdanJean .°) Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:13 AM To: SmithDaniel Subject: FW: Sam's Club Urgent! Dan: Below is the e-mail we discussed. Jean From: Klbeatty48@aol.com fmailto:Klbeatty48c aol.com r Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:44 AM To: JourdanJean; McKuenElly Cc: klbeattv48CZa aol.com Subject: Sam's Club Urgent! r' Good Morning Jean and Elly, After speaking to neighbors who live within 500 ft of the proposed Sam's Club, there are some concerns that deserve attention. I also live on Haldeman Creek, approx. 1,000 ft from it. I'm requesting you to forward this to the CRA-AB members and the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Board members asap. 1. There is already drainage coming into Haldeman Creek from The Glades,which filters through pipes under the parking lot of Walmart on the east trail. Will further runoff drainage from this proposed development come into Haldeman Creek and how will the proposed additional .28+1- FDOT surplus parcel, adjacent to the NW PUD boundary affect the flow of Haldeman Creek. Apparently, this will go right over the Creek at the NE section where US 41 is. This is a lush preserve portion of Haldeman Creek now with mangroves, etc. How is this being handled? 2. Is there a plan to build a sound proof wall along the property line abutting Haldeman Creek, so the many sounds coming from this development all hours of the day and night(deliveries at night), be softened for all the neighbors who live on the Creek now? Streets such as Collee Ct., Peters, Captain's Cove, Canal, Basin St., etc. Even homes in the area east of this could be affected by the sound, which are homes that are on Guilford Rd. There is a gas station planned for this development as well, which will, most likely, be much larger than the one that is on that property now. 3. The local property owners are wondering why the CRA would allow a private club, such as Sam's Club, which will not be something that is available for all citizens of the area to build there when it will contribute highly to traffic congestion, noise, etc that they will have to endure, while not having the advantage of enjoying other possible retail uses, which they have always been able to utilize without a membership, in the past. Not all of the local citizens are going to want to join Sam's Club and therefore this parcel will be of no use to them. They would prefer a nice shopping plaza with stores they can enjoy often. 4. There's a former gas station just east of Peters St. and facing US 41 that has a little building on it that is an aerator. Local residents state there is contaminated ground there that is being managed by this aerator. This contamination needs to be cleaned up. 5. At first glance, having a Sam's Club nearby seems like a good thing, but, I think this needs to be looked at closer. Is the Courthouse Shadows parcel part of the CRA? 6. Do you have an idea when this will be heard by the BCC? Attachment achment 4 (Current/Daniel... 1 0/1 8/201 6 (smopegs asnogpno0 : 4££Z) and smopeyS esnownoD-S 1.96000Z60Z1d-Zarld-slieW-3 :luewgoelly iq a) os ci ds Lastly, there's a public informational meeting at the BCC Chambers tomorrow, Wednesday, July 13 at 5:30 ,..� pm. I think it's important for as many of the board members as possible to be there. I think this deserves out w attention. Apparently, no questions or comments will be heard and all must be directed, according to the letter to citizens from Grady Minor, by email, phone, fax or mail to Grady Minor and Associates. Shouldn't something this big be vetted by Mark Strain, Hearing Examiner or does the BCC decide that? Thank you, Karen Karen L. Beatty, ABR, GRI Downing-Frye Realty, Inc. Direct Cell: 239 269-7788 Direct Fax: 239 236-0365 Ir www.karenbeatty.com www.nativeknowsnapleselistingbook.cora NATIVE Floridian, loving Naples since 1977. Serving Buyers, Investors and Sellers since 1995! Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board since 2006 Member of NABOR, FAR, NAR ft A ;„ MULTIPLE AWARD WINNER By the way... the greatest compliment you can give me is the referral of a friend or family member. I promise to treat them with the same care as/would my own. 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 recuest,do not send electronic mail to this entityinstead,contact this office by telephone or in writing, file://bcc.colliergov.net/data!GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20 S ervices/Cun•ent/Daniel... 10/18/2016 (smopegs esnogpnoa : 4££Z) and smopeys esnoypno0-5L56000Z40Z1d-Zafld-sneW-3 :;uauayoe;;t/ o 0 ri • U Re proposed Sams Club From: Lise O'Brien [lise.obrien@me.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:11 PM I To: smithDaniel Subject: Re proposed Sams club Dear Mr Smith, As a resident of nearby East Naples, I write to oppose the construction of a Sams Club at the Courthouse Shadows shopping Center. I am sure by now you've heard most of the objections - across the street from walmart, poor fit for planned smaller commercial ventures in that area, etc. May I add - Naples is at risk of becoming another casualty of big box sprawl , and this alarmingly close to downtown. Folks like my husband and myself were attracted to Naples precisely because it indeed does have a unique and charming downtown. other areas being developed in East Naples will also have a special "flavor" if you will . A Sams Club will bring with it another featureless plaza, and yet another gas station - and would go completely against present plans for an interesting, fun, unique area, one that would attract younger folks as well as more retirees. I do hope you will take the longer, more strategic view of this proposal . surely that would not include a Sams club in this particular and critical location. R Thank you so much for taking the time to read this note. Lise OBrien • 5091 Andres Drive Naples 34113 Sent from my iPad • Page 1 (sMopeyg asnownoa : 4EEZ) and smopeys asnowno3-91,94000Z40Z1d-Za(ld-s!iew-3 :;uawyoe;;d w' u Sam's Club From: marybisher82@gmail .com a ' Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:58 PM To: SmithDaniel Subject: Sam's Club We recently moved to the Isles of Collier Preserve. Someone mentioned a Sam's club proposed on 41. i would like to see a Sam' s club as I think that more retail stores would follow. There is a lot of empty store fronts that need to be filled. Have you ever considered reaching out to a home goods store called "At Home"? They advertise on HGTv. I know they have taken existing vacant retail space and put in large stores. I believe there are 3 stores in Florida. Google it. They would do very well in this market! Regards, Mary aisher Sent from my iPhone Page 1 9.D.6 NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING .. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday,December 13, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 4:00 A.M.The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: The purpose of the hearing is to consider: Ali ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-08,THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND OUTPARCELS BY 18.000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 166.000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA: 6Y AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, TETE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS 3V CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN to ADDITIONAL.35+1-ACRES OF LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL O INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT al as OVERLAY (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) TO THE COURTHOUSE p SHADOWS PUD;BY ADDING A MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE Cr) CLUB WITH ASSOCIATED LIQUOR STORE USE AND ri, CD N ANCILLARY FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS AS A PERMITTED o_ USE; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY N AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN;AND ADDING DEVIATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US a 3 41 AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS c 11, 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, Z COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 20.354/- o 0 ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PUDZA- 5 PL20120001515] CD e) 01 A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the w Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. o rim NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must Q resister with the County manager prior to presentation of Zy C the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be ' as limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual i -a to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. m >_ If recoonized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or d a oroanization may be allotted 1D minutes to speak on an item. • Q Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in IDZ .a the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum to of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, u, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall ca be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of y seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in _3 presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. c Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board E will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and t therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the c) proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and .2 evidence upon which the appeal is based. Q If you are aperson with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to me provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiarni Trail East,5uite 101.Naples, FL 34112- 5356. (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CHAIRMAN DONNA FIALA DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) November 23,2016 No.1365811 Packet Pg.102 9D.7 November 3,2016 .-� TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,November 3,2016 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 at 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: N CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak N Joe Schmitt o ABSENT: Richard Dearborn -t 0 U ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Daniel Smith,Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman.School District Representative co N G1 Y E U U U m E U C4 w 4- Page 1 of 51 Packet Pg.103 9D.7 November 3,2016 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the Thursday,November 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. if everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. CHAIRWOMAN EBERT: Mrs.Ebert's here. y Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. a CHAIRWOMAN EBERT: Mrs.Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRWOMAN EBERT: And,Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRWOMAN EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We have a request to continue Item 9C. 9C �? is the PUDZ-PL20150002737. It's the Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park IPUD. Is there—a M request has come from the applicant. Is anybody here willing to make a motion to continue to the December N 1st meeting? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue to December 1st. CD COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. v—� CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Discussion? cp (No response.) ri CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? U (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. E The next item up is commission absences. Our next regular meeting is November 17th. Does m anybody know if they're not going to make it on that date? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll assume we have a quorum then. Approval of the minutes. We had two sets of the minutes sent to us electronically. One was October 4th,and the other was October 6th. We'll take October 4th first. If there's no changes,is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen,made by Stan. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. Page 2 of 51 Packet Pg. 104 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 ..� COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. The October 6th minutes,same situation. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: NI move to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen,made by Stan. Discussion? All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. o Ray,that takes us to BCC report and recaps. MR.BELLOWS: I have no updates for the last meeting. r, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Thank you. N Chairman's report,I don't really have a report,just one comment,and it came about as a result of last week. You may have seen the emails copied to the Planning Commission. The staff had sent out a d multi-page document in color for the Planning Commission's—or they were attempting to for the packet for x the Sam's Club. That came in late. °' We had established a policy quite a long time ago that if the quantity of material being sent to any Planning Commission members over 10 pages, it should be hard copied,for those that receive the hard "? copies. And I guess I'm only the one that gets electronic. So,anyway,it didn't happen that way. I asked staff to include it in the packet.Thankfully,Judy Puig was able to get the packets back and have it incorporated into the packet at the last minute,so we did get it in the packet today. But in the future,for staff,I'd just liketo remind you,please make sure it's hard copies E over--we don't—most of the people here don't have printers and stuff supplied by the county,so it becomes problematic,especially with color,so thank you. v There's no consent agenda items,and that takes us back into our first advertised public hearing. ***The fust item up today is 9A. It's PUDZ-PL20120001515. It's the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development located on the south side of U.S.41 opposite Airport-Pulling Road. Ifs also known as the Sam's Club site. 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: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures down with Tom. MR.EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr.Yovanovich,and I had correspondence from the public,various members,and I guess the East Naples Civic Association is public or-- CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Well,they emailed us last night that they voted unanimously in favor of the project. Is that the email? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,but are they just—can I just say the public? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Well,I would suggest say you got emails from,yeah,members of the Page 3 of 51 Packet Pg.<105 9D.7 November 3,2016 public,including East Naples,and I think we had a member of the CRA send us-- �... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah,that,too.Yeah. Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have spoke with staff,and I have spoke with residents of Bayshore area,and I've had several emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1,too,have had emails. I spoke with staff a couple different times. I've spoke with the applicant a couple different times. I've had conversations with at least three of our county commissioners. I've also dug into all the referenced documents that were in this project's history,including the original PUD in'85,SDPs between'85 and now,and all of the related OR books and pages and read all that. So I think that's as much as I can think of disclosing at this point. Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, I'm sorry. Diane's on that side;you're on that side. I was pretending I was standing out there looking this way,still on the right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh,okay. I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich,and I have emails.And I have had discussions over the past few years, 1 think,with Commissioner Fiala. It's been going on for a while,I think. We're waiting. co CHAIRMAN S IRAIN: It has. ai Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr.Yovanovich. I received one mail from a nearby resident and the email from East Naples Civic Association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in case I forgot to mention,I did speak to the applicant's team once or v twice,so with that-- MR.EASTMAN: Chairman Strain,I'd like to amend mine. I also received emails that are part of N the public record,but I did not speak to anyone. CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Thank you. Rich, it's yours for presentation. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning. For the record,Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant and petitioner. With me today I have several people that can answer any questions regarding the petition. I have r? Doug Kirby with Kite who will be giving a presentation about the history of this center and the proposed plans for the center; Wayne Arnold is the professional planner on this project; Greg Wilfong from Kimley-Horn is also here to address any questions you may have regarding the deviations we're requesting as part of the redevelopment of the existing shopping center,and Jim Banks is our transportation consultant for this project. a On the visualizer is an aerial outlining the property with the proposed master plan for the redevelopment of the site. This property is basically right across the street from the courthouse on the south side of East Tamiami Trail.It is located within Activity Center No. 16 which,under our Comprehensive Plan, allows for the redevelopment or development of property with the full range of commercial development from CI through C5 development on the property. co As the introduction was made,this is an existing PUD with existing commercial uses,and we are simply here amending an existing PUD to basically add a.35-acre parcel — I forget,does this work--to add a small parcel of property in this area right here that was formerly developed as a gas station,and as we will show you,relocating what was the former gas station into the central part of the project in this area right here as the proposed development of the Sam's Club. We're adding 18,000 square feet to the PUD to increase the overall square footage to 165,000 square feet on roughly 20.35 acres. So the intensity is consistent with other projects you've seen. In fact,I think it's a little less intense than other commercial projects you've seen over the years. We're clarifying that the membership warehouse club with associated liquor store and gas stations as an allowed use in the PUD. But for the fact that we're adding the land and but for the fact that we're increasing the square footage,we wouldn't be here asking for that clarification because we believe it already is an allowed and permitted use under the existing list of permitted uses. But since we're already here,we Page 4 of 51 Packet Pg. 106 9D.7 November 3,2016 wanted to belt and suspenders,and make sure it clearly is an allowed use. And we want to modify the existing PUD master plan. This is an older PUD that had a very detailed master plan,so we were required to modify the master plan. We began this process several years ago initially just to add the corner piece I pointed out and increase square footage. Because it was a former gas station and because the property was owned by DOT--and,actually,it was originally owned by the county,and the county declared it surplus. It went back to DOT. DOT— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was originally owned by DOT. The DOT gave it to the county with a reverter clause. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it went back. MR.YOVANOVICH: Then it went back--well,when we started the process,it was owned by the county. You're correct if you want to go to the very beginning,Mr. Strain. u, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: [like the beginning. c MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. From the beginning of time,this was FDOT,then the county, back to ca FDOT,so ultimately acquired by Kite once the site was cleaned up from the--there were some environmental issues related to the prior gas station. Your staff--and Wayne will get into greater detail about the site plan,but your staff is .e°e recommending approval of the PUD as modified. I believe we'll put on the visualizer a little later a slight modification to one of the deviations that Heidi and I talked about being added to the PUD.But the only disagreement we have with your staff—and either Doug or Wayne will get into it in a little bit greater detail--is there is a small portion of the site,approximately 3,000 square feet,immediately adjacent to an existing drainage easement that has,basically,four trees in it that staff wants us to put into our preserve, and (" if we don't put it into a preserve,staff wants us to then go offsite to replace the 3,000, roughly,square feet where these trees are located. We don't believe that that's required under the code. We propose trying to save those trees where they're currently located,because that will be used as partial water management for the proposed project. And if we can't,we will relocate those trees on site,and we believe that's what's required under the code. So `r° that is our only disagreement with staff and their recommendations regarding the project. "? I'm going to turn it over to Doug to take you through what Kite Development does, what they are, and specifically this site,and then he'll turn it over to Wayne to go through a Iittle more details regarding consistency with the Comp Plan or zoning criteria in the code. But your staff has found us consistent with your Comprehensive Plan as well as your code and is recommending approval,and at the end we are going to E request that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. And with that,I'll turn it over to Mr. Kirby. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One thing I forgot to mention is I was at the original MM meeting some months ago in this room. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,just a moment. Clarification. You said you were at the cu original NIM meeting? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,in this room in some—July or whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But--let me back up. Wait for my question. The question is,there was two NIMs. The original was back in,I think,20]2 or 2013,and there was only one attendee,so you meant the second NIM? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that's what I was wondering. She wasn't on the schedule of people that were there,and I couldn't understand why she said the original,so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wasn't there. MR. KIRBY: Thank you,Rich. Thank you,Planning Commission members. I'm Doug Kirby--for the record,rm Doug Kirby with Kite Realty Group. Just a little about Kite Realty Group; we're a publicly traded REIT on the New York Stock Page 5of5l Packet Pg. 107 9.D.7 November 3.2016 Exchange. We own approximately 120 properties across the country in 26 states. We do--we own seven properties within Collier County,so we're deeply invested in the community. We've owned these centers for a long time. We recently developed the Tam iami Crossing shopping center down at 951 and 41 that just opened this year. So I just want to reiterate that we are in the community. We've been here for a long time,and we're invested and going to be here--plan on being here for a long time. Just a little bit of history of the Courthouse Shadows. It was originally developed as a Walmart back in the mid'80s or late'80s. Shortly after that,in the mid—early to mid'90s,Walmart moved across the street,and then Albertson's took over that box and operated as a grocery store for a number of years until the late 2000s when—or mid to late 2000s when they ceased operations in Florida. At that point Publix assumed that lease that had started in'94,and they operated that store until the lease expiration in 2014. When we--we were notified by them in late 2013 that they were not going to extend or exercise the options in that lease,so we immediately began looking into replacement options for this anchor tenant because we--obviously,we know the shopping center business. We understand that without an anchor tenant the shopping center isn't going to survive. And we ran the gamut from every grocery store that's out there, Winn-Dixie,Sweet Bay, Lucky's, cn Fresh Market, Whoiefoods. We've talked to every grocer out there to try to get them,because it had operated N for 20 years as a grocery-anchored shopping center. Unfortunately,everybody turned it down. The demographics just didn't support another grocery-anchored shopping center. I think that the fact that Publix closed is the fact in there. 3 0 So then we started chasing other retail stores;clothing stores,home good stores,home furnishing U stores, tile/paint stores,things like that that could act as an anchor and keep the shopping center active and successful. Unfortunately,none of those panned out as well. Almost two years of searching,and Sam's came to the table,and we worked on a deal with Sam's and were able to negotiate--come to an agreement on a ground lease on this property for Sam's to take the majority of the shopping center and redevelop it into one of their supercenters. I think the fact that we have the existing infrastructure here,41 corridor that ties both the City of Naples to East Naples and the Fast Collier County area,that that's really what the draw was.They saw the co existing—the existing market that they were servicing in their store on the north end,saw that there was e; enough business from the south and the east end of Collier County that it justified another store here. And Sam's isn't doing a whole lot of new stores. I think they're only doing a handful of stores in the U.S. every year now. And this is one of the markets that they identified that they wanted to put a store in. So that's where we are today. We originally tried to—as Rich said,we originally submitted an application to amend the PUD to add the additional land that we were looking to buy.During the process of v that, we were able to secure a deal with Sam's and revise the application to include Sam's. Little bit about Sam's. They will employ about 175 employees in this store. A good number of their U managers are raised out of the ranks of their hourly employees,so they do have a chain of progression or progress in their stores. I think some people have asked the question why Sam's and Walmart right next to each other; because it's not common in this market. However,we have probably a handful of centers in our portfolio co where we have both within same shopping center. So it's not uncommon to see a Sam's and a Walmart side by side. I think that brings out a with that, I don't really have any other thing to add. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody--before we go to Wayne,anybody have any questions? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. You said you had seven other properties in Collier County? MR. KIRBY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can you name a few? MR.KIRBY: Yes. We have the Tamiami Crossing shopping center that just opened down at 951; we own the Shops at Eagle Creek,which is across the street there at 951 and 41;Tarpon Bay Plaza;the Target center up at Immokalee and 75; Riverchase Shopping Center,the Publix center up at 41 and Immokalee;the Target center at Pine Ridge,Pine Ridge Crossing there, Pine Ridge and Airport-Pulling;and Page 6 of 51 Packet Pg. 108 9.D.7 November 3,2016 -'� then Courthouse Shadows;as well as Kings Lake,where the Publix is at Kings Lake. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. MR. KIRBY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You introduced the discussion about the Publix leaving in 2014 because they didn't want to exercise the option on their lease. Did that option predetermine the rental rate in 2014? MR. KIRBY: I believe it did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when Publix signed up and they had been—how old was that lease before the option would have been exercised? MR. KIRBY: It was—the original lease—it was the original lease with Albertson's that they assumed from 1994. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from 1994,Publix picked up whatever the lease conditions were 3 a when Albertson's left. They continued with that lease knowing what the options were when it expired in 2014. Whether they were increases,decreases,any changes at all,they accepted them and then they decided not to go forward because of whatever their business reasons were in exercising those options. MR.KIRBY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there was a statement that they were--they vacated because their z rent was raised,but it sounds like their rent raise,if that was part of the lease,was something that was there for a long period of time, MR.KIRBY: Yes,sir. M CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second thing,in 1998,did you own this plaza? MR. KIRBY: No,we did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you bought the plaza,did you buy it from a conglomerate of people that occupied the different parcels there,or was it just one seller? MR.KIRBY: Just one seller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because there was a series of SDPs issued for each building that CO went in. I was trying to understand how those SDPs connected with the owner at the time,because you would probably have inherited all the owners'obligations,rights,and other conditions at the time you bought the property. And the reason I'm asking that question, it leads directly into one of the issues staff brought up regarding the preservation of that one corner,and I wanted to know when you had gotten it. So you acquired E it but,apparently,you weren't aware of that preservation requirement? a MR. KIRBY: No, we were not. We acquired it in 2006,just for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Great. Thank you. ; MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Mr.Chairman, Planning Commission members. I'm Wayne d Arnold with Q. Grady Minor&Associates,professional planner assisting on the case. s Before you is an aerial photograph that has the master concept plan that's proposed superimposed on it so you can sort of see the context and the fact that it is going to be a complete demolition of the existing principal structure except for the building that's occupied by the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant. And so it is going to be a complete renovation of the shopping center parcel. Just to be clear, when you were asking about Kite's acquisition of the property,they do not own the outparcels that have been developed on the property. The Dunkin'Donuts,Chevron station,the Burger King, and what was Chrissys restaurant are not owned by Kite Realty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They do own the former Office Max site,or the building still standing? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. They do own the Office Max she and,of course,now they do own the former FOOT parcel at the corner of Peters and U.S.41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they purchase the Office Max site from Office Max? MR.ARNOLD: No,sir. I believe that was just a land lease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lease? Page 7 of 51 Packet Pg. 109 9D.7 November 3,2016 MR.ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR.ARNOLD: This project goes back several years and,of course,goes back to 1985. There was an insubstantial change to the plan development that occurred in 1995. I think I have that exhibit. Unfortunately,the recordings from that era didn't always include the master plan. But I'm going to put up a 1995 master plan just so it's clear what we have. And you can see,there were some pretty details with regard to the layout of the proposed building which originally was occupied by Walmart and then occupied by Albertson's. And this,of course,if you look at it,didn't really even contemplate even having the Office Max building where it's currently located. But wanted this to be in the record because it shows you some of those details that we're dealing with. And I wanted to point out,as Rich mentioned,that we're in disagreement with staffs recommendation on this preserve requirement. And I think you'll note from not only 1985 but the 1995 amendments,there are no preservation areas indicated on that plan. That's our proposed master concept plan that reflects the new what would be Sam's Club-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's upside down. MR.ARNOLD: --box, if you will. You're right. Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You'd think Rich was putting it up there. y MR.ARNOLD: I know. I usually leave those details to Mr.Yovanovich,but... MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fair. MR.ARNOLD: The project— I'll just go through it. There are three access points on U.S. 41 for the project. Those will remain. We have two access points on Peters Avenue. And with the proposed Sam's U Club site plan that I'm going to show you in a moment,we can close the southernmost access point on Peters with that plan. We didn't close it on our master concept plan simply because if the Sam's Club doesn't N materialize, we do think it's a functional access point that may be necessary for other tenants, but for the +, Sam's Club it is not. a So it might be appropriate for us to add a condition somewhere along the way, if you're inclined,that would allow us to close that access point if the Sam's Club approval comes through. l'm going to put up a more detailed plan that Kimley-Horn developed for the property. It's got some ce color. It's easier to talk through some of what's going on. ri There's a deviation in your packet that talks about signage,and the essence of that is simply to add signage,which we're allowed to do,but the tenant panel structures that are there today support multi-tenant panels for shopping center.Those aren't necessarily the same signage that would be required for a large anchor tenant that's not technically a shopping center, so we've asked for those sign structures to remain, in essence,as they are. U And I think Kimley-Horn did a really nice job of putting your deviation packet together. I think you U all did receive it. So Pm not going to go through every'one of those deviations. But you can see in each of U those deviations a detailed explanation of what it is,and then a keyed exhibit shows you a cross-section,for instance,or, in essence,the picture of the facility itself. E On the master plan,just because we're going to have, I'm sure,more discussion on that point,the area that is in question for our preserve requirement that's been brought up by staff is located here. That is located sort of in the southwest area of what would have been the Office Max building,and it is encumbered partially with a drainage easement today that connects to the Haldeman Creek drainage easement. And as Rich mentioned-- I don't know how many of you made a site visit. I'm no tree expert,but I've been back there, and there's not a whole lot of redeeming vegetation that's located in that area. And I think what staffs referring to are some statements that were made as part of the approval process for the Office Max that call out certain existing vegetation to remain on those plans. That was fine for Office Max. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for the Sam's Club proposal. We have some water management restrictions both through the Water Management District and your own Collier County codes that require certain discharge rates. And Kimley-Horn,who are your design engineers for this project,have determined that we need that area to satisfy some of our detention requirements for the project. And it may be possible to allow some of Page 8 of 51 Packet Pg. 110 9D.7 November 3, 2016 the vegetation to remain. But I was back there again this morning,and I saw three sabal palm trees and one oak tree that's located generally in that area. And I'll stand to be corrected by,you know,Mr. Lenberger, who's your environmental staff person who's looked at this, but I don't believe it complies with your LDC requirements to be retained as a preserve,and it was not part of the original approval for the PUD to be preserve in any way. Part of the project also discusses the gas component,and that's located on sort of the southern portion of the site near the southernmost access point to the facility. We've asked for a deviation from your separation criteria because,one,we don't have a separate tract line for what would be the gas component here,and we have the Chevron gas station that's located at the signalized entrance on U.S.41 to the project. So we don't meet your 500-foot spacing criteria,but part of the justification for this is simply that Sam's Club has committed this to be members-only fuel component for the project. It is not open to the public. It will have restricted hours of operation consistent with their other Sam's Club operations,and so it's not your typical gas convenience store with 24-hour services that have been discussed and, I believe,why many of your regulations were written regarding the separation criteria. o I wanted to give a little visualization,too,of the project. These are in your packet as well,but they L show the architectural concept for the new Sam's Club facility. We have a sign deviation that was involved in the building itself,and that was simply in reference to the way the building is oriented, whether or not we had two frontages on U.S.41 or not. Your staff is supporting that deviation.and we certainly hope you will, too. The only deviation--I just wanted to give you a better orientation— I think,was to the U gas/convenience. And we've created a cross-section that applies to the buffers,but it plays into the concept of gas. And this was your Deviation No. 10. And we show two cross-sections on that exhibit that are near the c, gas component that are highlighted in red, but it shows you a cross-section. And we've split up the buffer requirements that are typical for your gas convenience when they're within 250 feet of residential to show that a we've actually--we have the wall,we have landscaping,but it's separated by another dry detention area that _, Kimley-Horn has designed. But this gives you an orientation of what that looks like. Across on that same deviation exhibit,we've also highlighted what that cross-section will be along Peters Avenue. And that was important because we heard from folks that they really wanted the vegetation to remain as much as we could, and there's an existing chain-link fence back there.Those will remain. One thing I did want to point out that wasn't reflected on our master plan as well but it's highlighted here: In the back of the building there's going to be an emergency fire access,and that's going to be a ;; stabilized green area,it's my understanding, but I think,too,with regard to the condition we had that I mentioned to you about the closing of a second Peters Avenue access, it might be worthy for us to either note E the emergency access location on our master plan so that's clear that it's not going to be another access point a on Peters but for emergency access to the building. But I wanted to point that out while we are discussing that. You know, Rich mentioned,too,that we are in an activity center. I know that there was discussion at aa) our neighborhood information meeting. We also reached out to the Bayshore CRA to have a presentation to them back in the month of September. They were on hiatus during the summer.We normally would have had our neighborhood information meeting coinciding with one of their advisory board meetings. it couldn't occur that way because of our summer schedule that they keep for meetings,but we did talk to them again in September,and they took a consensus vote,and that was supported 4-3 by their advisory board. I know that I saw a comment from one of the advisory board members that the vote was 4-4,but the minutes clearly reflect that it was a 4-3 vote supporting Sam's Club. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you bring those minutes with you? MR. ARNOLD: I think I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that piece of the vote on the overhead so we can take a look at it. MR. ARNOLD: Let me find it. I don't know how well it will translate. It's black and white with a shadow. But it's in the top paragraph, last sentence,and it reflects that the advisory board took a consensus vote and supported it 4-3. Page 9 of 51 Packet Pg. 111 9.D.7 November 3,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR.ARNOLD: And that--till just put it on the face page of that memo so you can see. That was from the Bayshore/Gateway September 13th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went on their website,and I couldn't find some of the recent meetings; that's why I'd asked. MR. ARNOLD: 1 couldn't either. I called Shirley Garcia there and asked for a copy of those minutes. So I appreciate her sending those. One of the other things I wanted to mention,you know,there was commentary at the meeting about making this Mercato South or making this a boutique hotel or making it something other than a Sam's Club. And while all that's well and good,that's not the reality of the marketplace that Mr.Kirby discussed,and you're at the—you're on a major highway at a major intersection. We're in an activity center. It started out as big-box retailer as Walmart. It's,you know,evolving back into a Walmart property at this point for Sam's Club which,obviously,they've done their demographics. They know they can co-exist with the Walmart across the street. You heard Mr.Kirby indicate that there are other properties that they control that have them sharing the same piece of property,because one's a membership club. The other's open to the public. One o sells bulk;one sells non-bulk supply,so they cater to two different markets,and we believe there's room in N the marketplace for both. One of the other things I wanted to mention regarding the gas station,the gas station formerly,as Rich mentioned,was at the intersection of Peters and U.S.41 on the C3 portion that we're adding to the site. We had Kite do an exercise to take a look at whether or not we could move our gas component back to that same location. This is an exhibit that— U CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's upside down again. M MR.ARNOLD: There. Thank you, Dan. You can see we've outlined to the left of your screen an area that puts the gas canopies closer to Peters and U.S. 41,taking it away from the southern portion of the site. Not ideal for Sam's Club nor the community. Here's an alternate that we think is much more likely to develop. This shows—in this rendition it's a coffee shop concept with a drive-through component that can also fit on that third-of-an-acre parcel that we're bringing into the PUD,and we believe this functions better for the community,and we think the gas canopy ri where it's located on the southern portion of the site functions better for Sam's Club and the community because it doesn't bring gas pumps front and center on your street and,clearly,it doesn't have to be since it's a member-only fueling opportunity for members. So I wanted to highlight that and better explain what it is that we're trying to do and why we think it's better to do that here. v The other thing I wanted to mention--because some of the information that 1 saw somehow thinks v that we're going to be these boutiques and small shops,but clearly the Land Development Code doesn't U support that concept because it exempts PUDs that were in existence prior to 19%from those new requirements, and it also says that amendments thereto and additional properties can be added to those E without being subject to those Bayshore requirements. So I believe that we are consistent with your Land Development Code,and we're clearly consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. That's all I have. Thank you. Oh, I did want to address something. Rich had gone through the staff recommendations and indicated the only disagreement we had was with the preserve requirement. There was one other minor change,and that was Recommendation No.5 in your staff report on Page 20 of 21. That's the one that talks about the obligation to pay$50,000 for--toward a sidewalk on Peters Avenue. That says at the time of PUD approval within 30 days. We believe that should be from approval of the Site Development Plan for the Sam's Club. Don't really think it's fair for Kite Realty'to pay$50,000 toward a sidewalk if Sam Club doesn't materialize through their site plan. So I think staff will agree that the payment should really occur within 30 days of approval of the Site Development Plan,not PUD. And then,Heidi,I don't know if you--you were going to bring some language,and I don't know if it's an appropriate time to talk about the revision to the recommendation that was regarding the deviation on Page 10 of 51 Packet Pg. 112 9.D.7 November 3,2016 the utilities on our buffer.Okay,great. This related to the--the PUD was developed at a time when your buffer requirements were not the 20 feet they are now for activity centers,and we asked for a deviation for the parcel we're adding that was formerly owned by FDOT,and staff had recommended that we couldn't have any utility boxes and things of that nature within that buffer requirement. Going back and forth with staff recommendation,this is language that both Heidi and Rich and staff are in agreement that should be the condition for the buffer. And,Heidi, I don't know if you want to address that in more detail. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. Staff also reached out to the City of Naples that has utilities in that location,and most of the yellow language is what they asked to be placed in the PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it's city utilities? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First, Diane,would you please use the microphone. Thank you. y COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is that city utilities in this area? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. N CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the end of your presentation? MR.ARNOLD: It is. c CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just,what— 1 don't know who's going to answer this, �o but what kind of protection do they have on these tanks by code or state of art or whatever? They're near Haldeman Creek. And I know they probably have doubled walls or they put them in vaults or something like that. What do they do? N MR.ARNOLD: Probably better addressed by Greg Wilfong with Kimley-Horn,who's designing the site. MR.WILFONG: Good afternoon. Greg Wilfong with Kimley-Horn&Associates,the civil engineer on the project. The fuel station,they have very strict requirements for the containment systems for the tanks. Like you said,they are double-walled tanks. They're very safe for the public. I did see the concern about if the tanks spill,would it go in the creek,and I've never heard of a case where that happens with these types of tanks. I mean,like I said,they've very expensive systems,and they meet all the state and federal cn�, requirements for construction. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And there's a gap between the two walls,and somehow you E can tell if the inside tank is leaking into the outside tank? MR.WILFONG: Yeah. They have monitoring systems. In case there's breaks or ruptures,they have systems in place to notify them if there's issues within. There's also routine maintenance and inspections that they have as part of normal operations for the tanks. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks. MR. WILFONG: No problem. ce CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another question since we're talking about tanks. Buoyancy; how are you preventing them from buoyancy problems? Should water rise and cover,say,that land,so they don't pop out of the ground like a swimming pool,what if it wasn't anchored in by piling? MR.WILFONG: Yeah. I don't design them myself, but in the plans I've seen from the fuel station designers,they have straps and they have concrete to basically hold them down within the trench. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would he my expectation--1 have put some of those tanks in--that the concrete foundation pad that the anchors come out of then the anchor bolts go into is thick enough and heavy enough so that it offsets the buoyancy issue with that tank. MR. WILFONG: Yeah. I mean, they're designed for buoyancy,and during the permitting process they have all calculations and details provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They're designed for buoyancy up to the water reaching a Page 11 of 51 Packet Pg. 113 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 certain level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,at least that's the ones that I've had to deal with,that's how they were designed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So that would be like basically ground level or a foot above or something like that? MR.WILFONG: Yeah,that's correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. In a surge,that might not be enough,but it depends on how high the water gets. MR. WILFONG: Yeah,that's correct. The water table is generally four to five feet deep right now from existing grade,and the tanks are,you know,eight, 10 feet deep. They're large tanks. So it doesn't do anybody any good if the tanks rise,so they fasten them down and they take all the preventative measures w necessary. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But even if they did rise,they probably wouldn't leak o because of the--well,no. Okay. It's okay. Thanks. MR. WILFONG: Thank you. N CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you put other tanks in the area or areas like this? MR. WILFONG: I work in a lot of projects for Sam's and Walmart,and they have the same type of tanks and same type of designs all across the country. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,one of the concerns that I'd seen is that they were worried about tanks U being this close to Haldeman Creek, as an example.Now,the tanks I've put in in the past were right on the M water. They were in bays,right next to the bay,so I understand how that can get done,but I was just N wondering if you have any experience or know any place in Collier County where there are similar locations to this where you are that close to a tributary. But,apparently, if you're just doing Sam's-- MR WILFONG: I'm not aware of any here. We have put these tanks very,very close to walls that are—you know,there's walls and creeks behind—you know,naturally sensitive creeks behind them.I mean, we've done this much closer than what this is showing now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 know it can be done. I was just curious if you had any experience. MR. WILFONG: Not in this county,but others Ido, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody--Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question on Deviation No.7. You have the details on what E- the sign will look like--and I'm asking in regards to the 25-foot remaining. What would you be required to have put—to replace this with if you were to comply with the code? I can't recall what the--we have a lot of war wounds over the years with signs and sign ordinances and requirements. This is asking for the large U signs to remain. Is that a--and it seems to be a special consideration then. Okay. Great. MR. WILFONG: Yeah. This is the detail here.I believe Mr.Kirby could give you maybe a better E idea of what's going to be there. Right now they just want to have an empty box for future. We have the Buffalo Wild Wings under the Sam's,then there's an extra panel there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the old sign would be replaced with the one on the right; is that what you're saying? Okay. MR.KIRBY: Yeah. The structure of the existing sign will remain. We're going to re-skin it and re-cover the existing panels with what you see on the right-hand side there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for clarity then,the justification is simply replace and use the existing structure? MR.KIRBY: Yes,sir,to re-use the existing structure and re-skin it,make it look more current and modern in time to the architecture of the anchor tenant behind it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, what would--what would have been required if this were to come down?It would be a low-profile sign,would it not,Dan? MR.SMITH: Correct. Monument sign. Page 12 of 51 PacketPg. 114 9D.7 November 3, 2016 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Monument sign,okay. MR.KIRBY: Dan,do you know off the top of your head what the height requirement is? MR. SUMMERS: I don't know that. MR. KIRBY: I believe it's 20,but I don't know for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It varies. If this is considered a shopping center,it's one height. If it's not, it's a different height,so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: As long as the gentleman is there from Kite, I have a couple questions. Do you monitor the shopping center after it goes in for appearance and cleanliness? MR. KIRBY: Yes,we do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And did you try and buy out the gas station? MR.KIRBY: No,we did not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You did not try and buy them out. And I notice there is one little sliver of land behind on Peters Street. Did you talk to those people 3 about buying that portion out so you could have a nice angle to this? MR. KIRBY: Yes,we did. We couldn't make it make sense economically. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. co CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I was at the site yesterday. It's another-- I forgot to disclose v, that earlier. I did notice that piece of property,and I was wondering why you didn't buy it. But it's a mess. Someone's certainly not taking care of it. And talk about problems where things aren't being maintained,that particular parcel is not. e Thank you. MR.KIRBY: Thank you. M COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Where is that parcel located? N CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's to the north end on the left-hand side of the master plan. It's a notch cut out of Peters Street. a) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? °' (No response.) co CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few,but let's start with the environmental issue on the preserves. "? You had--Wayne,you brought up the preserve issue. You showed the master plan where none were required. What is your concern when you have the option of doing it offsite? MR.ARNOLD: Well, I think,one,we disagree that there's even a preserve requirement obligation for the property,first and foremost;secondarily,the square footage we're talking about that's outside of the E existing drainage easement, literally,is a couple thousand square feet. I don't know how I go buy a couplea. thousand square feet of property to preserve something that,honestly, I think the other consideration that you have in your code is simply where you don't have native habitat and you have trees on your site that are native. 4E a) You have the ability to do tree preservation or tree relocation. And I think you heard Mr. Kirby say that those are our potential options. I think when you look at the trees that are there,like I said,rm no tree expert, but I saw three sabal palm trees that are overgrown and don't look well manicured,as maybe you wouldn't find in a preserve anyway,and one oak tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a limitation on buying offsite preservation? I'm not aware of it,so you just haven't-- have you looked? MR.ARNOLD: I don't believe we have looked. Rich, I'll let you weigh in on that. MR.YOVANOVICH: One, Mr.Strain, we don't believe the code requires that we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got that loud and clear,but we're not to that part of it yet. I just want to understand,did you look offsite to find whatever you need if this were to go offsite? MR.YOVANOVICH: We have not. But through other experiences I have with going offsite,you not only have to find somebody who wilt sell you just 3,000 square feet,which I think will be difficult to convince someone to sell you just that small of a sliver,and then you've got to fmd a state or a governmental Page 13 of 51 Packet Pg. 115 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 agency that will take the 3,000 square feet for purposes of ongoing maintenance,because we've most recently �. got an interpretation on a different project that when we had originally proposed that it be maintained by the property owner,the existing property owner,we're having to go back and rediscuss that with staff. So now I've got to find someone to sell me 3,000 square feet,then I've got to find a state or federal agency who wants the 3,000 square feet.,and those all are additional expenses to the property,and they're not required under the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that piece,I guess,then--let's tackle that. Ray,would you—this is for the overhead. I would like you to put the first page on first,and then I'll ask you to put the second page on. The reason I asked the people from Kite Realty if they were involved in the—when they got involved in the site and if they inherited the previous conditions of the site is because in 1998,No.2, petitioner shall retain--this is when they came in for the Office Max. And then you had the ability to retain it on site or mitigate it. You chose not to mitigate it,so you retained it on site. And,of course,now you're w indicating that that retention on site isn't required. It was in 1998. Ray, could you put the second overhead on,please. -a That was in May 15th, 1998,the document I just showed you,and that's-- if you look at the upper left-hand corner,you'll see that that's July 1st of 1998. This is in response,I believe,to that request by N environmental staff. And,basically,you'll see some highlighted points on this. Those are the two preserves. And the upper right one,the larger one with the arrow pointing to the area,it says,there's approximately 83,800 square feet of mature existing vegetation comprised of large oak trees, pines,palmettos,cabbage palms, et cetera, per county code,8380 square feet of vegetation will be preserved on site. This plan reflects U 9339 square feet of the preserve along the southwest corner and the east corners of the site. It is understood that if the required vegetation is unable to be preserved,that additional native plantings will need to occur,including,but not limited to,14-foot canopy trees and 5-gallon shrubs. Now,I've heard Mr.Arnold say this is kind of a worthless area in regards to vegetation. It wasn't supposed to be. And I don't mind you moving it offsite to accommodate the plan,that you're talking about if the plan gets approved,but I think fighting that issue on the grounds it wasn't required doesn't seem to be--coincide with the information I found yesterday in the county records, and this is after going through all the files in the county's records office there after we spoke. I didn't know about this information at the time I ri met with you; otherwise, I would have told you about it. So that's why I think that you either need to take it offsite or figure out a way to preserve it on site as m requested in 1998. MR.YOVANOVICH: That was a Site Development Plan you just brought up,correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct,from the Office Max facility. C., MR. YOVANOVICH: And I get that. In that particular Site Development Plan.that was agreed to. U You can amend site development plans— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.YOVANOVICH: —to make changes. That doesn't mean that that was a code requirement at E the time that was required. Staff has taken the position,as I understand it, is that in the old days,if you didn't have—the Comprehensive Plan didn't have the detail it has now as to the amount of percentage. So they say Q anything you agree to in a Site Development Plan becomes your preserve requirement. And we're coming in with a new Site Development Plan,and we believe we have the right to modify those provisions according to the code. And we're saying according to the code, we can either relocate those trees on site or leave them, if we can,or relocate them on site under the current code. And I think you're allowed to modify the Site Development Plan consistent with the existing code requirements. So that's all we're proposing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I thought I heard Wayne,and I thought you as well, indicate that the code didn't require this preservation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you look at the box—or look at the yellow highlighting it says,per county code, 8380 square feet of vegetation will be preserved on site. So it does look like the code did Page 14 of 51 Packet Pg. 116 9.D.7 November 3,2016 require it. The fact it wasn't on your master plan is kind of like a lot of arguments I hear from different people presenting to us that some of these details they'll take care of the SDP level. Well,this one did. MR.YOVANOVICH: And your code today does not require that we maintain this area as part of the preserve. So we're coming in and modifying an existing Site Development Plan. We are consistent with today's code. And what always happens,Mr.Strain,is you apply the code in effect at the time the Site Development Plan comes in. We're coming in with a Site Development Plan,and the code in effect today doesn't require the preservation of the preserve. You can't say you're going to apply some of the current code provisions to us and then apply others of the code provisions tows at the Site Development Plan level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The premise under which you-all started your discussion this morning was that the code doesn't require this preservation— MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct it hasn't changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and clearly the code did at the time of that SDP. v, So when staff gets up here--Mr. Lenberger's here today--I will definitely ask him to comment on the code provisions today in regards to this issue. In the overall scheme of things, I'm surprised, like I have been in other projects lately, that some of us these issues are even being brought to the aggravated issue that they are,because it's a minor tweak to the operation.Basically,you go out and you get a— if you have to buy an acre and you give up 3,000 of it and you save the rest for another project,however,that happens— you have other clients that have got a lot of land out east. There's ample ways you might be able to find a small piece of land. I think it's a minor point that you're making the issue about,but we'll proceed. �? MR.YOVANOVICH: But,Mr.Strain,when we get to you,we have gone through many,many r, other issues that pertain to the development of the project,all of which have an impact on the financial N viability of the project. For example,the sidewalk issue. That was a long,protracted discussion regarding Q. the sidewalk issue. So everything that happens as we go through this project adds to the expense of developing the project and,over time,you have to say--and I think I misused a metaphor the other day,but over time you have to say,enough's enough. We don't think the code requires it today. Let's go to the Planning co Commission and ask the Planning Commission if the code today requires us to preserve those four trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I'm going to defer to Mr. Lenberger when we get to staff report on that issue,so... MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that,there's a couple of other issues I'd like to clear up and involve the discussion that--with Mr.Arnold,I would assume,or whoever wants to answer it as we go through it. a The master plan in regards to the--and you can pull that plan off, if you don't mind. And the one below it's probably the—that master plan will work. Well,the one that's in the packet will probably work v even better. Nope,that's not it. How about the outline that's in the--that's labeled Exhibit A,master plan. There it is. Okay. Just so I understand the details,what were—what you're proposing is that the double arrows to the furthest one in on Peters Avenue would be eliminated,and an emergency access exit would be shown in the back of Sam's Club for emergency vehicles only and only if this project is approved as a Sam's Club, is that right,or approved subject to the changes today? MR.ARNOLD: Correct. And I just circled the access point that's in question and showed you the approximate location of the emergency access. And it does translate better on the other plan. I'll put that back up. So where I have my ink pen,you can see that that access on Peters Avenue no longer exists with the Sam's Club plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Under your transportation review,the$50,000 that you're being asked to pay in lieu of the sidewalk installation,that is typically what happens with other projects,so the payment in lieu of isn't an issue that I think is inconsistent with the way we treat other projects. But,again,if Page 15 of 51 Packet Pg.117 9.D.7 November 3,2016 you didn't—if this PUD doesn't get approved or this PUDA does not get approved,then that wouldn't be applicable, I would assume. MR.ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wayne,I have a question about the fire, I mean,because unless there is like a--is that all dry detention back there? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So all the green is dry detention. MR.ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But it's such a short area, I don't—you can maybe get a fire truck in there. And is there going to be a door going into Sam's there,or is this-- MR.ARNOLD: I'll let Greg try to address that. I know that they've had discussions with the emergency folks as they're working on the Site Development Plan. MR.WILFONG: I'll go ahead and point. Basically where that green patch is in the middle of the building,basically,is midway between both ends of the building. And we've met with the fire department o and,because of the length of the building and the hydrant spacing,and they wanted to add this road in. It's basically just a road that a fire truck can come in,basically,park and fight fires from the back of the building. N There's really no door there. It's emergency doors only,but we'll have a fence at the property line with a Knox Box so they can come in and open it,but it's not going to be used for anything else but for fire trucks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,that part I understand. I just wanted to know if there was a door U getting into Sam's,what the idea of it was. MR.WILFONG: They're just emergency doors. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. WILFONG: No problem. °- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, if you could turn to Section 3 and 4 of the amended language to the °iw—. PUDA. in Section 3 you had referenced a new developer by the name of KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC, but in Section 4,the old developer's name appeared four times. To be consistent, I think you don't want Collier Development Corporation there. You really want to substitute KRG there,or developer,or something ri of that nature. I mentioned this to you the other day. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah,you did. And I think—in that section it's probably easier to use the term "the m developer," because the reference to KRG Development was actually as the owner but,you know,the owner may not always be the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: So there are four references in that one paragraph that say"Collier Development v Corporation"that we could certainly modify to say "the developer." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? c COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wayne, I have a question.How many parking spots are there? E CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get to that in a minute,if you want. ca MR.ARNOLD: Ni let Greg address that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some questions,too.But as I get through my questions,you may find some of yours answered. On your principal uses,you're adding the membership warehouse club,and I understand that you're doing that as, I think the phrase was"belts and suspenders," but I did notice that principal uses that are already allowed on the site for were automobile service stations,food markets,department stores,and variety stores,all of which probably fits the use that you're putting there. And I think you're just adding this for clarification then because you had to come in here today anyway; is that a fair statement? MR.ARNOLD: That's correct. We want to make it very clear that a membership warehouse club is permitted, because you don't find a separate SIC code for it and it doesn't appear on the list of uses. So,you know,we want to make it abundantly clear who we are,what we are,and what we want it to be. Page 16 of 51 Packet Pg. 118 9.D.7 November 3,2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In Page 7 of the PUD amendments, it's just a coordination issue. We've previously referred to a drawing,91-223. It was not included in our packets. I found it in county records. It's the original site plan that was amended by 95-3 three years later. So in A,I'm not sure how you want to clarify that, because 91-223 doesn't have the Burger King or the-- it has the Burger King but not the Dunkin'Donuts on it, which is interesting because you went through a PD1 process to get the Burger King added,but there wasn't one for the Dunkin'Donuts,and that still shows up on maps as a parking area,although it's another building. It's old news. It's done and over with. But you may want to clean A up to reference the two drawings that were part of'91 --or both the'91 drawing and the'95 drawing. MR. ARNOLD: Would it be simply easier to strike the reference to the formers and just say simply, "the master plan is preliminary"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,and reference your— I'm fine with that. Okay. Now,I guess the question that Diane was getting to,if look at the plan that's there,Diane, I actually went through and tried to count up the parking spaces,and there's seven hundred and--approximately 706. What do you guys come up with for your parking spaces? 2 MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Greg address the parking calculation. cci) MR. WILFONG: Currently on the parking lot there's in the mid 600s right now. We're still ai fine-tuning the parking lot,but we will meet Collier County's parking codes for uses for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know you will. I think she was just asking how many do you think you have. MR. WILFONG: In the mid 600s right now for the shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now. The plan that's here-- MR. WILFONG: Oh,no. I'm sorry. The proposed project has about in the mid 600s right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between you've got 40--between Chrissy's and the Chevron--former Chrissy's and the Chevron,you've got, I think,40 spaces right there. So you're going to be more than that's there today by—based on what I can tell on this plan,if that gets to your question,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then my—the next question is going to be mostly concerning your `° deviations. On your Deviation I,a question comes up on this one because of the overhead that was provided "? with it,or the graphic. Can you put that number one graphic back up. MR. WILFONG: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Over on the left side you have a bulk or, like,an outdoor storage area shown just to the north of the pump house. E MR. WILFONG: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan,just to the north of that. North is—there you go. That's where you're going to be storing some miscellaneous pallets and stuff like that from what I can tell.Then south of that you've got a pump house which,I believe,is to service the round circle,which is a rather large water tank. MR.WILFONG: Yes. That's correct,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's my understanding that the fire flows aren't sufficient enough,so the fire department's making you install these two things,and you're right across from the government center? MR. WILFONG: Well,currently,we are looking at the possibility of not having a tank or a pump house at this time. The pressures out there right now are lower than Sam's requires for their sprinkler system for the building. They have to meet certain requirements for flows at the base of the fire riser coming in the building. But we're hopeful that we can get the tank eliminated once we finalize the design for the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said Sam's requires for the flows. Do you mean Sam's or the fire department? MR. WILFONG: Well,the fire flows at the hydrant,they require 20 PSI,2,000 GPM for four hours. With the existing water conditions out there now,with the systems in place,we're barely meeting any of the codes right now. The water system is--the pressure's pretty low. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you kept you just said "they required." "They"being the fire department or Sam's? Page 17 of 51 Packet Pg.119 • 9D.7 November 3,2016 MR.WILFONG: Sam's has more stringent requirements than fire--than the county,but it's basically from an insurance standpoint they have to have those pressures for their sprinkler systems,for the goods,for the racking inside the store. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got no problem with it. I'm just trying to understand who's demanding— MR.WILFONG: Sam's insurance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --these flows,because the flows in this area,we're in a building right now directly across the street. If you haven't got the flows over there,I'm just wondering how we even met our conditions,so that's kind of where I was going. But if it's your own standards,that's fine. You've got better standards than the minimum,that's even better. MR.WILFONG: We've had numerous meetings with the fire and City of Naples water,and we're doing our best not to have the tank there,believe me. It's very expensive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a wall behind that outdoor storage area there. It doesn't show--I think it shows up on the arrow that's going to the left on another plan. I think it's a 10-foot masonry wall. Do you have any objection to continuing that masonry wall down to the corner that is passed,the—where the white ends pass the fire tank? ai Now,the reason for that is if--whether the tank's there—if the tank's not there—yeah,your N 10-foot-high screen wall,that needs to be continued past the tank to where the green starts.And the reason I'm suggesting that is is because you would have then a complete wall backside. The next wall that would pick up will be the backside of the building,which is solid. And the next wall that picks up after that is the screen wall on the opposite side. And if you fail--say you don't put in that tank and you don't need it after all,that's going to make it worse for that loading area to have noise to the neighbors across the street. If the tank's there,the tank itself N provides some,but you would still need a wall up to where the tank touches that,you know--doesn't complete the wall segment. So I think it's necessary to put a wall in there to assure that you've buffered the noise as much as you can from those truck areas. MR.WILFONG: Yes. Sam's could commit to extending the wall if the tank does not go there,to have a continuous wall there. t'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it would be extend the wall to the tank regardless,and if the tank's not there,you'd take it past the tank to the edge of the drainage area. That's what I'm suggesting. MR.WILFONG: That would be acceptable. _ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to Deviation No.2,Deviation No.2 is seeking relief from a section of the code involving landscape buffers between lots that—with abutting properties,and it's referring a to--there will—you're saying you'll do an 8-foot-wide average buffer,internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the conceptual master plan with each property contributing four feet. There are no separately platted tracts in this PUD,so what is it you're referring to? MR. WILFONG: As far as the actual detail, let me— E CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,why don't you put the other site plan up that gives us all the tracts. I 1.3 understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to substitute the buffers on both sides of that drive aisle to make up for some of the buffer area that you believe this requires. What I'm trying to figure out,by the language you've got here,where do you believe you have separately platted tracts within this PUD? Because there aren't any. MR. WILFONG: Could we say separately owned tracts? I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be helpful. MR.WILFONG: --maybe the wording--yeah,that would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN EBERT: I have a question,as long as that's up there,on Deviation 3. I noticed in looking at home last night,it looks like to the east of Chevron—and I followed this through—is that drainage kind of coming around? There's little hatch lines in there that comes around. And as you even see where the existing Dunkin'Donuts is and stuff,and then it goes toward the side there. Page 18 of 51 Packet Pg. 120 9D.7 November 3, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think those are sidewalks, Diane. You're talking about-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are sidewalks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's a sidewalk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so. Deviation No.2,Dan,the crosshatching that goes at the Chevron station in the right lower left corner where you see it going across the roadway with the lines,that looks like the sidewalk that continues from U.S.41. CHAIRWOMAN EBERT: That's sidewalk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Just the crosshatching. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. All right. Just checking. MR.WILFONG: Crosshatching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to Deviation No.3, if you could put that one on the overhead. Were you intending these deviation exhibits to be added as exhibits to the PUD,or are we going to rely on c the deviation language that's in the PUD? Because if these exhibits are to be added,they've got to be cleaned up. There's more detail than just pertaining to the deviations. Generally we leave the deviation language in, ai and the exhibits are just for explanations like we're having here today. MR.KIRBY: That was the original intent of these exhibits is to help explain and add to the discussion. o CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was hoping. Thank you. v Because this particular exhibit,or this particular graphic has a lot more information on it than we co would need to address the deviation. I didn't want to go sideways with suggesting that all that stuff has been co checked out,because we're only looking at it for the deviation. The proposed six-foot screen wall that's to the right of the Sam's Club diamond in the middle,you have the arrow going to the south piece,but that continues up along the other side as well;does it not? MR.KIRBY: Yes. As Dan's pointing out, it follows the edge of the parking lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the blue is the fence.The wall itself is that black line inside closer to `co the parking lot;is that right? 06. MR.KIRBY: Yes. The wall continues along that edge on Peters and then wraps around the edge of the parking lot to screen the headlights from the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I believe that's going to end up doing—and you're going to be completely walled off up to the edge of Tract E. E MR.KIRBY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your exhibits you keep referring to this as a screen wall. You v really need to refer to it as either a masonry or concrete wall. MR.KIRBY: The intent was concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know--yeah. I was told that,and I thought,well, I'm not sure if a screen wall is anything we know what it is,so... MR.KIRBY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm moving through the exhibits to make sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it's a concrete wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Masonry or concrete. MR.WILFONG: Yeah. Just to clarify,they're panel wall systems,and we paint them to match the building on both sides. So they tie nicely with the architecture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I notice on Deviation 6, in the justification you talk about the height of the wall,which will be six feet,but it will be approximately 10 feet above the grade of the nearby residential lots. Now,have you done surveys to verify that? Because if we specify 10 feet wall and-- 10 feet above the lots regarding of--with at least six feet of wall,will that function that way? MR.KIRBY: Yeah. We've run survey along the entire property line,the edge of the property out into the right-of-ways there,and it will be—the existing grade there--or the new grade will be four feet Page 19 of 51 Packet Pg. 121 9D.7 November 3,2016 above those adjacent grades,and then we'll have a six-foot wall on top of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're also—I notice that your proposed fuel center is 12 pumps maximum. Is that what you're proposing? MR.KIRBY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The exhibits that we're on right now,there are 22 pages. On the 15th page, there was a typical wall section shown. Sightline study,conceptual wall section. What was the wall section for? I can't figure out what that has anything to do with this exhibit unless maybe you could tie it in for me. MR.ARNOLD: Was that noted as Graphic A7 on the bottom of the one you're looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.ARNOLD: Mr. Strain,that graphic was added to simply show clarification of where the existing chain-link fence was and the vegetation that exists along Peters Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the wall section doesn't--and you're not intending anything with that wall section? MR.ARNOLD: No. The current PUD made allowances for chain-link fence to be along the property Fine,and some of the neighbors wanted it. We want it for protection of the water management area that's there,and the wall sections that we were talking about that would be the concrete walls are essentially co going on the back of the parking curb so that the other vegetation and fencing can remain. MR.KIRBY: Right. That wall section that's on that sheet refers to the wall section of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have--well,I think I've got some other questions of staff. Let me make sure I don't have anything further from you. By the way,is Sam's purchasing or leasing the property? V MR. KIRBY: It's a lease. It's a ground lease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. N Mr. Arnold,a question for you. Did you--weren't you on the City of Naples Planning Council,kind of like this commission except it's for the City of Naples? °- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I served on the Naples Planning Advisory Board. P"--• CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long? MR.ARNOLD: I think approximately four years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a comment from someone that said the City of Naples would never allow this kind of project. Is that a statement that you could support from your position as the former planning member of that city? MR.ARNOLD: Well,I can say in my tenure there,we didn't have any proposals from Sam's Club. There aren't a whole lot of vacant parcels that would be supportive,but I don't think there would be any prohibition under the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning code that would not allow a Sam's Club to come forward. av I mean, we have—in the City of Naples we have two—well,three major commercial properties. U You have Coastland Center Mall;you have the Naples Plaza Shopping Center,which is a Publix anchored center that went through a very major renovation a couple years ago;and then you have the Parkshore Plaza up in the Parkshore area that has several large anchor tenants. Burlington is one of the new ones. You have a Big Lots,you have other big-box stores. So I'm pretty confident that there's no prohibition on that if one were Q to be proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. That's all the questions I have at this time for the applicant. Anybody else have anything else they want to add? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not,we'll go to staff presentation. I think that's you,Dan. MR. SMITH: Okay. Is that me? Daniel Smith,principal planner. Zoning Services staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20120001515 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of an approval with the follow conditions: A.add Deviation 4 exhibit to the PUD document. This is a limited area of the Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot. This exhibit shall be part of the PUD. r. Page 20 of 51 Packet Pg 122 9D.7 November 3,2016 Two,we'll add the language that was submitted by the attorney's office regarding Deviation 9. Three is going to be revised to include in the environmental section of the PUD document,PUD Section 3.7,the commitment for.21 acres of preserve. Label the preserves as preserves on the PUD master plan LDC Section 3-05-07 H1A,and include the total acreage of preserve required for the PUD on the PUD master plan. If the required preserve is to be satisfied offsite, indicate so on the environmental commitments section of the PUD document and identify in the commitment the acreage of preserves required to satisfy offsite. Four,the proposed new revised parking island layout shown on the master plan is conceptual,and it is not part of the zoning petition approval.Review and approval of any proposed site changes,including,but not limited to,access entries,parking islands,and drive aisles shall be done at the time of site development order. Five,to address the proposed redevelopment project and existing roadway conditions on Peters Avenue,add the following commitment: The owner,its successors,or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five-foot sidewalk along Peters Avenue up to the sum of$50,000 which shall represent its payment in lieu consistent with LDC Section 606.02 for the entire site. Owners shall make payment to rn county within 30 days of approval of the PUD. Six,the development is limited to 662 total net new p.m.peak hour trips utilized in the TIS dated March 18th, 2016. Seven,for purposes of stormwater management,the proposed project shall be treated as a new development project;therefore,comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/detention criteria as the date of the PUD rezone approval. And eight,revised master plan relocating labels Deviation 3 and 5 outside the drainage easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any objection to those? And I know you're going Q. to object to No. 3. But how about the rest of them? MR.ARNOLD: Number 3 was the reference to the preserve. Yes,we object to that. And then No. 4 regarding the$50,000 payment, we believe that payment should be made within 30 days of approval of the Site Development Plan rather than the PUD. C9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's No.5. MR.ARNOLD: Number 5,sorry. cfr CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does staff agree with that? MR.BELLOWS: Yes. And I also would like an opportunity to have Eric Fey come in to address some revised language. E CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Eric's going to address,which one,No. 5,or come on up, Eric. a Thank you.Wayne. And that was the only objections you had than the ones you'd noted? MR.ARNOLD: Yes. MR. FEY: For the record,Eric Fey,senior project manager with Public Utilities Engineering and cu Project Management Division. I was not planning to speak today,so 1 do need to be sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) ca MR. FEY: I don't have any change to the language. 1 just wanted to clarify for the record.It was stated earlier that the City of Naples provides utility services to the project. They provide water service to the project. Collier County Water/Sewer District does provide wastewater service. That was the only issue I wanted to raise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Now, Dan, is there anything else? MR, SMITH: I have nothing else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That$50,000,these guys are going to be under major construction. You mean to tell me it's cheaper to give the county$50,000 than to build the sidewalk Pace 21 of 51 Packet Pg. 123 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 yourself? MR.ARNOLD: Well,there's more than just our construction issue. The CRA and the City of Naples are coming in to try to upsize the water lines,and that will include upgrading Peters Avenue to some extent. I don't know what the timing of that project is,but it may not coincide with our project timing. So the agreement was to pay in lieu of than physically constructing that sidewalk. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Was the 50,000 just for sidewalk,or is it for other stuff,too? MR.ARNOLD: No,it's for the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here I go with my overheads again. Mr.Bosi,if you don't mind. Ray,would you take these two overheads for me. Mr.Bosi's our zoning director,so 1 have asked him to—I want him to address a couple of zoning matters in regards to the CRA's involvement. Dan, if you could put that right side up and then bring up--there you go. That will work. cri Mike,this is the zoning map or zoning overlay map for the CRA,both Gateway Triangle and the Bayshore. The black dotted line that goes around the outside is your CRA boundary,and then the colors m N represent different segments of the overlays which are down towards the bottom of the page in colorations. And if you look at the bottom of the page--and you'll see that the activity center that involves both -_ the government center and the Sam's Club location are gray. They're not colored in. According to the legend at the bottom of this page,while it's within the CRA boundary--and Pm U sure that's to incorporate the TIF funding that gets the benefit to the CRA--they aren't in the overlay,so they aren't in the overlay part of the CRA colored criteria or any parts of it. Are you familiar with this? N MR.BOSI: Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Director. Yes,Chairman Strain. And I think for clarification,as you said,they're within the boundaries of the °. CRA,but the land use arrangements that are provided by redevelopment plan for the Bayshore CRA have not �^ indicated a alteration or an overlay for the land uses that are contained probably because they're existing uses and existing PUDs that both were locked for those properties and,as well,that they are part of an activity cc center that the Future Land Use Map provides for the range of allotted commercial and range of other land uses provided for within. CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Well,it seems that the abilities for the property in question,you know,are similar to the abilities that we have on the property we're on right now,because our entire—this building and all this government center is likewise within that gray area but not within the colored area that represents the overlay. MR.BOSI: I would agree with that,and I think the colored areas are those to express the intent and v to fulfill the direction of the redevelopment plan,and these two properties,or those properties,because of U their activity center designation,was separated out from that land use arrangement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And one other question. E Now,Dan,could you put the next map on. One of the things that the CRA has done is isolated out a corridor that is considered a cultural district `6 bound and that's what's hatched in the different colors, boundary, grays here,grays and blacks. Again,that's a different segment of the overlay. It doesn't include the property in question,but it does kind of lend itself to more the cultural aspects of the Bayshore area that I know--I was on this board when the Bayshore language was approved. I remember the intense discussions. In fact,this panel had long meetings on all the Bayshore issues with the director at the time. The corridor that's in—that shows here as the cultural district boundary was the central corridor of the Bayshore overlay where most of the focal for creativity,artistic,lofts,and things Iike that were occurring, including the Botanical Gardens. And I'm just showing that as a distinction between the way the rest of the overlay has not been included in those areas. So is that--this says proposed,and that was what I--I haven't been able to find any more. Did this get enacted? Page 22 of 51 Packet Pg. 124 9D.7 November 3,2016 MR.BOSI: I believe so,but I don't have the specific ordinance or resolution. I would have to do some research for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, I think that's all I've got to ask you. Thank you. Mike Sawyer. I know Mr. Sawyer has prepared some information in graphic form that we should receive the benefit of, if he doesn't mind. MR.SAWYER: For the record,Mike Sawyer,transportation planning. If you don't mind, I've got handouts I'd like to give you first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SAWYER: Actually, I think I'm going to do this the old-fashioned way and use the overhead. Okay. There we go. Just the fancy cover sheet,if you will.Basically, I'm just going to use this,if you don't mind,just as kind of a teaching moment and also to go over the project itself. Again,concurrency,which is what we always look at for transportation. You can see what we've got N on there. It gives you the resolution that we use as far as the TIS guidance. -a We do concurrency as defined in our Transportation Element and the GMP. We look at p.m. peak hour and peak directional traffic volumes when we're looking at the TIS that's provided. In this case, this project is also located in our transportation concurrency exception area. We don't y often get in a lot of new development in this particular area,but what it does allow is if the developer chooses 2 to,they can exempt themselves from concurrency. They do, however,need to meet certain additional mitigation that comes in with the project. It comes in at the time of SDP,however. We also looked at the area of impact,and this is basically just showing you what road segments we actually looked at. Principally,it was Airport and then also 41. Basically,we're coming down from Davis to v.) the north,down to the site,and then going from,again,Davis down to Rattlesnake Hammock. You've got this already in, I believe,the staff report, which basically just gives you what the volumes are,what we've got as far as capacities,and the actual road conditions as they are right now. We have already talked about some of the site conditions that we are recommending at this point. Basically,the layout,we're concerned about the revised parking island layout. We can do that at SDP. We just want to make it clear that the master plan is conceptual at this point,and we will make sure at the time of t° SDP that we are operationally making sure that the intersections on 41 remain open to traffic. `'' The second one,again,we've talked a bit about the$50,000 for the sidewalk. We agree that needs to be done at SDP or the Site Development Plan amendment in this case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the sidewalk or the donation? c MR. SAWYER: The donation,sorry. And, again,the developer is limited to 662 total net new trips. E Basically,just to clarify that just a little bit. There are actually 582 existing trips.They are actually adding 80 d new trips with the additional square footage for the total of 662;just so we're clear. And also,just as a reminder,when they do come in for the Site Development Plan,they will be providing a new TIS. We will also be looking at more operational issues at that time. That's real standard, but we like to reiterate that. Also,you know,again,if they do--they do have the opportunity,when they're coming in for the SDP,to avail themselves of the TCEA area and look at mitigation,if that's what they choose to do. Again, we look at that at time of SDP. Our understanding is they're not going to do that,but they do have that opportunity. Again,we do look at access at intersections. Major intersections was in 1,320 feet of the access points to the site itself and major access points for significant impacts to our roadways. In the nutshell.that's what I've got for you. If you have other questions,I'm here to answer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So under staff conditions it shouldn't have said total net new peak hour,just total peak hour? MR. SAWYER: Correct,yes. Just to be clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, we had a project come in a couple weeks ago that was in a TCMA, and it was the Arthrex project. And they had a similar situation where the traffic was more intense maybe in the area they were at,but as a whole under the TCMA, it hadn't reached the threshold that it was problematic Page 23 of 51 Packet Pg. 125 9.D.7 November 3,2016 as a big picture. How does a TCEA compare to a TCMA? Because it seems like it's a similar situation. MR. SAWYER: It tends to be somewhat similar. It's the distinction between having an exception area where we recognize that the road system itself does have capacity issues in and of themselves.And with the exception area, it actually is an option in or option out at that point. A lot of times when we're in the TCMA areas, it's not necessarily--or it isn't optional because we've got more of an area that we're trying to protect and make sure that we still retain a certain level of capacity, overall,within that particular area. We want to make sure that we're well above the 85 percent limit in the TCMA areas.We want to make sure we protect that 15 percent. In the example that you gave,we have 100 percent of the area at 100 percent currently in that area. But as we have more development,we're probably going to start eating into that 15 percent. We want to be very careful about that. And especially with the case of Arthrex,that was also on a evacuation route,and because of that,it really makes it imperative that they do provide some amount of mitigation no matter what amount of y additional traffic they're putting on the roadway system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any traffic questions? 03 MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? co CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think there might be some confusion on the number 662 and what it represents. My traffic consultant says the 662 is net new trips,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's being added to what's already there,allocated to the existing shopping center? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I have Mr.Banks explain that? Because I said the same thing you just M said. N CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So he's going to testify as a traffic engineer today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Today as a traffic engineer.Maybe later as a marketing consultant. I haven't decided. 53-, MR. BANKS: For the record,Jim Banks. Before I swear in,I think if Stan just repeats his question and let Mike answer it again just so-- 1 misunderstood the way you asked the question,and so did my client. co COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: His exhibit says total net new p.m.peak hour trips,and I ri thought it should just say total p.m.peak hour trips. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just swear in and explain,please. ct9 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to wonder why he wanted to avoid that swearing in so much. .- MR. BANKS: For the record,Jim Banks. To answer your question,Stan—and I think Mike's going to agree with me--the shopping center as v a whole with the proposed Sam's and,you know,the total of 165,000 square feet of retail,will generate 662 net new trips. Now,there's already 580 on the network that we account for,so there's--the incremental increase is E 80 net new. But the PUD document says the entire 165,000 square feet will generate no more than 662 net new trips,and we have to have the net new trips identified in that document because we have pass-by trips Q that we get to deduct that we don't count against the project. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: My misunderstanding was the term "new," meaning additional,and you're saying it's not net additional trips. It's-- MR. BANKS: That's the way-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSK1: —net new trips.Okay. I don't understand that, but I'll go with you. MR. BANKS: I'll clarify. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know what you do for a living. MR.BANKS: The net new additional trips is 80. The total net new trips that are generated from this site is 662. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's the use of the word "new"that was confusing me. Page 24 of 51 Packet Pg. 126 9D.7 November 3.2016 MR.BANKS: Right. But we have to leave it-- it needs to stay net new trips; 662 net new trips. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pm going to read very carefully when she takes her notes how this turned out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else,of Jim? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We're going to take a break for the young lady taking the notes so carefully. We'll come back at 10:50,after 15 minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you'll please take your seats,we'll resume the meeting. During the break I had a request from the County Attorneys Office to further clear up the discussion on Stan's question about net new trips,and I think it wouldn't be a bad thing for--to actually figure out and make sure we understand it. So I don't know who wants to address this. Mike? The net new trips versus the additional new trips versus what was on the site. I think it was said about 500 and some odd this site already had attributed to it, and now the net new trips are going to be 600 and something. ca So does that mean you've got I,100 trips total out of that site? I think that's kind of where we're trying to understand how that all fits together because of your terminology. MR.SAWYER: Yeah. Again,for the record, Mike Sawyer.Transportation Planning. We're still at 662. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still meaning--we weren't there before;662 what? co MR. SAWYER: Correct. That's the total —for lack of a better term,that's the total trips that are going to be generated by the development itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The entire project;the entire PUD? CN MR. SAWYER: Right. They're adding 80 new trips with the addition of the building that--the fl additional square footage that they're proposing with this petition totals 80 new trips. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Above the five whatever was previously allocated to this parcel. MR. SAWYER: Five eighty-two,correct,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the concern,then,with Jim's issue over insisting that it be termed net new trips because of pass-by traffic that wasn't there before? MR.SAWYER: I think it's,honestly, more of a terminology issue that—when they come with theur TIS for the SDP that it is clear. Transportation-wise,the way that we look at trips being put on the system,they're going to be able to put a total of 662 with the whole development that they're going to be coming in with. When you look at the E SDP,662 is going to be the number that they're going to be limited to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they already could put on five something regardless? MR.SAWYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why the significance "net new"? Because they're not all new. They're five something existing, which is old,and you've got 80 some odd new. So it's in the net new. It's gross. And then net is whatever the new is. Isn't that--I mean,why wouldn't you traffic engineers--other than for the sake of trying to confuse everybody,why wouldn't traffic engineers want to just use simple Q terminology? MR.SAWYER: That is an excellent question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark,I don't pursue issues like this not because I think I'm wrong or because I understand; it's just not worth it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately,there's people in the audience who may not understand it as well we even do,and I would rather it be real clear. And when I get a question from Heidi,who has been working in this industry forever—I don't know how--that's forever that I've known you—I want to—it definitely raises a concern. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well,someone has to administer this. So it's still not really clear to me whether you're talking about the trips for Sam's Club and the new,you know,parcel on the corner or the entire development,and I just want to make it clear,because,you know,someone has to administer this Page 25 of 51 Packet Pg. 127 9:D.7 November 3.2016 condition when they see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree. I didn't understand the unclarity until Mr.Banks tried to clarify it. And i now want to make sure that--why can't we word this in a more commonplace terminology? The project had existing trips,on top of that they're adding net new trips of 82 for a total of. MR. YOVANOVICH: Go to the TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no. Normally within the PUD we cap the trips,and I think it's the language that's capping the trips is posing the problem. MR YOVANOVICH: I understand that So why don't we, instead,attach the TIS as an exhibit,and the trips shall be consistent with the attached TIS. Because the TIS talks about existing, it talks about new, it talks about all of those things,and the numbers are not the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if you attach the TIS,then you know at SDP level you can't change it because you've got to come back and amend the PUD. r MR.YOVANOVICH: Well, Pm stuck at either you give me my net new,which is what the T1S a says-- ra CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're stuck at the net--you're stuck at the number in the TIS, but there's a co lot of other data in TIS,for example,on the AUIR that was used at the time,the benefits of intersection improvements,other issues that you may want to change down the future. If you include that as an exhibit, you're locked into all the language in it. MR.YOVANOVICH: Why don't we say Table B?Because if you look at the traffic study,okay, Page 4,it talks about the trips,and it's all--the"net new"terminology is what's been used. And that 662 is U key to that table. M So we can't—you have to--am 1 right,Jim?Where'd you go? You've got to key it to the appropriate N terminology in the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said Table B? MR. YOVANOVICH: No,I said Table--yes,Table B on Page 4. a) '` CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4. MR. BANKS: Pm going to take one more shot at this. ca CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Jim,you really did a good job on confusing it last time. ri MR. BANKS: I know, I see that,and Pm taking full responsibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it may be where you're headed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Marketing. MR. BANKS: You've called into question my marketing capabilities,and so now I see that you're going to call into question my traffic engineering capabilities. Okay. We are amending the PUD up to 165,000 square feet of commercial use. Currently there's I 40-some thousand square feet that generates approximately 580. I'm going to get rid of the word "net." It v currently generates 580 new trips.Now, in addition to the new trips,Mark,when you're on your way home and you say, I'm going to pull in here and I'm going to get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk and then you E go on home,that is not a new trip. That is Mark on his way home,exiting the road system,getting his milk and bread,and then going on home. We don't count you.You were already on the road network,okay. That's the terminology of new trips,okay. That's why it is critical that we're talking new trips, because when we prepare the Traffic Impact Statement for the SDP,when we calculate our trips,we determine new trips plus pass-by, but we get to deduct the pass-by,and that's the whole confusion. So you guys are dealing with the difference in the what's there today and the increase in 80 trips because we're adding some square footage. That is for better--for better lack of terms,that is truly net new increase of 80 trips. But, in total for that 165,000 square feet of that PUD,we are going to generate 662 new trips on the road network,and that—when we go in for SDP, Steve Baluch,that's what he's going to want to see,how many new trips does that 165,000 square feet generate. And it's already got 580 today it's generating,and we're going to add 80 more,and that adds to 662. COMMISSIONER CI-IRZANOWSKI: So of your 662 new trips, 580 are existing trips? MR.BANKS: Five eighty-two,yes. Page 26 of 51 Packet Pg. 128 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That makes no sense to me at all,but I'm not pursuing it any further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But look at the Table B.Table B starts out,existing trips, 582; existing and proposed,662,and it says net new trips,80. MR.BANKS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welt,you're saying the net new trips is 662. That's not what the Table B says. MR. YOVANOVICH: The table's called net new trips. MR. BANKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,look at the bottom line,net new trips,80. MR.BANKS: I will say this— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with it. MR.BANKS: We can get rid of the word"net"in the PUD document and just call 662 new trips 3 because-- o CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's even worse.And I think the problem is,the way you're looking L at it is any change in land use other than trees and agriculture what was there is new to the system, and so Cl) anytime you bring that in,it's all new trips to the system as had originally passed that property; is that-- MR. BANKS: Okay. Well,again,yes. Let's just leave it at we're happy with the way the PUD document read. It was when Stan asked his question about net new,he just said it's total trips. No,the total trips are actually more than 662,because there's pass-by trips as well. And so we're happy with the way the PUD document reads,that it says,we will not exceed 662 net new trips. We will not exceed that number for the 165,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm happy. MR.BANKS: All the traffic engineers are—the traffic engineers are happy with that language.We just--Stan caused the problem,not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know,this is happening a lot lately. It's not exotics;it's traffic now, and Stan gets on these—okay. Mike,how do you want to leave this? cc, MR.SAWYER: Staff would be fine with 662 new trips. We're going to be able to apply that at time c6. of SDP. t' We work with Steve Baluch on a weekly basis,so when this project does come in for an SDP,we'll be looking at it right hand in hand with him. Not to open up a wound that we've kind of already sutured up,but the planner in me might have a E little bit of insight. d Depending on what type of development you've got retail-wise,you're going to have an attractor that can have more of a regional impact. In other words,it's attracting people in a wider,more regional area,and it's going to have a different pass-by amount than a localized smaller center. It's going to have less--or the smaller center's going to have more pass-by because what happens on those local centers is people are going there as they're going back to their homes in the evening or leaving in the morning for that matter.They're actually doing—they're going into the center to get groceries or what Q have you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might want to caution you. MR.SAWYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan's being silent right now. We might as well just stop while we're ahead. MR. SAWYER: Yes, I said — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we understood that the language will change to, instead of"net new," it will just simply be"new trips." COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike. I do have a question for you. MR. SAWYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know Sam's on Immokalee--this is the one south,and I know people from Marco Island and from other places who will be very happy to come to the new Sam's. So it is not just Page 27 of 51 Packet Pg. 129 9.D.7 November 3,2016 pass-through. Because of where they're locating this,to me,you are going to get a lot of new traffic on this. MR.SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What happens if you go over the 662; would anybody really know? MR. SAWYER: No. The answer is no because,honestly,what we do is,all of our trip generation is based on ITE numbers that we've got. It's consistent with whoever is coming in. We look at what those averages are within Florida,and we look at what those numbers generate,and that's what we are—that's what we work with. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SAWYER: That's our code. For lack of a better term-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just saying it's going to— MR. SAWYER: --that's how we generate the traffic report. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If this gets approved, it is going to be attracting a lot of traffic,and it will probably help the one on Immokalee because the people that live south won't have to,you know,go up all that way,so that's the reason I ask that question. MR. SAWYER: It's a good point. And keep in mind,too,I mean,you know,with the AUIR, we -a keep track of what the traffic is on a yearly basis,and we do traffic— -_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're ahead right now. MR. SAWYER: What's that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're ahead right now;stop. -c MR. SAWYER: I'll leave now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've beat the traffic to death as far as we can. I'd like to have Steve U Lenberger come up if he's somewhere here. There he is. And, Steve,I know you heard the conversation about what's required by code,what isn't. Can you clarify it? You've seen the documents that we put on the overhead and,actually,you were the author of them, so hopefully that brings back some memories. o- MR.LENBERGER: Thank you. Stephen Lenberger,Development Review. The PUD--when the Office Max was developed,it was developed when there was a requirement for preservation. Preservation requirement was first adopted in a Comprehensive Plan. Prior to that,you know, co it was on a site-by-site basis going through sensitive habitat and negotiated with staff. But the actual requirement was put in in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Land Development Code. So there is a preserve requirement. That SDP amendment you refer to was done in'98. The preserve that was set aside was clearly identified on the plan you had on the visualizer. So the preserve acreage winds out to be.21 acres. That's what's required for the PUD. The developer could either retain it on site or they can go offsite as you stated earlier. v CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the comments was made that they would simply just do an SDPA v and get rid of the preserve because it wasn't part of the code currently. I think that was the gist of it; is that true? MR.LENBERGER: No. The preservation requirement's still in the code. You can't just get rid of it with an SDP amendment. It's a Comprehensive Plan requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the answer I was looking for. Thank you. Now, if they were to rework this area--and I know there's some mature trees out there. But if they were to rework the area because of water management needs but then follow the conditions of the original SDP where you added the language and where it says,it is understood that if the required vegetation is unable to be preserved,that additional native plantings will need to occur,including but not Iimited to, 14-foot canopy trees and five-gallon shrubs. They could amend the area that they disturbed where the water management is needed to be sculpted, cut, whatever,with that kind of vegetation,and they'd still be in compliance with the SDPA? MR. LENBERGER: Yeah,they could do a re-creation given the site constraints for the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they still could go offsite if they wanted? MR.LENBERGER: They could do that as well,yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Steve. Anybody have any questions? Page 28 of 51 Packet Pg. 130 9D.7 November 3, 2016 ,.�. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Was their characterization of the area of four trees,a couple sabal palms--was that correct? MR.LENBERGER: I can't tell you what's there exactly now. I can see the trees on the aerial.They show clearly. And I was out on site. If you look at the plan that Mark had on the visualizer, it tells you that it's basically hammock vegetation,pine,palmetto,cabbage palm. That clearly tells you that it was vegetation in a different strata. What's remaining right now, I can't telt you. What's happened over the years,a lot of that midstory has disappeared. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was there yesterday. I mean, it's quite a bit of vegetation there. Now,whether it's all the right vegetation, I can't tell you,but it was green. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You'll need to send Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: On a different environmental,I noticed in the neighborhood information meeting there was a lot of concern about the water quality of Haldeman Creek. Now,that portion is down the stream of the downstream weir. So it's tidally influenced,I assume?Tidal;tidally influenced. -a MR.LENBERGER: I would assume so. There's mangroves all along the bank. 2 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So it's probably saline or semi saline;certain times of co the year probably fully saline? N MR.LENBERGER: I would assume so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do we check the water quality in Haldeman Creek? MR.LENBERGER: I don't know the exact location. The Collier County Pollution Control and Prevention Division monitors,and they do water sampling. And I know they do fresh and saltwater •• sampling,but I don't know if they do Haldeman Creek specifically. M COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay,thanks. MR.LENBERGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? a, COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do we have someone from stormwater here? MR. SMITH: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. Liz is here. `° COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I was reading the notes from the NIM meeting that I was at also. "' and they were worried about the runoff,and at the time they were talking about a 55-gallon barrel drum with the bottom out. And so I am a little worried about the water here that is going into the creek to help satisfy their-- MS. GOSSELIN: Liz Gosselin with Stormwater Planning. Oh,I wasn't sworn in. E (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) a MS. GOSSELIN: Okay. So the current development has an existing water management,and they U currently discharge into Haldeman Creek. The new development will have a similar design. They will need to meet our current standards for storage,water quality,and discharge rate. So the new development will be very similar to what is existing now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So with— I don't know the parking lot,because we don't--this is this other department,so I don't quite see that, but they were saying before-- Wayne was saying before that there is already something under the parking lot that's being stored? MS.GOSSELIN: It might be underground storage;is that what it is? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a trench drain system. it sits under the asphalt,not under the islands. MS.GOSSELIN: Okay. So there is currently underground storage. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a water quality system. MS. GOSSELIN: Correct. And they will —the applicant probably will come in with similar underground storage even more to manage the quantity for runoff. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. All right. Very good. So if you need more,you will be putting more in,so it's just not running from the parking lot right into the creek right away? Page 29 of 51 Packet Pg.131 9D.7 November 3,2016 MS.GOSSELIN: Right. The applicant will need to contain all its runoff. .-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've never done that.That's not even allowed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was just checking. Thank you. MS.GOSSELIN: I also wanted to say something about the water quality testing. Pollution Control, yes,they do test--they do sampling water by the weir by the Walmart,so they do test the water quality. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I asked about the water quality,because 1 don't think this project's going to be a problem at all,but I think you probably have a lot of stuff coming down,and I was wondering if anybody knows the water quality just upstream of the weir and just downstream of the weir, because that would be an easy way to tell who's generating what. MS. GOSSELIN: Right. They do test upstream of the developer by the weir at Walmart,and I believe the creek is impaired for copper and fecal.But I can get more info for you if you want. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. Thank you. MS. GOSSELIN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. c Okay. If you-all don't mind,we'll move to public speakers. Okay. Ray,do we have any registered a public speakers to start with? And as your name is called,please come up to the microphone,and I'd ask if cn you'd spell your last name for the court reporter,and then we'll--we have five minutes to hear you. MR.SMITH: Yes. Currently,we have six. The first speaker is Patricia Young. MS.YOUNG: Good morning. Patricia Young,Y-o-u-n-g. -e CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. YOUNG: Collier County is a huge county with significantly different sectors,each with its own U identity worth preserving. We have the residential opulence of Port Royal,the big box shopping at Pine Ridge Road and at Collier Boulevard,the agricultural aspect of Immokalee,the trendy suburban feel of North N Naples and so on. When looking at developing Courthouse Shadows,the whole surrounding area,not just the parcel of land, needs to be considered. And from what I heard this morning,the marketplace study was done in 2013 for Sam's Club,and the area has changed dramatically since that time. Two years ago my husband and I chose to move to southeast Naples because of the distinct character co of the area,one unlike any other in Collier County. The Bayshore Government Village area stretches from Naples Bay to the government center,from Thomasson Drive to 5th Avenue. You can pay your tax bill here,learn about Collier County history,see an opera or a Brazilian garden,each lunch on Haldeman Creek,or go boating on the Naples Bay.And one could even add that there is historical value with a store that has been open 24/7 for over 50 years. We share bodies of water with the City of Naples,and you can find a modestly priced home or a v high-end one with a golf course. It's a wonderfully diverse mix,a category all its own. °- I live adjacent to the East Naples Park on Thomasson at the Isles of Collier Preserve,which I should U mention was not even here in the year 2013,but our residents have an impact. Our residents walk,bike,go to the entertainment venues in the Bayshore government village area. Our developer,Minto,financially E supports the Night Lights program at the Botanical Gardens,as well as the national pickleball championships ca at the community park. So Courthouse Shadows impacts our community,and we them. The Bayshore village government area is definitely an urban area. There are many visitors to the government center,and with so many hotels and motels,tourists are passing by on their way to 5th Avenue. There is high pedestrian bicycle activity here,and the measure of walkability is in line with the newest urban designs as well as in the spirit of blue zones. A Sam's Club is not the kind of place you walk to or ride to on your bike to shop unless your bicycle holds a huge package of whatever you are buying. And I have heard that FDOT has designated this area as one that is amongst the highest—has amongst the highest number of accidents in the state of Florida. Now,this is a figure different than the net trips and so on that you were discussing earlier. A Sam's Club just simply does not fit the bike/ped culture,and we certainly do not need another gas station. The existing Walmart is going to get its much needed renovation with gas station and will fulfill the need for affordable groceries and other items. It is a more neighborhood-oriented store,not a members-only Page 30 of 51 Packet Pg.132 9D.? November 3, 2016 store,one where you might ride your bike to shop and pick up a loaf of bread. When the former Courthouse Shadows stores were emptied out, I,as a consumer,lost three businesses that I frequented. The Szechuan restaurant.the Office Mart(sic),and the Gulf Side Dental Office. A Sam's Club would not attract me;and ask my husband, I'm a big consumer. But my decision is based on previously having shopped at Sam's in the DC suburbs where 1 lived,and that Sam's was located in a suburban area clustered around other national large chain stores,not in a neighborhood like this. In dosing,we should preserve the area's character in what goes in Courthouse Shadows. The architecturally prominent Collier government hub in itself makes it special as it blends with soup kitchens, Botanical Gardens, law offices,and cultural amenities. There are also three schools, including the new Montessori school, multiple childcare centers,and a population that is very economically diverse from working and retired professionals to struggling families. And we are ready for meaningful urban improvements,something with a gathering-place concept. So we need to ask the question today,does a Sam's Club fit in the Courthouse Shadows neighborhood? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,one point Your reference to big boxes on Pine Ridge and Collier, that doesn't—you mean—I think you mean Pine Ridge and Airport. Collier's out where I live,and there's Cl) cu no— I wish there was a big box there,but there isn't. MS.YOUNG: Right,but there are large stores at Collier and 41. That's what I was—had in mind. 1 guess I wasn't clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah,Pm just suggesting you might want to make that correction. MS.YOUNG: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. c i MR.SMITH: Our next speaker is Sidney Cornett. MS.CORNETT: I'm giving my minutes to Karen Beatty. w a CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. SMITH: Karen Beatty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And her--she has five extra minutes ceded by the previous speaker. MR.SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Although you could have gone 10 minutes if you just asked,but that's okay. MS.BEATTY: Okay. Thank you. Cr) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have the rules as strict in regards to speaker time. It's more just, as long as you're not redundant,we're here to listen. MS.BEATTY: Okay. Well,I hope I'm not redundant. My name is Karen Beatty,B-e-a-t-t-y.Pve E been a resident of Naples since 1977,and I have lived in the Bayshore Drive area since 1985.Actually, I a bought Grady Minor's home,as a matter of fact,which is kind of a funny coincidence. U I live on Haldeman Creek,and I have been on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle's redevelopment boards since 2004. 1 am a professional realtor,and I work all over town,but also in the Bayshore/Gateway aa) Triangle. To begin,I want to state that even though I do not favor Sam's Club in general,I do not have anything against one being located in this southeast corridor of Naples;however, I think it's not appropriate for the Gateway Triangle and our vision for that area. Speaking as an individual,not for the entire board. And it would be--and it should be located in zoning that already allows for box stores,such as further east out by 951 and U.S.41 rather than one that needs 10 deviations to the land use code. Even though apparently this proposed Sam's Club has been in the works for some time,which was confirmed today, I only heard about it when I received notice in the mail regarding a public meeting that was held with the representatives of Kite Development,Dwayne(sic)Arnold from Grady Minor,and staff from the Collier County Zoning and Planning because I live within a thousand feet of it. I had a friend in town at the time,a retired civil engineer from California who recently purchased a lot on Haldeman Creek. We went to this meeting together and both were very shocked and dismayed to learn more about it,and especially the proposed gas station next to Haldeman Creek. I urged those involved to bring this to the CRA advisory board,and they said they would,and they Page 31 of 51 Packet Pg.133 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 did in September. When I mentioned this to the staff of the CRA,I was told it is, indeed,in the Gateway Triangle,and it's an approved PUD,and the commissioners want it. I was shocked and urged staff to make sure this gets heard by the Community Redevelopment Advisory Board,although I have no idea whether my fellow board members knew about this proposed development ahead of time because I can't discuss things with them outside of board meetings. I was shocked to learn of the response of four of them in deciding in a consensus to favor it. Fortunately,our chairman and one other board member stated they were against it. Later another board member,Chuck Gunther,another long-time board member,who was absent that evening,wrote staff to state he is also against it,and he asked staff to please send this on to the other board members. I did not receive it from staff;however,another board member on the MSTU board, Bob Messmer, received it. He sent a copy to his friend and neighbor, Kate Riley. Kate Riley is a long-time friend of mine, and she sent it to me,so I knew about Chuck's letter way before our advisory board meeting. And that's why when I said there was a consensus of 4-4,it's because I already knew about Chuck's intentions. Since I was so appalled by the thought of a discount box store with a gas station being proposed in es Courthouse Shadows in the Gateway Triangle only 1.2 miles from the mini triangle where two developments are planned, I decided I needed to find out more on my own how the community felt about it. Not knowing what to do, I just decided to speak to a few business owners in the area to find out their 0 thoughts and feelings. Before going there, let me say that I truly believe that changing the land use code for Courthouse Shadows to a box-store-only designation and granting the deviations to land use code is a wrong move and does not at all align with the vision of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle,which was formed to U remove blight and encourage economic development and revitalization. Building a discount store in an urban area will certainly not achieve this goal and some of the others we have stated in our annual report. And in our annual report of 2015, some of our goals are to encourage economic development and °- revitalization, innovative land development and growth management planning,improve community character,encourage adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of buildings,and beautification.In my mind,a discount box store warehouse does not concur with those goals. ee Also, in doing some research, I found that in 2014 Social Science Quarterly stated,on average, ri within 15 months of a new box store's big--box store's opening, as many as 14 existing retail establishments close. Other researches found that the arrival of big box stores was associated with higher crime rates relative to communities that were not box stores, lower overall employment at the county level and lower tax revenues than mixed development. v Also,according to the British Journal of Criminology, statistics show that not only theft crimes but U also violent crimes also increase with the opening of the big box store. v According to the National Bureau of Economic Research,survival of independent stores and smaller 'E chains that operate in the same industry as a big box chain are negatively affected by the entry and growth of E big box stores. Most of the negative effect is due to smaller stores being forced to close rather than reducing the scale of their operations. I'm sure Kite Development never thought of this,nor do they probably care. With the help of my neighbor,Cindy Cornett,who ceded me her minutes,who became very interested in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle after moving to the area from the Moorings. Together we contacted as many businesses as we had time for to find out what they knew and how they felt about the proposed Sam's Club. Cindy was just as appalled as I am at the thought of having a discount box store warehouse structure in the area of redevelopment,as it truly moves us backwards and it gets the visions and the intentions of the area. Cindy and I were amazed to hear the responses from the business community. We contacted a total of 39 businesses. We asked to speak to owners or managers. We were fortunate in most cases to do just that. Of those 39,32 were adamantly opposed and stated they felt it would definitely hurt their businesses. Of those 32. 14 signed our petition.The other 18 were managers who stated that they are not allowed to sign Page 32 of 51 Packet Pg.134 9D.7 November 3,2016 anything,however,because they work for corporations. And they did say that we could put them on our list, which we did. And I have a copy of the list for you if you'd like to see it. Many of these businesses have been operating in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle for 10 to 30 years. They have lived throughout the blight,the economic downturn,and now finally are in a position to potentially benefit from the redevelopment that occurred thus far,only now a huge possible threat to them from benefiting from this redevelopment and,in fact,they may very well be very hurt by the big box store or run out of business because of the possibility of a big box discount store with a gas station being built nearby and across from a Walmart that plans to expand into a supercenter with a gas station. Two discount box stores nearby to take a slice of their profits and possibly close them down,creating blight with more possible vacant buildings in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. As you know,Sam's Club carries a wide variety of merchandise,and their prices are lower than most. They have a pharmacy,a vision center,and a tire center. If you think about how many tire centers are in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle that are going to be hurt by this and just--you'll see the list when I give it to you. Meanwhile,as I spoke to various business owners,I found out that the reason Publix moved out in April of 2014 is because Kite Development raised their rent to the point of it being unaffordable. cn Of course,once the anchor tenant was out,the other businesses suffered and gradually moved out one by one. Most of the businesses had no idea Sam's Club was proposed for the area. Other owners told me that they have been hearing about this for a couple of years. I was confused;how could this be? How could something with the potential of such huge impact to the businesses or the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle be such a secret? Why wasn't the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board advised of this earlier? Why weren't the citizens and businesses notified of the public meeting? `NI I realize there's a ruling that the county only has to notify people within a thousand feet,but this is a designated redevelopment area with an advisory board. The citizens and businesses are notified about other things,such as the Haldeman Creek boat docks extensions and that proposed Racetrac. Why weren't they m notified about the public meeting? Looking further,I found an article written by Tim Alton that was in the Naples Daily News. In it I to read that our CRA executive board chair was quoted as saying some of the following,and that it had been "? further written about in a Collier Citizens'column called"Around Town." So in this article,it says it is definitely going to move forward,but I don't know when,says Donna Fiala.Right now there's not much happening. It will be another year before we see it there,even that(sic). Fiala said the project is moving along at the Courthouse Shadows with a goal of obtaining permits in April. So there were still tenants in there at this time. This was written in October 2015. So the word is v a. going out there as if it's already done.And this never came before the advisory board,and this is in a redevelopment area. So I find that strange. w: Meanwhile,although this was in the paper,not everyone reads the paper every day,and this news missed me and a lot of other people, including some, if not all,of my advisory board members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms.Beatty,by the way,your 10 minutes--you're going a little bit past 10 minutes,but if you can finish up,that would be great. Thank you. MS.BEATTY: Okay. Well, I wanted to tell you that with my fellow board members some of the reasons that--and the executive board chair stated why they want the Sam's Club,that it will help with the homeless situation in the Courthouse Shadows. I checked with some of the neighbors in that area,and there used to be a homeless problem when there was a labor pool there,but it's not such a problem anymore. So I did check with some of the people that live on Peters Street and Coliee Court. So I'm going to skip to some of these other things. Some of the board members feel that it really helped the TIF funds. What I'd like to know is how much are the improvements worth and how much is this going to increase the property values? Are we really going to benefit that much from the TIF funds? And is that going to balance out the devastation that's going to be caused to some of these small businesses in the area? Page 33 of 51 Packet Pg. 135 9.D.7 November 3,2016 As far as the gas station—Pm going to skip down to some of these. But I did want to say that I did go to the Sam's Club in the north end of town and observed families with signs asking for donations. So the fear of this attracting--I mean,the fear of the homeless taking over the vacant Courthouse Shadows,the fact is that this box store could potentially attract that element,and there are people with signs out in front of the Sam's Club on Immokalee Road,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms.Beatty,I've got to ask that you start to wrap it up,please. MS. BEATTY: Okay. I wanted to talk about the gas station. I think it—you know,there's a moratorium on the gas stations now. And so I know that they applied for this before the moratorium; however,that shows our intention. And,certainly,having a gas station that close to a body of water is a dangerous thing,particularly if we ever have a Category 4 or 5 hurricane and we have a--I forget the name, what it's called,but anyway. It could be very dangerous if we have a storm surge,a storm surge,coming from the west down the creek,and that's a reality that could happen. Well,I have a lot more to say but--I think that the traffic issue is a problem because this--the residents in this area,east and west,are going to have to suffer that traffic,and they may not even be using the box store. Not everyone's going to become a member of Sam's Club and yet we all are going to have to suffer the traffic. If that shopping center was used for something that all the citizens could enjoy,then,you know,we could tolerate the traffic but,instead,we're going to have to tolerate it and not even enjoy what's N there. So I don't really think that's fair to the citizens in the area. And I conclude that it's definitely not in alignment with the vision of the Gateway Triangle,in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (j MS.BEATTY: Do you care to see the list of businesses that are against it,or does it matter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had emailed a list. Pm assuming that's the list-- MS.BEATTY: No,I never--I never sent you the list. CHAIRMAN S IRAIN: Okay. Well,I've got a list from somebody--I thought it was only you that fl- sent the emails—and it has a Iist of businesses,I think it was 12 or 15 that were talked to. One has a list of managers but they couldn't speak because they were corporations and--there was two lists there,but if they didn't come from you,that's fine. If you want to leave a copy with the court reporter... MS.BEATTY: Okay. Because possibly other— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,that's fine. I assumed it was the email we had gotten,but if it wasn't-- w MR.YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain. 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. E MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a question through you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,certainly. MR.YOVANOVICH: And I may have misunderstood. v CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can ask a question of me--what is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Through you. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do the questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you go through me since this is an affected party's-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. I wasn't sure if I heard correctly. I thought I heard her say that we did not go to the advisory board regarding our proposed project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it had more to do with the timing of when you went; is that correct? MS.BEATTY: Yeah,no. I said that you did in September. MR.YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure I heard it correctly. And I also understood you do take the summers off for the advisory board,correct? MS.BEATTY: We do,however,this has been,as you said,in the works for several years. So I'm just wondering why the advisory board didn't know about it a lot sooner. CHAIRMAN S TRAIN: Well,I could probably answer that a little bit. I had known about this a while back and,actually,if you had gone to the realtors'meetings where I make presentations,as well as the town ball meetings,you would have seen this on the presentation for at least a year,maybe two years back. The details of it, I think,had to come this far before they could make a presentation that once they Page 34 of 51 Packet Pg. 136 9.D.7 November 3,2016 made it they could rely on—they had enough details so it wasn't changing significantly from what they presented to you. But the concept of it going there has been known for quite some time,so... MS.BEATTY: Okay. Well,that helps me to understand that. I think one of the comments I made about the CRA is it seems like for the public meeting,the public—that you were—Diane,in,I guess it was July or August,it seems like,perhaps,it would have been better to include everyone in the Gateway Triangle in that instead of people only a thousand feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't a requirement of statute or of us. MS.BEATTY: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it could have been something the CRA could have done if they had-- MS.BEATTY: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --wanted to notify and spend the money. That's a lot of expense,and that's Iimited as to how those go. MS.BEATTY: Well,we do have an extensive email list,so it could have at least gone out to those people. And we are a redevelopment. This situation is in a redevelopment area. We do have an advisory -eso board, so... ca CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,it's within the CRA boundary,but it's not within the overlay,and vi its not within the cultural boundary. So it doesn't hit some of the triggers that I think a lot of you rely on in the way you review things,and Pm not sure that that point was made in regards to my discussion with the colored map that Mr.Bosi testified to earlier today. t= The overlay doesn't extend into this property.The boundary goes to it,but not the overlay. And your cultural boundary that you have internal to your project does not go to this either. So if you were--if this project was being requested in that cultural boundary that's down the middle of Bayshore,I'd have to agree with you, it doesn't fit that. But that's not where it's going,so... N MS.BEATTY: Can I ask you one thing about the wall that's going up? Does that wall go down Collee Court and Peters,or does it connect to the building,to the Sam's Club building? �.� CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would go to the backside of the Sam's Club building and indent into where the building would pick up,but it wouldn't connect to the building. Then the building would be `) sufficient,because it's a solid backside,until you get to the other end. Then a wall picks up again along the backside of the parking lot and all up over to Tract E,which is near Office Max or Dunkin'Donuts,I forgot which is there. •' But it's a continuous wall with the exception of where it breaks for the building,and it stops— it a doesn't attach to the building. It stops at the end of the water management. MS.BEATTY: It just seems like attaching to the building would be better for the residents in the .E— area. a. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I'm not sure what it would accomplish other than putting more wall v up,because the sound transmission and everything will be mostly stopped by—the building's probably the best buffer you have for sound,because everything's supposed to be on the other side of the building,so... And, in fact,they're putting the walls closer to the parking lot. The closer to the source of the sound you have a wall,the more effective it is. So that should help as well. And it will be a combination between berm and height of the wall 10 feet above the lots that are on Price(sic). So with those facilities,it should be better than what you've got there today. I was there yesterday, and there's not much of a buffer in regards to sound transmission,so... MS.BEATTY: Well,that's true. Right now there isn't,but any development there would be better, in my opinion,than a box store. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR SMITH: Next speaker is Al Schantzen. MR. SCHANTZEN: Good morning, good afternoon.Al Schantzen,S-c-h-a-n-t-z-e-n. I'm a resident of Collier County since the'70s and been on Haldeman Creek since 1990. The major concern I have with this Sam's Club going in there is the Haldeman Creek and the buffer zone between the gas station and the waterway there. Over the years the creek has improved quite a bit and had its periods of degrading also. And during Page 35 of 51 Packet Pg. 137 9.D.7 November 3.2016 this time I've seen otters,manatee,kayakers,and game fish up in that area. And my concern is what kind of spill control we have for the gas station and the buffer area and the water management of the water going into the canal from that area. The vehicle traffic and everything else is all from the one side;Haldeman Creek blocking any kind of access to it,so it's backed up against Haldeman Creek so all the traffic's going the opposite direction. That I have to worry about. The main concern I have is the Haldeman Creek and water management and keeping the canal clean for the critters and enjoyment of the people of Collier County on Haldeman Creek. And that's basically all I have there. And kudos to what Ms.Young said. She gave a good dissertation on it,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR.SCHANTZEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker,Dan? ins MR. SMITH: George Danz. MR.DANZ: Mr.Chair,ladies and gentlemen,my name is George Danz,D-a-n-z,representing cc myself as a citizen,and I'm also on the board of directors of the East Naples Civic Association. There's been discussion,I guess,that I've heard for the last year and a half or two years regarding this y project or the buildings in that area. The structures in that area have been vacant for several years. I think there's been various developers that have been looking for all types of development to come in there. I don't think they've been successful in attracting the types of developments that have been discussed. I think a box store may be beneficial to some of the smaller businesses around there such as Dunkin' v Donuts,the Burger King,the Buffalo Wings place,those types of places. If there was an alternative of any type of development there,I think it should be considered,but the N fact is,these structures have been there for several years. They've been empty. They've been vacant,and I think a box store or something needs to go in there,and this project certainly seems to fit that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. y.1 Next speaker,Dan? MR. SMITH: Teddy Plaisted. MS.PLAISTED: Teddy Plaisted. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. Were you sworn in? MS.PLAISTED: No, I was not. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS.PLAISTED: My surname is spelled P-1-a-i-s-t-e-d. Good morning,members of the E Commission. I represent myself. I've been a Collier County resident for over 40 years and have watched our county grow and develop in mostly wonderful ways;unfortunately,it also includes traffic,but that's the way v that goes. U I've watched this particular area for a number of years, became concerned as we started losing the a larger tenants out of there. And as I recall,the first large tenant to move out was about 2012. So we've had a E E considerable amount of that space vacant for four years,and then watched more of the larger tenants leave, West Marine and so forth. That's really not a good thing to see. I've watched what's happened with vacant areas around town. Not only here,but in other areas; Parkshore,North Naples,down lmmokalee Road,and basically the results are the same. It's not good. I've been aware that they've been looking for someone to fill this space. I feel that having Sam's Club down here could be a very good asset for the area,not only because of the people on Marco,but all the people from Marco up,everyone who does not want to have to drive up to Immokalee Road to get things from Sam's Club. And this is based not only on my personal opinion, but also in talking with friends of mine and acquaintances who own businesses and are managers in the area,because it takes time out of their day, out of being able to make sales. No matter what their particular area of business is,it always comes down to sales. They have to go that far. If they can shorten that trip,it improves their business efficiency. In addition—and with all due respect to Karen,I understand the concerns about blight. We don't Page 36 of 51 Packet Pg. 138 9D.7 November 3, 2016 want blight. No one wants that. But when Sam's Club went in up at Irnmokalee Road,there was not a little shopping center next to it,which grew up afterwards,and that shopping center with Cici's Pizza, I think it's Nathan's,and there's been a whole raft of businesses that have grown on Immokalee Road on either side as well as across after Sam's came in,and they all look like they're thriving pretty very really. I understand that our new Sam's is supposed to have about 175 employees,which is great. That's more new jobs in the area and,of course,having someone actually occupying the space gives us more taxes. I understand having,like,smaller boutique-style stores. I honestly think they would be better suited out at 951 and 41 where we've got the new Hobby Lobby,Outback,Publix,and those sorts of stores. I just think that would be a better location for that sort of thing. Sam's Club is committed to small business prosperity and,according to the Small Business Association--Administration,small businesses can include,depending on the category, from 500 to 1,500 employees with sales revenues of 5 million to$20 million which certainly covers our area very, very well. In addition,they work very hard to improve the prosperity of their area. They help small business through business initiatives,research,community engagement,and national grants. ,boa I'm on the board of a 501(c)3 here,and to be perfectly honest,grants are very crucial to our being its able to operate. So, in conclusion,I want to thank you all for your time and say that I really feel that Sam's Club down here could be a big asset to our area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The last speaker? MR.SMITH: The last speaker is Felipe Arcila. K, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have to ask,were you sworn in? MR.ARCILA: No,sir,I was not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And thank you, Stan. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't always get to monitor people coming in and out,so I don't know if everybody stood up the first time. So appreciate it. Thank you. `° MR. ARCILA: Well,good afternoon. My name is Felipe Arcila. I'm here on behalf— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to spell that,especially the last name. MR.ARCILA: For the record,my name is Felipe Arcila. It's spelled F-e-l-i-p-e; last name is A-r-c-i-1-a. And thank you. I'm here today on behalf of Mr.Michelle Deabus(phonetic). Mr.Michelle Deabus is an owner of E one of the properties that is an outparcel to Courthouse Shadows particularly,you know,known as the a. Chrissy's tavern. Mr. Deabus does not live here in the country. He lives in Europe,and he wasn't able to make it here. The reason for me to be here today is,number one,is particularly to voice our support for the aei redevelopment of Courthouse Shadows into the Sam's Club that's being presented today. I've heard a few objections from the neighbors,and as it is a concern to us,as one of the owners,is exactly the homeless people in the area. I was showing the property two days ago,and I can attest to a drug Q deal being done in front of me at the property,and it's been going on every day. At this point we have not really cleaned up the property. Within two weeks we're planning on fixing all the landscaping,cleaning—at least to have some--you know,have some visibility from 41,because that's what I think is happening. A lot of people are sleeping at the--within the property. I constantly have to be telling people,please,you know,to find somewhere else to be.And so the redevelopment of the entire Courthouse Shadows is going to be a benefit. The only thing I would like to address is that we do have a concern regarding the site plan that has been proposed,particularly regarding the parking configuration which impacts Mr. Deabus. It's being substantially changed. And it's the parking configuration, the circulation,and basically we believe that there's--pertaining to our specific outparcel that we do have some concerns regarding safety and pedestrian issues,but I think that's something we can address with the developer. But I do want to bring this to your Page 37 of 51 Packet Pg. 139 9 D.7 November 3,2016 attention. But we do voice support for the Sam's. We welcome it. And I think it's great for the area. I mean, there's jobs. It scares people to be there right now as it is,and it needs to be redeveloped. It needs to be—something needs to be done with that property,and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before the meeting's over,I was going to-- I'll ask the representative from the developer how they've worked out the parking arrangement. I know that there are some parking agreements between outparcels there and other entities. I can't remember if there's one specifically for yours. MR. ARCILA: There should be. I mean,just looking at his outparcel,he only has three parking spaces. That would never be approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what I— MR. ARCILA: There is some cross-access,some cross-parking agreement done. I haven't-- I was engaged maybe 10 days ago. I haven't really researched this,and I'm sure there is,but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we'll look a little bit further,so— MR.ARCILA: Thank you very much. 'o ca CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. s Any other speakers, Dan? rs)4, MR. SMITH: That's the last speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who have not spoken on this matter but would like to speak on it? Yes,ma'am,would you please come up and identify yourself for the record. MS. BRUNO: My name is Nancy Bruno, B-r-u-n-o, and I was sworn in. I'm the owner of Buffalo v Wild Wings in Courthouse Shadows. Of course, I am in favor of seeing Sam's Club come in because there is--obviously,there's nothing there. My business is suffering as a result of it. We get phone calls,oh,you're still there? We didn't--we thought you were closed. There were homeless people sleeping in our parking lot when we were under construction. There Q- was one woman in particular that was using the port-o-pot as her private bathroom. There are homeless people sleeping in Publix walkways. So I'm in favor of Sam's coming in,and I think it will eliminate,as they were--that element. And I think it's great for the community. I'm a Marco cn Island resident. I've been in Florida for 22 years. And I don't see where-- if it were located,as far as crime r; goes.as Ms.Beatty spoke,if it's going to cause crime here,it's going to cause crime someplace else,and I just don't see that happening. And,once again, I thank you for your time, and I'm looking forward to having Sam's as my neighbor. Thank you very much. E CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. v And anybody else? v (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The applicant will have an opportunity for rebuttal,and I would like a followup question on to what extent or knowledge is Mr.Kirby or Wayne or any of you have in regards to E the parking arrangements with some of your outparcels. I know there are some documents on record. I just haven't accumulated them all yet,so... MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Once again, Doug Kirby for Kite Realty Group. Yes, there are certain cross-parking agreements with various outparcel users there. The Chrissy's parcel is one of those,and they will be dealt with. Their parking will be reconfigured and allowed to continue on the shopping center property. I think we can come to an arrangement to help ease his customer parking for whatever ends up going back in Chrissy's location as we work through the development process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I thought that was the case;otherwise,the permit wouldn't have been issued in the first place. But I like the confirmation,so thank you. MR.KIRBY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know who,if either--anybody wants to make any rebuttal statements,you're more than welcome to for a short period of time. Page 38 of 51 Packet Pg. 140 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: And we don't need very long. I just wanted to,you know,reiterate a lot of what came out on the public comments is that we are 100 percent consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Your staff is recommending approval of the project. 1 believe Mr. Lenberger testified that if we end up disturbing some of the trees in the area that he has identified in his comment,we just simply have to replant them at the standard of 14-foot canopy. That was in the prior Site Development Plan. if we can re-craft that condition,we can agree to that condition, because the way it's currently written,it did not talk about replanting in the current location. It talked about either going offsite or leaving it in a preserve. So if the replanting is the option,we certainly can accept that condition. And I just hope that we're all clear on the transportation issue and the number of trips. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not. Can you go over that again? MR.YOVANOVICH: But I think—you know, I understand some of the comments from some of the members ofthe public,but I don't think that the real world beam out the concerns that were raised To- regarding crime and others. And you've heard people who are in the center right now saying that they welcome the redevelopment of the site so it becomes active, it becomes vibrant. And when you have an active, vibrant center,you do not have homeless people sitting around and maybe causing problems or not. ti) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. w MR.YOVANOVICH: We'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. For the record,can your engineer or,Rich,yourself or whomever,just to ease the concerns of the water treatment and the design and the pretreatment,and if an ERP or anything is required so that we can assure the public the water quality standards will be met. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,if you'll—I've been up here enough times to know that we do go CSI through an engineering review process for every use that goes on that property. I've been involved in gas stations,and it is a--it is a detailed review and analysis of the proposed gas station,gas tanks,everything. All of that is regulated,it is permitted,and it is taken care of to assure the public that the concerns they raised x today will not come to fruition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know anybody that used to be with the Corps of Engineers? They `° might be able to provide some information. "? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I could definitely provide advice and counsel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're the best source of that answer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you,Rich. Because this gas station,as you're '— calling an accessory use—and they said they did not try and buy out the other gas station owner,so that E would have kept the 500 feet. That would have really solved a lot of problems, but they didn't. a This condition on the gas station, I understand it's for members only; it's private.Can we put in your PUD and in the SDP that this will always be a private gas station? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already in there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It has to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already in the deviation. 03 MR.YOVANOVICH: It's already in there that it's related to the— it's an accessory use to the Sam's Club. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So it is already in-- MR. YOVANOVICH: And it says it's private. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1 didn't see it in the PUD;that's why I was asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which requires membership? MR.YOVANOVICH: Correct. I thought it was there. If we need to somehow tighten it up-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSIU: Rich,is this going to undergo county Water Management review,or is it going to get an ERP? MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm told both. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Both. It should be both. Page 39 of 51 Packet Pg. 141 9D.7 November 3,2016 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh,yeah. It should be both,yeah. I just didn't hear you say that it was— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT': ERP,for those—it's an environmental resource permit through the South Florida Water Management District. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Which is another layer of review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for Diane,the principal use that they're proposing to add is membership warehouse club with associated liquor store use and ancillary facility with fuel pumps.The facility with fuel pumps may not be opened to the general public and shall be for only members of the membership warehouse club. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's in the PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the PUD. That's new language,yeah. Any other questions of Richard? Did you have anything else you want to add to rebuttal? MR.YOVANOVICH: No,I think that we did a good job of presenting the petition,and so did staff. And hopefully with the clarification on the replanting ability,the one objection we had is gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve,you're walking up,so that means you either object to his "a objection or something. 0:1c MR.LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger,Development Review. a) Just a clarification. They can re-create preserve on site. They keep alluding to just trees. The tree size is specified on the site plan where the size is required for re-creation of preserve. So they can re-create preserve,but it's not just trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the site plan calls out the--I'll bring--I'll read the actual language,if v I can pull it up here. You can tell me if it needs to be embellished or if it's not going to be sufficient for your review. We might as well settle it now before it goes any farther. It is understood that if the required vegetation is unable to be preserved,that additional native plantings will need to occur including,but not limited to, 14 canopy trees and five gallon shrubs. Does that fl- provide the information you would need to get to the point where the creative preserve is what is installed there? MR.LENBERGER: It doesn't have all three strata,but the area was a hammock,so it probably co didn't have ground cover. So it's stating to me that it has the shrubs and trees. Actually,the code requirement is less stringent now. They're smaller plant size materials and actually gives a spacing criteria in the Land Development Code. So they're amending the PUD. They are amending the site plan. We go by current code a requirements for re-creation of preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Rich,do you understand that? Are you--if there's going to be a problem with arguments later,let's have them now. d MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,actually,I'm just trying to figure out what the rules of the game are. 1 v thought I have to live with the previous condition that was in the previous Site Development Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for the preserve area,that's what the point was of this. That's a preserve area, and that's what you've been discussing quite often here today. When you resubmit for your SDPA,from what Steve's going to—indicating,you'll be reviewed under the current code. The current code may require less height and canopy trees or sizes of shrubs,but this always said not limited to. So I think whatever the new code is at the time you submit for the SDP,if it requires additional ground cover,you may have to put it in. MR.YOVANOVICH: What I need to be crystal clear with Mr.Lenberger is,we are using this area as part of our dry retention,as part of our water management system. I need to know that I can still do that and replant within that area after I create it as part of my water management system. Because this code--this previous thing said if 1 cannot keep those trees,I can replant those trees. And,already,a portion of the area that was set forth on this water management plan in the original Site Development Plan was encumbered by a drainage easement prior to the condition being implemented. So at the time you could use the native area as water management. We need to be able to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was out there yesterday. The area is being used for water Page 40 of 51 Packet Pg.142 9D.7 November 3,2016 management. It's got at least two structures. One is quite substantial,the outfall structure. I think Steve's concern is that there is a lot of nice,mature trees in that areaIf you re-create preserve in that area with the material that lives and thrives I don't know why anybody would be shorted compared to what you have there today. Steve? MR.LENBERGER: There have been instances in the past where preserves have been created in water retention areas;the problem is is that the applicant has indicated that they need all the retention they can get. And when you put all this vegetation in a retention area, it's going to accumulate and decrease the amount of capacity you have to store water. So it seems to me that it's going to be difficult to have a preserve in a retention area and given the shortage of space with all the improvements they want to make to the property. It might be best for them to go offsite. But we generally don't like to see them in the dry retention areas for what I just stated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But yet we have a concept known as rain garden and, from personal experience,tree trunks don't take up a lot of volume. I mean,that will be up to the engineer to do the calculations,but they've been pushing rain gardens for a long time. MR.LENBERGER: But if you have—the retention area needs—you're using all that for retention 2 and all of a sudden you're putting all three strata in the ground and organic material starts to accumulate in the rn leaf litter and et cetera,and the trees increase in size,suddenly you don't have the storage capacity,and that's y the concern. At least I've been told that by engineers in the past, I believe,including yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Steve,yesterday I talked to Jerry Kurtz from stormwater,and they really don't want any trees in their dry retention area.That fouls things up,he said. MR. LENBERGER: And we haven't had any recently or in the recent past that we've allowed that. I M can only remember a couple in the distant past. And you're not supposed to have any easements which are incompatible with preserves,over a preserve. And the fact that you have to maintain these retention areas to a get the capacity you need for treatment as stormwater seems to be incompatible to me. a, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Steve, how do we—how do we have this existing there today if it's incompatible? Why was it approved originally then? MR. LENBERGER: Well,actually, it's not in a stormwater retention area. CD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,it is. "3. MR. LENBERGER: It's--right now it's --there's a pipe or a swale— I'm not sure exactly what it is--going in an easement along the side of it. It's not in a retention area. 2 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the area's dug out. It's a great big, like,a hole. It has an overflow catch basin that's got to be five feet in the air from the bottom of the swale. E MR. LENBERGER: Which-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: l mean, I was there yesterday. MR.LENBERGER: Which retention area are you talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one south of--behind Office Max or where Office Max used to be. m That one--yes,that one there. MR.LENBERGER: Well, like I said, we have--they have capacity problems in the amount of storage they need. I think that could be problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did the old code allow what they're doing today? This idea that you can't have water management as part of a preserve,did the old code allow that? MR. LENBERGER: Well,you can have drainage easements over preserves. A lot of preserves are wetlands,and they're part of the stormwater system as they outfall into either a natural water body or drainage system. The problem is is when you're in a dry retention area. This is an old product. It was built prior to a lot of the new codes. There's no--the code is silent to whether you can do it in a stormwater retention area. I can only go by what the engineers are telling me,and they're telling me they don't want this vegetation—a preserve established in a stormwater retention area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They better get their dozers out,because we've got them all over the county. Richard? Page 41 of 51 Packet Pg. 143 9.D.7 November 3,2016 MR.YOVANOVICH: I need to clarify something to make sure that Steve and I are talking about his condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you guys are talking on the same page in this condition at all at this point. I'm completely disillusioned by it now. MR.YOVANOVICH: What I've put on the visualizer is what now, I guess,is an upside down L. That's an existing drainage easement that's existed since 1988 prior to the adoption of the Site Development Plan in question. That drainage easement is within the area that staff said they're now claiming was a preserve area agreed to based upon the then existing code. What I understand Steve's comment to be is the area that's crosshatched now that is outside of that drainage easement would now have to be labeled as a preserve,and we would have to go—and that area is also within the Site Development Plan area that was approved; I think it was 1994. 1 didn't catch the date. He's now saying that that has to become a preserve and can't be used for dry retention when you had the very condition that said if we had to impact that area,we could replant that crosshatch area. That was what was agreed to in 1994,and that was then consistent with the Comprehensive Plan according to Steve. I co don't know. I didn't review it. Why would it not be—why can't we bring that forward in a redevelopment project in planting with appropriate vegetation that will survive in a dry retention area consistent with what was previously agreed to by the parties, and what my client—I guess if he had read it—would have understood it to mean? Those words are very clear that we can replant. o � CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you part of the problems I can foresee coming down the U road is if we try to come up with some language that allows you to continue using the area as it has been used to protect everybody's interests,it's a deviation to the code,so the next argument's going to be,well,now we need a deviation. You didn't ask for it,and we could see this--did you ask for a deviation specific to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well,maybe-- I think we disagreed with staff as to the application of the code. But if you would like us to have a deviation that says—we can craft it pretty easily--that says we can--for this portion right here we can replant it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and I think-- co MR YOVANOVICH: We can have a drainage easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As to the outcome of this,especially—from staffs perspective, who's Susan O'Farrell? She used to work for the county. co COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. She was in Code Enforcement,and then she was-- I forget-- I think in engineering for a little while. But she's been gone about 15 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She filed two audit reports on this project,one in 2005 and the other in v 2007. Environmental category,conservation preservation acreage dedication. Requirement at least 30 v percent of gross acreage of the total site will be developed to usable open space when fully developed, and U then it goes on about perimeter buffers. Staff findings,not applicable. So in both instances,in 2005 and 2007,which is almost 10 years after the SDP was provided for co Office Max,county staff did audit inspections and found there were no conservation preservation acreages c> co required. So I would suggest that as a compromise we allow that area to be continued under its current use as both preservation and water management with supplemental plantings for any of the material that's taken out to the extent described in the SDPA,and that would get us to a point at least of an agreement on that. Summer? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Back in the day when Summer was in Code Enforcement. MS.ARAQUE: Summer Araque, Environmental Planning Supervisor,for the record. My issue, I guess,would be using Susan O'Farrell's findings. I think that's--that might be problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well.why was it issued as a PUD audit report in 92-8? She's not competent?Capable? MS.ARAQUE: She apparently did not do all of her research. That's all I have to say on that. Page 42 of 51 Packet Pg. 144 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you would have no problem with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who was her superior back in those days? MS.ARAQUE: It was not me. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I disavow all knowledge. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I disavow all knowledge. MR.ARNOLD: I don't know. I believe that she was in Code Enforcement for most of her time with Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that information's in CTS. Anybody in the--anybody in the county could have access to it and review it. I'm a little disappointed we're going down such a long bit of time over such an innocuous issue. I mean,whether we have trees in that drainage ditch or not is not that big of a deal. Whether they've got to go off site and buy a little bit of preserve,to me it's not that big of a deal iic compared to the size of this site. But the discrepancies between what I've heard today and what staff does oro does not know what they want and what is said in the SDPA and what that audit report says,it doesn't make L any sense. I don't know how we're going to get to a resolution. i.7) E'm more inclined to just say we don't need to support staffs Recommendation No.3 and let the site be used as it has always been used,and that's a drainage easement. MR.YOVANOVICH: We have the survey to show that. c MS.ARAQUE: I think Stephen's comments have been clear on this project,and his review is still on o U "reject." " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the SDPA isn't clear that I've just read from 1998 with the language M that's there now saying,well,now we've got to change it all and meet new codes. We do have redevelopment aspects in this county,and this changing code over time is certainly one of the problems with new a development versus old development. `m If they were allowed under their SDPA at the time built and it was fine then, it should be fine today. x MR.WILFONG: I don't want to prolong this,but do you mind if I put a topographic survey showing co the actual--the dry pond(sic)there right now in that area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. By the way,anything you do is going to prolong this,just to give you a hint. w MR.WILFONG: It's right there,basically.It's like a mini basin. a) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's where I was yesterday. c MR. WILFONG: Thank you. I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you. E CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any issues? d COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. v U CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? I think the applicant's done. Good. w With that,we will close the public hearing,and we will have a discussion first and then entertain a E motion. E I made a bunch of notes. We typically do. I can read you those notes. If the motion is made to r support,the notes might be a suggestion as for stipulations. If the motion's made to deny,then there's no need Q for the stipulation. So I'll go through them all for discussion's sake,and then we can decide what to do. Number one,the second entry on Peters Street will go away if the Sam's is built,and it will be replaced with emergency access as shown on the master plan or revised master plan. Instead of the reference to a screen wall,the use will be--screen wall is the definition of an area--where it points to. It will be a masonry or concrete wall at six feet high in those areas designated six feet, at 10 feet high in other areas,and then where the 6-foot wall is used,it will be overall 10 feet including the dirt it's sitting on in relationship to Peters Avenue,or Peters Street,whatever that is. We will accept the amended staff recommendations with the exception of the No. 3 that regulates this as a preserve area requiring offsite preserve. At this point the applicant has agreed to replant that area subject to the SDPA language that they previously had,and that's the most I think we need to see happen there. Page 43 of 51 Packet Pg. 145 9.D.7 November 3, 2016 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So,therefore,we do not support Staff Recommendation No.3 as its written,but it will be more as we've just described. Sidewalks will be--the sidewalk funding will be provided 30 days after the time of SDP approval for Sam's or for any other—any project that comes about as a result of the approval of this application today whether it's a Sam's,a Target,or whatever else could go there. I don't want that to be the hangup on that $50,000. The Deviation No.9 language proposed by County Attorney's Office will be accepted. They'll change the PDD references to Collier Development Corporation to"developer." The wall that is over by the tank will be extended down to the drainage easement at the—or drainage area that's behind the building at the 10 feet--at the continuous 10 feet from the point to the north where it starts. We're going to be changing the reference to the 662 new trips to delete the word"net." It will just be w 662 new trips,not"net." And that's the only notes I've made. That's all the notes I've got. So with that, is there anybody that has anything they'd like to add to it? (No response.) w CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further discussion? 0 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion either way? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve. c� COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --subject to the language you just read. fl- CHAIRMAN S I RAIN: Is that the motion maker's— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion maker and second both subject to the stipulations read. cc Discussion? ri (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. v COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. a COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. 0 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? (No response.) d CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you,all. With that, Heidi,did you have-- Just a moment,Heidi. Well,you've got to speak up if you've got a question. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. Dan was going to put something on the record to supplement the record. There's a handout—I don't believe you read it in--on some additional fmdings. So I hate to do it after you already voted,but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it's a little late after we all voted. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we'll go with what we've got. I don't want to confuse it anymore. So with that,we will take a lunch break and return at 10 after 1:00 and fmish the last item on today's agenda, which is the New Hope Church issue. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) Page 44 of 51 Packet Pg.146 9D.8 5.05.05- Facilities with Fuel Pumps B. 2. Waiver of separation requirements. a. The BZA may, by resolution, grant a waiver of part or all of the minimum separation requirements set forth herein if it is demonstrated by the applicant and determined by the BZA that the site proposed for development of a facility with fuel pumps is separated from another facility with fuel pumps by natural or man-made boundaries, structures, or o other features which offset or limit the necessity for such minimum distance requirements. co The BZA's decision to waive part or all of the distance requirements shall be based upon the following factors: 0 r w i. Whether the nature and type of natural or man-made boundary, structure, or other v feature lying between the proposed establishment and an existing facility with fuel pumps is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of the proposed facility with fuel pumps. Such boundary, structure, or other feature may include, but is not limited to, lakes, marshes, non-developable wetlands, designated preserve areas, canals, and a minimum of a 4-lane arterial or collector right-of-way. a, There are no structures or other features that lessens the impact. v d ii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is only engaged in the servicing of automobiles during regular, daytime business hours, or, if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, the facility with fuel pumps sells food, gasoline, and other convenience items during daytime, nighttime, or on a 24 hour basis. E The facility with fuel pumps only serves membership daytime business hour D. gasoline and no other retail is sold from this location. U- s iii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is located within a shopping center primarily accessed by a driveway, or if it fronts on and is accessed directly from a platted road right-of-way. U- The location is within a proposed membership warehouse area with outlots and primarily accessed through a driveway. ca iv. Whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses, especially residential land uses. Although the Sam's Club property abuts the Chevron and residential properties, w the location of the Sam's Club facility with fuel pumps is 293 feet from the canopy of the existing Chevron facility and 300 feet from residential district. A U six-foot high wall with landscape with be provided against the residential district. a, n Q Packet Pg. 147 Courthouse Shadows CPUD Petition # PL20120001515 October 20, 2016 Page 1 of 1 October 3, 2016 CCPC Backup Material Application and Supporting Documents Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com April 5, 2016 Mr. Eric Johnson Principal Planner Land Development Services Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: PUDZA-PL20120001515: Courthouse Shadows PUD Dear Mr. Johnson: This correspondence is our formal response to the sufficiency review letter provided to us on February 27, 2013. As you are aware, the applicant asked to have the application held in abeyance, pending the purchase of the 0.28± acre parcel proposed to be added to the PUD. Kite has recently acquired this parcel and is ready to re-activate the application. The applicant is aware that a neighborhood information meeting will need to be held regarding the proposed PUD amendment application. The application and supporting materials have been modified to increase the total commercial square footage to 165,000 square feet. The list of permitted uses has been modified to reflect the addition of a membership warehouse club. A revised Traffic Analysis has been provided as back-up support for the PUD amendment. Deviations are necessary for redevelopment of the parent tract within the PUD. A list of deviations and justification is included in this submittal. Responses to staff comments have been provided in bold. ZONING REVIEW -- Reviewed By: Kay Deselem Please provide authorization from all parties. Public hearings cannot be held until this documentation has been provide. Response: Authorization forms have been submitted previously under separate cover. A copy is included in this transmittal. COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW -- Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton F. Minimum internal setback from the additional .28 acre FDOT surplus parcel shall be zero (0) feet. Mr. Eric Johnson RE: PUDZA-PL20120001515: Courthouse Shadows PUD April 5, 2016 Page 2 of 2 This needs to be clarified and listed as a Deviation. Response: The LDC does not require any specified internal setback therefore, we have provided for this in the development standards table. As to Deviation #1, remove “The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities”. If applicant wants to keep this language, then the buffer should be reduced to 0. Response: We have revised the buffer deviation text to provide a minimum and average buffer width for this portion of the project in order to accommodate the existing traffic control equipment. We are also waiting on proof of ownership of the .28 acre parcel. Response: A copy of the deed documenting ownership is forthcoming. LANDSCAPE REVIEW -- Reviewed By: Nancy Gundlach Please revise Deviation #1 to state: “Deviation #1 seeks relief…….for for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit an average Type D buffer width of 20 feet for the 0.28 +/- acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities.” Response: The deviation has been revised as requested. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Cc: Doug Kirby, P.E., Director, Pre-Development, Kite Realty Group, 30 S. Meridian Street, Suite 1100, Indianapolis, IN 46204 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., Northern Trust Bank Building, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 GradyMinor File Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment Description of Why Amendment is Necessary The proposed minor amendment to the Courthouse Shadows PUD is being requested in order to add a 0.28± acre FDOT surplus parcel of land adjacent to the northwest PUD boundary, and increase the maximum commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet. As discussed in the recent pre-application meeting, a new use, membership warehouse club with associated liquor, is proposed to be added. A new conceptual Master Plan has been prepared for the PUD. The property is located within Activity Center #16 and the existing uses are consistent with the commercial uses permitted in the activity center. No new project access are proposed; however, should the membership warehouse use be developed on the site, the existing shopping center building will be demolished in order to accommodate this use. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) PUD REZONE (PUDZ) PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ-A) PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) ___________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS __________________________________________ CITY _____________STATE ______ZIP _____ TELEPHONE # _____________________ CELL # _________________ FAX # __________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: _________________________________________ NAME OF AGENT _________________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS __________________________________________ CITY _____________ STATE _____ ZIP _____ TELEPHONE # _____________________ CELL # _________________ FAX # __________________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: _________________________________________ BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. To be completed by staff KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100 Indianapolis IN 46204-3565 317.577.5600 317.577.5605 estrickland@kiteco.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. / Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs FL 34134 239.947.0375 warnold@gradyminor.com / ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com 239.947.1144 / 239.435.3535 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: _____________________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS ______________________________ CITY ___________ STATE _______ ZIP ______ NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: _____________________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS ______________________________ CITY ___________ STATE _______ ZIP ______ NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: _____________________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS ______________________________ CITY ___________ STATE _______ ZIP ______ NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: _____________________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS ______________________________ CITY ___________ STATE _______ ZIP ______ NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: _____________________________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS ______________________________ CITY ___________ STATE _______ ZIP ______ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 Disclosure of Interest Information a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address % of Ownership c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address % of Ownership KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 100% KRG Courthouse Shadows I LLC, 30 S. Meridian St, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Please see attached Exhibit 1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: _______________________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 g. Date subject property acquired _______ leased Term of lease ______ yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: ________________ Date option terminates:_______________, or Anticipated closing date ______________ h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. PROPERTY LOCATION Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre- application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range ______ /______ /______ Lot: ______________Block: _______________Subdivision: _____________ Plat Book: _________Page #: _____________Property I.D. #: _______________________ Metes & Bounds Description: ______________________________________ Size of property: ____________________ft. X ___________ ft. = Total Sq. Ft. _________Acres_________ Address/general location of subject property: _________________________________________________ PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): Residential Community Facilities Commercial Industrial together with Courthouse Shadows PUD 2006, 2012 11 50 25 Portion of 1, 2, 3 A Eastgate OR 32 478 Please see Exhibit 2 Legal Description attached as Exhibit 3 20.3+/- 3420, 3390 and 3260 TAMIAMI TRL E COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). Section/Township/Range ______ / ______ /______ Lot: ______Block: ______Subdivision: _____________ Plat Book ______ Page #: ______ Property I.D. #: ________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: ___________________________________________ REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the ________________ zoning district(s) to the ________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: ______________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: ___________________________________________ Original PUD Name:_____________________________ Ordinance No.: _______________________ Collier County Government Complex PUD, C-3 (GTMUD-MXD)Government Offices, Office C-3 (BMUD-R1), RSF-4 (BMUD-R1), RSF-4 & C-3 Vacant, Legal Offices and Residential Collier County Government Complex PUD, C-3 & C-5 Government Offices, Real Estate Office, WalMart Retail Store RMF-6 (BMUD-R1), C-3 (GTMUD-MXD) & RMF-6 (BMUD-R1)Vacant, Offices and Residential N/A PUD & C-3 (GTMUD-MXD)PUD Retail, Commercial Add membership warehouse club with associated liquor store use. Courthouse Shadows PUD 92-8 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B) 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. ______________________________________________________________________ 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) _________________________________________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________ 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. ___________________________________________________________________________ 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. ___________________________________________________________________________ 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. ___________________________________________________________________________ 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. ____________________________________________________________________________ Please see attached Exhibit 4 Please see attached Exhibit 4 Please see attached Exhibit 4 PPlease see attached Exhibit 4 Please see attached Exhibit 4 Please see attached Exhibit 4 Please see attached Exhibit 4 Please see attached Exhibit 4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? Yes No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No If so, please provide copies. NOTICE: This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning for a period of six (6) months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LDC Section 10.03.05.Q.) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING LDC Section 10.03.05. F Applicant must conduct at least one Neighborhood Informational Meeting (NIM) after initial staff review and comment on the application and before the Public Hearing is scheduled with the Planning Commission. Written notice of the meeting shall be sent 15 days prior to the Neighborhood Information Meeting to all property owners who are required to receive legal notification from the County pursuant to Section 10.03.05.F.2. Notification shall also be sent to property owners, condominium and civic associations whose members are impacted by the proposed land use change and who have formally requested the County to be notified. A copy of the list of all parties noticed, and the date, time, and location of the meeting, must be furnished to the Zoning Department and the Office of the Board of County Commissioners no less than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date of the NIM. The applicant must make arrangements for the location of the meeting. The location must be reasonably convenient to those property owners who are required to receive notice and the facilities must be of sufficient size to accommodate expected attendance. The applicant must place an advertisement of the meeting in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear stating the purpose, location, time of the meeting and legible site location map of the property for which the zoning change is being requested. The display advertisement must be one-fourth page, in type no smaller than 12 point and must be placed within a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least seven (7) days prior to, but no sooner than five (5) days before, the NIM. The Collier County staff planner assigned to the project must attend the NIM and shall serve as the facilitator of the meeting; however, the applicant is expected to make a presentation of how it intends to develop the subject property. The applicant is required to audio or video tape the proceedings of the meeting and provide a copy to the Zoning Department. As a result of mandated meetings with the public, any commitments made by the applicant shall be reduced to writing and made a part of the record of the proceedings provided to the Zoning Department. These written commitments will be made a part of the staff report of the County’s review and approval bodies and made a part of the consideration for inclusion in the conditions of approval. In cases where the applicant’s petition activity extends beyond one year from the date that the last Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held, an additional NIM will be conducted with adherence to all notification and advertising required for the initial meeting. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at its expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 PUD AMENDMENT (PUDA) - PUD REZONE (PUDZ) - PUD to PUD REZONE (PUDZ-A) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED STANDARD REQUIREMENTS: 1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area) Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed Application with list of Permitted Uses; Development Standards Table; List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any); List of Developer Commitments and Statement of Compliance narrative (download application from web for current form) PUD Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36” and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD doc/ord and Master Plan 24” x 36” – ONLY IF AMENDING THE PUD Revised PUD application with changes crossed thru & underlined Revised PUD application w/amended Title page w/ord #’s, LDC 10.02.13.A.2 Justification/Rationale for the Deviations (must be on a separate sheet within the application material; please DO NOT include it in the PUD documents) Copies of the following: Deeds/Legal’s & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended) 3 List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 Owner/Affidavit signed & notarized 2 Covenant of Unified Control 2 Completed Addressing checklist 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic copy of EIS or exemption justification 4 Historical Survey or waiver request 4 Utility Provisions Statement w/sketches 4 Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 Survey, signed & sealed 4 Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) with applicable fees. For TIS guidelines & procedures refer to http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=566 7 Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1”=400’ 5 Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or Diskette) 2 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 School Impact Analysis Application – residential projects only (download the School Impact Analysis Application from website) 2 If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas - Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239-690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan”, LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c. Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment Exhibit 2 Property ID #’s Folio Number: 28750000769 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: NO SITE ADDRESS Folio Number: 28750000523 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 28750000028 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3390 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 30480040100 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3260 TAMIAMI TRL E Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment Exhibit 3 Legal Description Page 1 of 1 BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. JMB Trans PORT ATI ON Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC/TRANSPaRTATIDN ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT For Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment (Airport Pulling Road & U.S. 41, Collier County, Florida) March 18,2016 County TIS Review Fees TIS Methodology Review Fee = $500.00 TIS (Minor Study) Review Fee = $750.00 Prepared by: JMB TRANSPDRTATiaN ENBINEERINB, INC. 47 1 1 7TH AVENUE SW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 19 (239) ZZ7-2355 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 27830 (PROJECT NO. 1 60 1 1 1 ) FLO/DA Rxf^svi^.Q^^yJf'/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 Scope of Project 3 Table A - Existing & Proposed Development 3 Figure 1 - Project Location & E+C Road Classification 3.1 Master Concept Plan 3.2 Project Generated Traffic 4 Table B - Net New Trips Generated 4 Table 1 - Trip Generation Computations 4.1 Existing + Committed Road Network 5 Project Traffic Distribution 5 Area of Significant Impact 5 Figure 2 - Project Traffic Distribution 5.1 Table 2A - Area of Impact/Road Classification 5.2 2015 thru 2018 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions 6 Table 2B - 2015 & 2018 Link Volumes 6.1 Table 2C - 2018 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 6.2 Appendix 7 1 Conclusions Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that the proposed Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment will not have a significant and negative impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways, within the project's area of influence, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed increase in commercial land use (i.e., 18,000 square feet of additional floor space and a gasoline refilling kiosk). As determined, the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for the foreseeable fiiture and the project will not create any off-site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Methodology On January 22, 2016, a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) methodology meeting was conducted at the office of Collier County Transportation Planning Department. The $500.00 methodology meeting fee will be paid at the time of submitting the PUD amendment. The TIS methodology was agreed to and is summarized below. PUD Amendment An amendment to the Courthouse Shadows PUD is being proposed that will increase the amount of commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet (net new = 18,000 square feet). Also, being proposed is a gasoline refilling kiosk (24 fiieling positions) that will be exclusive to members of the PUD's expected new tenant, which will be a Sam's Club. Project-Generated Trips Net new trips will be determined based upon ITE's land use code Shopping Center (LUC 820) and Gasoline/Service Station (LUC 944). Net new trips for LUC 820 will be determined by estimating total project trips less existing trips generated. Only 10% of trips estimated by using LUC 944 will be deemed net new because most trips associated with the gasoline refilling service will shoppers of Sam's Club. The 10% net new trips reflect that a small portion of motorists using Sam's gas service are not accounted for as shopping-generated trips. Project-Trip Distribution Trips will be assigned to the surrounding network based upon logic means of ingress/egress and account for surrounding demographics and competing business. Trip assignments will include trips on U.S. 41, Airport Pulling Road and adjacent side streets. Project's Area of Impact The project's area of impact (AOI) will be based upon Collier County's 2%, 2% and 3% criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). LOS Evaluations For the PUD application, only a roadway link concurrency analysis will be required for those roads within the AOI. As part of the SDP application, an operational evaluation of 2 all site accesses and intersections within the AOI will be required to be performed in order to identify any needed improvements. Also, the throat depth at the project's accesses to U.S. 41 will need to be examined in order to ensure adequate separation and queuing capacity is provided to avoid ingress/egress conflicts. Scope of Project Courthouse Shadows is an existing mixed commercial PUD that has approximately 147,000 square feet of various retail and office occupants. The site consists of several large commercial structures and some outparcels. Courthouse Shadows is located on the southeast quadrant of the Airport Road @ U.S. 41 intersection (across for the Collier County Government Center) in Collier County, Florida. The commercial center has one signalized access on U.S. 41, which is aligned with the Espinal Blvd/U.S. 41 intersection. In addition, the site has a right in/out access on U.S. 41, which is located to the southeast of the main signalized access and a directional left-in access located to the northwest of the main entrance. The project also has a full access on Peters Street. Peters Street is a two-lane road that is aligned with the signalized intersection of Airport/U.S. 41. An amendment to the Courthouse Shadows PUD is being proposed that will increase the amount of commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet (net new = 18,000 square feet). Also, being proposed is a gasoline refilling kiosk (24 fueling positions) that will be exclusive to members of the PUD's expected new tenant, which will be a Sam's Club. Table A Existing & Proposed Development Existing Mixed Commercial PUD Existing + Proposed Commercial PUD Net Increase Retail/Office 147,000 s.f. 165,000 s.f & Sam's Store Gas Kiosk 18,000 s.f. & Sam's Store Gas Kiosk 3 4ischmann BWd Clipper Woy Outrigger Lone Horseslioe Dr N. Horseshoe Dr S. Mercantile Avenue XI Progress AJe o iue 0:: Domestic S/t nue u •c 0) Enterprise -iv 3 <§ enue Exchange Av o inue 1 o o Propspect Ave o o NORTH N.T.S. Radio Road Courthouse Shadows PUD January 30, 2016 Project Location & Roadway Classification FIGURE 1 2.1 ZONING: PUD UWD USE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ZONING: PUD AND C.3 LAND USE: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER AND OFFICES ZONING: C.5 LAND USE: RETAIL (WALMART) ZONING: LAND USE: OFFICES ZONING: RSF-t LAND USE RESIDENTIAL 1. RIGHT-OF-WAY BUFFERS 2. LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEB* PIATTED COMMERCIAL BUILDINO LOTS SITE ACREAGE »20.35± COMMEROAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ' 165,000 OPEN SPACE «30"l<. ZONING: RSF-1 (BMUD-R1) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVIATIONS 32301 n/12 GradyMinor IT^" 'S.'S,'^ Civil Englfleera • Land Surveyors • Planners Q. Grady MnormdAMixdateg, P.A. COURTHOUSM: SHADOWS PUD EXHIBIT A-4 PUD MASTER PLAN Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by the project was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9* Edition. That is, historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that Land Use Code "Shopping Center" (LUC 820) and "Gasoline/Service Station" (LUC 944) were most appropriate in estimating the existing, proposed and the net new trips associated with the site. Net new trips for LUC 820 were determined by estimating total project trips less existing trips generated. Only 10% of trips estimated by using LUC 944 will be deemed net new because most trips associated with the gasoline refilling service will shoppers of Sam's Club. The 10% net new trips reflect that a small portion of motorists using Sam's gas service are not accounted for as shopping-generated trips. In order to determine the project's net new traffic, the estimated trips for the existing commercial retail/office uses were subtracted from the estimated total trips for the total proposed floor space. That is, Proposed Development Trips less Existing Development Trips = Net New Trips Table 1 provides a detail of the estimated total trips less existing trips. The net new trips were then adjusted to reflect a pass-by rate of 25%, but no greater than 10% of the adjacent street traffic pr the guidelmes of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The following is a summary of the results. Table B Net New Trips Generated 0 Proposed Trips Less Existing Trips) New Daily (ADT) New AM Peak Hour (vph) NewPM Peak Hour (vph) Existing Trips 6,543 148 582 Existing + Proposed Trips 7,458 185 662 Net New Trips 915 37 80 The report concludes that the project will generate less than 100 net new trip ends during the weekday highest peak hour. As such, the report investigates the traffic impacts associated with the project based upon the criteria set forth by the Collier County Government's Traffic Impact Statement Guidelines for developments generating "less than 100 trips", which is identified as a minor study. 4 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS Sam's Club - Courthouse Shadows EXISTING LAND USE Land Use Code 820 Land Use Code LUC 820 Land Use Description Shopping Center Trip Period Daily Traffic (ADT) = AM Peak Hour (vph) = PM Peak Hour (vph) = Pass-by Trips per ITE= Ln(T) = -0.29Ln(X) New Daily Traffic (ADT) = New AM Peak Hour (vph) = New PM Peak Hour (vph) = Existing Land Uses 147,000 s.f. Trip Generation Equation (Based upon S.F.) Ln(T) = 0.65Ln(X)+5.83 = Ln(T) = 0.61Ln(X)+2.24 = 62% Enter/ 38% Exit = Ln(T) = G.67Ln(X)+3.31 = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = + 5.00 = (ADT) x(% of New Trips) (AM) x(% of New Trips) 62% Enter/38% Exit = (PM)x(% of New Trips) 48% Enter/52% Exit = Total Trips 8,724 ADT 197 vph 776 vph 25% Pass-by Rate per 6,543 ADT 148 vph 582 vph Trips Enter/Exit 122 / 75 vph 372 / 403 vph Collier County 92 / 56 vph 279 /302 vph *****************if *************************************** PROPOSED LAND USE Land Use Code Land Use Description 820 Shopping Center LUC 820 Daily Traffic (ADT) = AM Peak Hour (vph) = Proposed Land Uses 165,000 s.f. 9,404 ADT 212 vph PM Peak Hour (vph) = Ln(T) = 0.65Ln(X)+5.83 = Ln(T) = 0.61Ln(X)+2.24 = 62% Enter/ 38% Exit = Ln(T) = 0.67Ln(X)+3.31 = 48% Enter/ 52% Exit = Pass-by Trips per ITE= Ln(T) = -0.29Ln(X) + 5.00 = New Daily Traffic (ADT) = (ADT) x (% of New Trips) New AM Peak Hour (vph) = (AM) x (% of New Trips) 62% Enter/ 38% Exit = New PM Peak Hour (vph) = (PM) x (% of New Trips) 48% Enter/52% Exit = ********************************************************************************* ********************************************************************************* 25% Pass-by Rate per 7,053 ADT 159 vph 131 / 80 vph 838 vph 402 / 436 vph Collier County 98 / 60 vph 628 vph 301 /327 vph NET NEW TRIPS Daily Traffic (ADT) = AM Peak Hour (vph) = PM Peak Hour (vph) = 510 ADT 11 vph 47 vph 7 / 4 vph 22 / 25 vph Page 1 of 2 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS Sam's Club - Courthouse Shadows Land Use Code Land Use Description 944 Gasoline/Service Station Trip Period LUC 944 Daily Traffic (ADT) = Proposed Land Uses 24 Fueling Positions Trip Generation Equation (Based upon Fuel Positions) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit T=168.56(X) = 4,045 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = PM Peak Hour (vph) = T=10.27(X) + 13.89 = 51% Enter/49% Exit = T=13.87(X) = 50% Enter/50% Exit = 261 vph 133 / 128 vph 333 vph 166 / 166 vph Net New Trips = 10% New Daily Traffic (ADT) = (ADT) x(% of New Trips) 405 ADT New AM Peak Hour (vph) = New PM Peak Hour (vph) = (AM) x(% of New Trips) 51% Enter/49% Exit = (PM)x(% of New Trips) 51% Enter/49% Exit = 26 vph 13 / 13 vph 33 vph 17 / 17 vph *****************ilt**m***if*ilii***if *********************** ********************************************************************************* NET NEW TRIPS GENERATED Daily Traffic (ADT) = 915 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = 37 vph 20 / 17 vph PM Peak Hour (vph) = 80 vph 38 / 42 vph Page 1 of 2 4.1-b Existing + Committed Road Network Figure 1 and Table 2A provide a detail of the surrounding E + C road network. Table 2A depicts the minimum level of service performance standards and capacity for the roads within the project's are of influence. There are no planned capital improvement projects within the project's area of impact. Airport Pulling Road is classified as a six-lane divided arterial. The road is a principal north/south corridor that extends irom U.S. 41 to Immokalee Road. E. Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) is classified as a six-lane divided arterial. The road functions as a principal north/south and east/west arterial that extends through the limits of Collier County and interconnects with the adjacent counties. Project Generated Traffic Distribution The project's net new traffic was distributed to the surrounding road network based upon logical means of ingress/egress, current and fiiture traffic patterns in the area, demographics, competing markets, as well as grovs^h trends for the surrounding areas. Table 2A and Figure 2 provide a detail of the traffic distributions to the adjacent road network. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%, 2% and 3% criteria (i.e., if the project's traffic is 2% or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity, then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2A describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads that were identified as being within the projects area impact are shown in Table 2A. 5 \ Clipper Way Outrigger Lone Horseshoe Dr N. Horseshoe Dr S. c 3 Q. LEGEND , 65% Project Traffic Distribution by Percentobe JMB TRANSPDRTATIQN ENBINEERING, INC. Mercontlle Avenue o Progress •a § iue Of o Domestic •o o nue ^ "m Enterprise -^v O CQ enue Exchange Av o nue 1 o o Propspect Ave o o NORTH N.T.S. Radio Road Davis Blvd Galdes Blvd Harrison Rdn) c o . "I \ Rottlesnake Hammocid Courthouse Shadows PUD January 30. 2016 Project Generated Traffic Distribution FIGURE 2 TABLE 2A PROJECT'S AREA OF IMPACT Project Traffic Peak Direction (vphpd) b Project Traffic Non-Peait Direction (vph) •• 42 Exiting 38 Entering Airport Pulling Rd 6.0 Davis Blvd to U.S. 41 E. Tamiami Trail 91.0 Davis Blvd to Airport Rd 92.0 Airport Rd to Rattlesnake Road Class 6D 6D 6D LOS Service PK Dir. PK Direction Project Serv. Vol. Volume Traffic LOS (vphpd) % Dist. E 2700 30% E E 2900 2900 40% 30% Project Pk Hr PKDir (vphpd) 13 17 13 Project Pk Hr Pk Dir N W E Project Pk Hr Non-PK Dir IVfih] 11 15 11 Project Non-Pk Impact DIR Standard S 2% E W 2% 2% Percent Impact 0.47% 0.58% 0.43% Significant Impact NO NO NO 2015 thru 2018 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2015 thru 2018 project build-out traffic conditions, two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic coimt data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions, peak direction, and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction and annual growth rates were derived from the 2015 Collier County AUIR Report. Using the annual growth rate, the 2018 background traffic conditions were determined, which are depicted in Table 2B. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips (trip bank) identified in the 2015 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season, peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The vested trips "+" 2018 background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 2B. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2018 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 2C provides a summary of the 2015 thru 2018 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build-out. 6 TABLE 2B 2015 & 2018 ROADWAY LINK VOLUMES Airport Pulling Rd 6.0 Davis Blvd to U.S. 41 2014 AUIR Traffic 1620 2015 AUIR AUIR Traffic Pk 1610 S Cate Min Years of Growth Grovirth Growfh Bm fiate 1 -0.62% 2.00% Per Growth Rate MeOtod 2018 Peak Hour PK Direction Trip Background Bank <vphp«;» tvphpd) 1709 6 Per Vested Trips Metho 2018 Peak Hour PK Direction Background Per Vested Trips (vphpd) 1616 E. Tamiami Trail 91.0 Davis Blvd to Airport Rd 92.0 Airport Rd to Rattlesnake 1580 2340 1700 2310 E E 2.47% -0.43% 2.00% 2.00% 1804 2451 47 269 1747 2579 TABLE 2C 2018 ROADWAY LINK VOLUME/CAPACITY ANALYSIS Airport Pulling Rd 6.0 Davis Blvd to U.S. 41 2015 Peak Hour PK Direction (vphpd) 1610 LOS D 2018 2018 Peak Hour 2020 Peak Hour PKDirectk>n Bkgd PKDirectimi Background Pk Background (vphpd) Bk LO§ 1709 S D Project Project PkHr Prjct PkHr Prjct PKDir Pk Non-PK Dir Non-Pk (vphpd) Dir ivBbl Sir 13 N 11 S 2018 Build-Out Peak Hour PK Dir (vphpd) 1720 Serv. Vol. PkHr PK Dir iyebBdl 2700 2018 Build-Out Peak Hour 2018 Build-Out Peak Hour PK Direction PK Direction v/c Ratio 0.64 LOS D E. Tamiami Trail 91.0 Davis Blvd to Airport Rd 1700 0 1804 ED 17 W 15 E 1819 2900 0.63 92.0 Airport Rd to Rattlesnake 2310 E 2579 E E 13 E 11 W 2592 2900 0.89 D E 6^ APPENDIX Support Documents 7 Attachment "F" CoHer Countr 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic Counts Eiljt Cnt. MIn Peak Peak Hour Peak Dir Service 201S Peak Hour Peak Dir 2015 Trip 201S inth Trip 2015 inth Total Trip 2015 Remain. 2015 L O Traffic lOth Trip Count Bank Year Year Eipected Expected 1.0 99910 CP31 Airport Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 4D 554 D N 2,200 1160 43 0 43 1,203 997 547% C 2.1 55 62031 CR3I Airport Road Vanderbih Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 6D 599 E N 3,000 2060 99 0 99 2,159 841 72.0% C 2.2 55 62031 CR31 Airport Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Rd. 6D 503 F. N 3,000 1860 207 0 207 2,067 933 68.9% C 3.0 39 60121 CR31 Airport Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 6D 502 E N 3,000 1740 72 0 72 1,812 1188 60.4% C 4.0 99906 CR31 Airport Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 6D 533 E N 2,800 2120 4 0 4 2,124 676 75.9% D 5.0 3 66031 CR31 Airport Road Radio Road Davis Boulevard 6D 553 E N 2,800 2000 14 0 14 2,014 786 71.9% C 6.0 3 66031 CR31 Airport Road Davis Boulevard US 41 6D 552 E S 2,700 1610 6 0 6 1,616 1084 59.9% C 7.0 99911 Bayshore Drive Tamiami Trail Thomasson Drive 4D 521 D S 1,800 610 38 0 38 648 1152 360% B SO 31 60021 CR865 Bonita Beach Road WestofVanderbillDr. Hickory Boulevard 4D 653 D E 1,900 1010 0 0 0 1,010 890 53.2% C 9.0 Carson Road Lake TraflTord Road Immokalee Drive 2U 610 D N 600 300 0 0 0 300 300 50.0% B lao 33 60101 County Bam Road Davis Boulevard Ratlksnake Hammock Road 2U 519 D S 900 310 51 0 51 361 539 40.1% B 11.0 99912 CR29 CR29 Tamiami Trail Everglades City 2U 582A D S 1,000 180 0 0 0 ISO 820 18.0% B 12.0 SR84 Davis Boulevard Tamiami Trail Airport Road 6D 558 E E 2,700 1480 14 0 14 1,494 1206 55.3% C 13.0 48 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard Airport Road Lakewood Boulevard 4D 539 D E 2,000 1520 0 0 0 1.520 480 76.0% D 14.0 49 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 4D 658 D E 2,000 1550 61 0 61 1,611 389 80.6% D 15.0 83 60161 SR84 Davis Boulevard County Bam Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4D 538 D E 2,200 1360 104 0 104 1,464 736 66.5% C 16.1 S3 SR84 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Rd 6D 560 D E 2,900 640 10 139 149 789 2111 27 2% B 16.2 S3 SR84 Davis Boulevard Radio Rd Collier Boulevard 6U 601 D W 2,900 1020 37 214 251 1,271 1629 43 8% B 17.0 62 63041 CR876 Golden Gale Boulevard Collier Boulevard Wilson Boulevard 4D 531 D E 2,300 1600 0 0 0 1,600 700 69.6% C 18.0 99913 CRS86 Golden Gate Parkway US 41 Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 530 E E 2,700 1160 13 0 13 1,173 1527 43.4% B 19.0 5 60O27C CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road 6D 507 E E 3,300 2740 9 0 9 2,749 551 83.3% D 2025 20.1 74 60006 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Airport Road Livingston Rd. 6D 508 E E 3,300 2230 0 0 0 2,230 1070 676% C 20.2 74 60006 CR886 Golden Gate Pwky Livingston Rd. 1-75 6D 691 E E 3,300 2820 2 0 2 2.822 478 85.5% D 2023 21.0 74 60027 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway I-7S Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 509 E E 3,300 1900 10 0 10 1.910 1390 579% C 22.0 99916 CR886 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 4D • 605 D E 1,800 1470 45 8 53 1,523 277 846% D 2024 23.0 19 68041 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 2U 594 D N 1,000 810 54 0 54 864 136 86.4% D 2023 241 65 601.34 CR851 Goodlettc-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 4D 595 E N 2,400 1370 80 0 80 1,450 950 60.4% C 242 65 60134 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Road 6D 581 E N 2,400 1530 0 0 0 1,530 870 63.8% B 25.0 88 60005 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 6D 505 E N 3,000 1930 0 0 0 1,930 1070 64 3% C 260 99917 CR851 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gale Parkway Tamiami Trail 6D 504 E N 2,700 2140 0 0 0 2,140 560 79.3% D 270 87 68055 Green Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard CoUier Boulevard 2U 642 D E 900 660 0 0 0 660 240 73.3% C 29.0 66011 GuUshore Drive 111th Avenue Vanderbilt Beach Road 2U 583a D N 800 220 0 0 0 220 580 275% B 30.1 37 65061 CR951 Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Rd. 6D 655 E N 3,000 1480 287 174 461 1.941 1059 64.7% C 302 37 65061 CR951 Collier Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Golden Gate Boulevard 6D 584 E S 3,000 1120 128 38 166 1,286 1714 42.9% B 31.1 85 68056 CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Boulevard Pine Ridge Road 6D 536 D N 3,000 1830 19 16 35 1,865 1135 62.2% C 31.2 85 68056 CR951 Collier Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Green 6D 536 D N 3,000 1830 19 12 31 1,861 1139 62.0^4 C 311 76 65062 CR951 Collier Boulevard Green Boulevard Golden Gate Pwky 4D 525 D N 2,300 1380 IS 0 18 1,398 902 60.8% C 322 76 68056B CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Pwky Golden Gate Main Canal 4D 607 D N 2,300 1250 35 162 197 1,447 853 629% C 323 76 68056B CR951 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main Canal 1-75 8D 607 E N 3,600 1250 38 258 296 1.546 2054 42.9% B 33.0 61 60092 SR951 Collier Boulevard 1-75 Davis Boulevard 8D 573 E N 3,600 2480 9 347 356 2,836 764 78.8% D 34.0 86 60001 CR951 Collier Boulevard Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 602 E N 3,000 1600 11 377 388 1,988 1012 663% C 35.0 86 60001 CR951 Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road Tamiami Trail 6D 603 E N 3,200 1620 61 245 306 1.926 1274 60.2% C 36.1 12 64041 SR951 Collier Boulevard Tamiami Trail Wal-Mart DrivewaY 6D 557 E N 2,500 1550 4 183 187 1,737 763 69,5% C 362 SR951 Collier Boulevard Wal-Mart Drtveway Manatee Rd 4D 700 D N 2,000 1700 14 108 122 1,822 178 91 1% D 2021 37.0 12 64041 SR951 Collier Boulevard Manatee Road Mainsail Dr 4D 627 D N 2,200 1430 1 103 104 1,534 666 69.7% C 38.0 51 64041 SR951 Collier Boulevard Mainsail Dr Marco Island Bridge 4D 627 D N 2,200 1430 0 31 31 1,461 739 66.4% C 39.0 64 99901 CR846 lUth Avenue N. Gulishore Drive Vanderbilt Drive 2U 585 D E 700 270 0 0 0 270 430 38.6% B 40.0 1 60031 CR846 111th Avenue N. VanderbUt Drive Tamiami Trail 2U 613 D E 90O 430 2 0 2 432 468 48.0% B 41.1 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Rd 6D 566 E W 3,100 1920 98 0 98 2,018 1082 65.1% C 41.2 6 66042 CR846 Inxnokalee Road Goodlette-Frank Rd Airport Road 6D 625 E E 3,100 2330 68 0 68 2,398 702 774% D 421 6 66042 CR846 Immokalee Road Airport Road Livingston Rd 6D 567 E W 3,100 2860 24 0 24 2.884 216 93,0% D 2020 2019 42.2 6 66042 CR846 Irrenokalee Road Livingston Rd. 1-75 6D/8D 679 E E 3,500 2560 53 0 53 2,613 887 747% C 43.1 8 66045 CR846 Inmokalee Road 1-75 Logan Boulevard 6D/8D 701 E E 3,500 2390 212 169 381 2.771 729 79.2% D 2024 43.2 CRS46 Immokalee Road Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard 6D 656 E E 3,200 I960 170 357 527 2,487 713 777% D 44.0 71 60018 CR846 Immokalee Road Collier Boule\'ard Wilson Boulevard 6D 674 E E 3,300 1650 397 265 662 2.312 988 701% C 45.0 71 60018 CR846 Immokalee Road Wibon Boulevard OUWeURoad 6D 675 E E 3J00 1810 58 205 263 2,073 1227 62.8% C 460 73 60165 CR846 Iiranokalee Road Oil Well Road SR29 2U 672 D E 900 320 14 102 116 436 464 48,4% B 47.0 66 99903 Lake Trafford Road Carson Rd SR 29 2U 609 D E 80O 460 7 0 7 467 333 58.4% C 48.0 60166 Logan Boulevard Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 2U 587 D N 1,000 530 0 19 19 549 451 549% C 49.0 22 68051 Logan Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Green Boulevard 4D 588 D S 1,900 1350 0 0 0 1,350 550 71.1% C 5O0 79 60166 Logan Boulevard Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 2U 644 D N 1,000 470 0 30 30 500 500 50.0% B MASTER Attachment F-2015(081815) ver 1 .xlsx ID* CIK# PniJ* 2015 2015 Traffic imhTrlp Peak Hour Peak 2015 l/7th Count Bank Peak Dir Hour 2015 ina, Total 2015 L Vear Year Cnt MIn Peak Service Peak Dir Trip Trip Trip 2015 Total Remain. 2015 O Expected Expected Sta. Std Dir Vohirae Volume Bank Bank Bank Volume Capacity v/c s Deficient Deficient Dir Vohirae 51.0 21 65041 CR88I LivmfistDn Road Imperial Street Immokalee Road 6/4D 673 D N 3,000 1170 226 0 226 1,396 1604 46.5% B 52.0 57 62071 CR881 Livmtjston Road Immokalee Road Vanderbih Beach Road 6D 576 E N 3,100 1620 56 0 56 1,676 1424 541% C 53.0 58 62071 CR881 Livinfiston Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 6D 575 E S 3,100 1480 160 0 160 1,640 1460 52.9% B 54.0 52 60071 CR881 Livingston Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 6D 690 E N 3,100 1440 36 0 36 1,476 1624 47 6% B 55.0 53 60061 CR881 Livingston Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 6D 687 E N 3,000 1220 39 0 39 1,259 1741 420% B 58.0 67 99904 N. 1st Street New Market Road SR-29 (Main Street) 2U 590 D N 900 540 0 0 0 540 360 60.0% C 59.0 New Market Road Broward Street SR29 2U 612 D E 900 470 12 0 12 482 418 536% C 61.0 36 CampKeais Oil WeU Road Immokalee Road 2U 626A D S 1,000 220 0 102 102 322 678 32.2% B 62.0 68 99905 CR887 Old US 41 Lee County Line Tamiami Trail 2U 547 D N 1,000 960 11 0 11 971 29 971% E 2018 2017 63.0 99924 CR896 Seagate Drive Crayton Road Tamiami Trail 4D 511 D E 1,700 980 7 0 7 987 713 58.1% C 64.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine RUgo Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Road 6D 512 E E 2,800 1880 37 0 37 1,917 883 68.5% C 65.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge Road Goodlette-Frank Road Shirle>- Street 6D 514 E W 2,800 1910 4 0 4 1,914 886 68.4% c 66.0 14 69042 CR896 Pine Ridge Road Shirley Street Airport Road 6D 515 E E 2,800 2230 206 0 206 2,436 364 870% D 2023 67.1 41 60111 CR846 Pine Rklge Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 6D 526 E E 3,000 2660 149 0 149 2,809 191 93.6% D 2019 67.2 41 60111 CR846 Pine Ridge Road Livingston Rd 1-75 6D 628 E E 3,000 2960 210 0 210 3,170 1 1 7( I; 105.7% F 2016 Existing 68.0 41 99907 CR896 Pine Ridge Road 1-75 Logan Boulevard 6D 600 E E 2,800 2080 1 0 1 2,081 719 743% C 69.0 15 65032 CR856 Radio Road Airport Road Livingston Road 4D 544 D E 1,800 1110 3 0 3 1,113 687 61.8% C 700 15 65033 CR856 Radio Road Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4D 527 D E 1,800 1120 0 0 0 1,120 680 62.2% C 71,0 16 65031 CRS56 Radio Road Sanw Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard 4D 685 D W 1,800 540 0 85 85 625 1175 347% B 72.0 17 65021 CRS64 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Tamiami Trail Charlemagne Boulevard 4D 516 D W 1,800 1000 0 55 55 1,055 745 58.6»/b C 73.0 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Charlemagne Boulevard County Bam Road 4D 517 n w 1,800 700 0 48 48 748 1052 41.6% B 740 17 65021 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4D 534 D w 1.900 670 0 40 40 710 1190 37.4% B 75.0 77 60169 CR864 Rattlesnake Hammock Road Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 6D 518 E w 2,900 500 8 115 123 623 2277 21.5% B 76.0 56 6208 IB Santa Barbara Boulevard Green Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway 4D 529 D N 2,100 1230 9 0 9 1,239 861 59.0?/, C 770 56 62081A Santa Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 6D 528 E N 3,100 1740 54 0 54 1,794 1306 579% C 78.0 56 62081A Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road Davis Boulevard 6D 537 E N 3,100 1290 221 0 221 1.511 1589 48,7% B 79.0 Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard Rattlesnake-Hammock Rd. 6D 702 E S 3,100 840 111 0 111 951 2149 307% B 80.0 SR29 SR29 Tamiami Trail CR 837 (Janes Scenic Dr) 2U 6I5A D N 900 120 0 0 0 120 780 13.3% B 81.0 SR29 SR29 CR 837 (Janes Scenic Drl 1-75 2U 615A D N 90O 120 0 0 0 120 780 13.3% B 82.0 SR29 SR29 1-75 Oil Well Road 2U 615A D N 900 120 8 61 69 189 711 21.0% B 83.0 SR29 SR 29 Oil WeU Road CR 29A South 2U 665A D N 900 280 0 0 0 280 620 31.1% B 840 SR29 SR 29 CR 29A South 9th Street 4D 664 D w 1,700 550 73 0 73 623 1077 36.6% B 85.0 SR29 SR29 9th Street CR 29A North 2U 663 D S 900 560 29 0 29 589 311 65.4% C 86.0 SR29 SR 29 CR 29A North SR82 2U 663 D S 900 560 0 0 0 560 340 62.2% C 87.0 SR29 SR29 Hendrv County Line .SR82 2U 591A D s 800 340 0 0 0 340 460 42.5% B 88.0 SR82 SR82 Lee County Line SR29 2U 661A D s 800 690 0 0 0 690 110 86.3% D 2023 91.0 43 US41 Tamiami Trail East Davis Boulevard Airport Road 6D 545 E E 2,900 1700 0 47 47 1,747 1153 60.2% C 92.0 47 US41 Tamiami Trail East AitDortRoad Rattlesnake Hammock Road 6D 604 E E 2,900 2320 21 248 269 2,589 311 893% D 2022 93.0 46 US41 Tamiami Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Road Triangle Boulevard 6D 572 E E 3,000 1910 30 329 359 2.269 731 75.6% D 94.0 US41 Tamiami Trail East Triangle Boulevard Collier Boulevard 6D 571 E E 3,000 1490 8 203 211 1,701 1299 56.7% C 95.1 US41 Tamiami Trail East Collier Boulevard Joseph Lane 6D 608 D E 3,100 670 171 192 363 1,033 2067 33.3% B 95.2 US41 Tamiami Trail East Joseph Lane Greenway Road 4D 608 D E 2,000 670 171 102 273 943 1057 472% B 95.3 US41 Tamiami Trail East Greenway Road San Marco Drive 2U 608 D E 1,075 670 171 4 175 845 230 78.6% D 96.0 US41 Tamiami Trail East San Miirco Drive SR29 2U 617A D E 1,000 220 0 0 0 220 780 22.0% B 970 US41 Tamiami Trail East SR29 Dade County Line 2U 616A D E 1,000 190 0 0 0 190 810 I9.0°,b B 98.0 71 US41 Tamiami Trail North Lee County Lme Wiggins Pass Road 6D 546 E N 3,100 1990 55 8 63 2,053 1047 66.2% C 99.0 50 US41 Tamiami Trail North Wiggins Pass Road Immokalee Road 6D 564 E N 3,100 2530 28 8 36 2,566 534 82.8% D 2025 lOO.O 45 US4I Tamiami Trail North Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 6D 577 E N 3,100 2060 19 0 19 2,079 1021 671% C 101.0 45 US41 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive 6D 563 E N 3,100 2300 0 0 0 2,300 800 74.2% C 102.0 US41 Tamiami Trail North Gulf Park Drive Pine Ridge Road 6D 562 E N 3.100 1860 1 0 I 1,861 1239 60.0?/o C 108.0 Thomasson Drive Bayshore Drive Tamiami Trail 2U 698 D E 800 470 12 53 65 535 265 669% C 109.0 42 65071 CRS62 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulfehore Drive Tamiami Trail 2U/4D 524 E E 1,400 1070 0 0 0 1,070 330 76.4% D 110.1 23 67021 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Road 4D 646 D E 1,900 1.350 1 0 I 1,351 549 71.1% J C 110.2 23 67021 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodlette-Frank Rd. Airport Road 4D/6D 666 D E 2,500 1700 0 0 0 1,700 800 68.0% C 111.1 63 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 6D 579 E W 3,000 1890 0 0 0 1,890 1110 63.0% c 111.2 63 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Rd. Logan Bh'd 6D 668 E E 3,000 1800 66 0 66 1,866 1134 62.2% c 112.0 24 63051 CR862 Vanderbilt Beach Road Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard 6D 580 E E 3,000 1250 187 2 189 1,439 1561 48 0% B 114.0 25 69061 CR901 Vanderbilt Drive Bonita Beach Road Wiggins Pass Road 2U 548 D N 1,000 420 2 32 34 454 546 45.4% B 115.0 69061 CR901 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road 111th Avenue 2U 578 D N 1,000 420 3 13 16 436 564 43.6% B 116.0 26 69021 Weslclox Rd Carson Rd SR29 2U 611 D W 800 210 0 1J 0 210 590 26.3% B 117.0 99928 CR888 Wiggins Pass Road Vanderbilt Drive 2U 669 D E 1,000 420 5 13 18 438 562 43.8% B 118.0 Wilson Bh^d Immokalee Road Golden Gate Bh'd. 2U 650 D S 900 260 0 0 0 260 640 28.9% B 119.0 60044 CR858 Oil Well Road Immokalee Road Everglades Boulevard 4D 725S D E 2,000 490 0 216 216 706 1294 35.3% B 120.0 60044 CR858 Oil Well Road Everglades Desoto 2U 694 D W 1,100 220 0 200 200 420 680 38.2% B MASTER Attachment F-2015(081815) ver Ixlsx December 1, 2015 Mr. Michael K. Dunaway, P.E., P.G. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Petroleum Restoration Program – Team 5 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS #4585 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Subject: Well Abandonment and Site Restoration Report Former Speedway #9819 / ECOL #819 3280 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Collier County, Florida FDEP Facility No. 118518213 Purchase Order No. AD78F6 Dear Mr. Dunaway: Please find enclosed one electronic copy of the Well Abandonment and Site Restoration Report as prepared by our consultant, Cardno ATC, for the above referenced facility. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (937) 863-6919. Sincerely, SPEEDWAY LLC Brian Davis Environmental Representative cc: Kimberly Gravelle, Sr. Project Manager, Cardno ATC Ms. Brenda Wood, Florida Department of Transportation, Brenda.wood@dot.state.fl.us Remediation File #9819 Cardno ATC 5602 Thompson Center Ct. Suite 405 Tampa, FL 33634 Phone +1 813 889 8960 Fax +1 813 889 8754 www.cardno.com www.cardnoatc.com Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries December 1, 2015 Mr. Michael K. Dunaway, P.E., P.G. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Petroleum Restoration Program – Team 5 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS #4585 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Subject: Well Abandonment and Site Restoration Report Former Speedway #9819 / ECOL #819 3280 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Collier County, Florida FDEP Facility No. 118518213 Purchase Order No. AD78F6 Cardno ATC Project No. Z751160068 Dear Mr. Dunaway: Cardno ATC, on behalf of Speedway LLC (Speedway), completed monitoring well abandonments and site restoration at the referenced site between October 19 and October 21, 2015. The well abandonment and site restoration activities were performed in accordance with My Florida Marketplace Purchase Order Number AD78F6 (Appendix A). Preferred Drilling Solutions Inc. (PDS) abandoned a total of 16 site wells: MW -1, MW-2, MW -3, MW -4, MW -5, MW -6, MW -7, DMW -8 and RW-1, biosparge wells (BS-1 through BS-3), and piezometers wells (PZ-1 through PZ-4) including removal of vaults on October 19, 2015 (Figure 1). Wells were abandoned in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 62-532.500(4), Florida Administrative code (F.A.C.). The well abandonment completion reports prepared by PDS and all permits are provided in Appendix B. Preferred Drilling Solutions Inc. (PDS) completed the following site restoration activities between October 20 and October 21, 2015: Removed the compound fencing; removed the power pole and the electrical wiring from utility disconnect; cut and capped all PVC piping at least 6 inches below grade; removed the vault and 2’x8’x8’ concrete block that was associated with the previous remedial system; removed gravel from compound area; sodded all areas to match surroundings; properly disposed of all wastes resulting from decommissioning and demolition activities. The waste manifests and bills of lading for all of the disposal materials are attached in Appendix C. The field notes and photo documentation of the site restoration activities are included in Appendix D. Well Abandonment and Site Restoration Report 2 Former Speedway #9819 / ECOL #819 FAC ID #11/8518213 www.cardnoatc.com Please contact the undersigned at (813) 889-8960 if you have any questions regarding the documentation provided herein. Sincerely, Kimberly E. Gravelle Senior Project Manager cc: Mr. Brian Davis, Speedway LLC – 500 Speedway Drive, Enon, OH 35323 Ms. Brenda Wood, Florida Department of Transportation Remediation File #9819 Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries FIGURES FORM E R BUILD I N G OHWSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSTORM WATER CATCH BASIN LEGEND ABANDONDED/DESTROYED WELL POWER POLE CONCRETE PAVEMENT ASPHALT PAVEMENT GRASS / LANDSCAPING / UNPAVED UST UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FENCE REMEDIATION SYSTEM PIPE TRENCH OVERHEAD WIRE (UTILITY)OHW SANITARY SEWER PIPESAN OHW OHW OHW OHW MW-3 MW-6 MW-1 MW-5 MW-4 MW-7 MW-2 DMW-8 CW-3 CW-4 CW-1 CW-5 CW-6 CW-2 BS-3 BS-2 BS-1 PZ-4 PZ-1 PZ-2 PZ-3RW-1 OAK TREE (TYP.) PALM TREE (TYP.) FO R M E R US T AR E A FORMER REMEDIAL SYSTEM COMPOUNDS T A M I A M I T R A I L E A S T PETERS STREET(ASPHALT) (GRASS)PETERS STREETLANE STRIPE PAINT (TYP.) FORMER DISPENSERS FORMER SPEEDWAY #9819 / ECOL #819 FDEP FAC. ID# 11/8518213 3280 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Collier County, Florida DRAWN BY:J.J.D. SCALE IN FEET0 30 FIGURE NO.1 DRAWING TITLE: NAME/ADDRESS: SITE PLAN PROJECT NO.001.75116.0068 CHECKED BY:K.G. Certificate of Authorization #7783 5602 Thompson Center Ct. Suite 405 Tampa, Florida (813) 889-8960 (813) 889-8754 FAX Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries APPENDIX A Order No. AD78F6 Version Number: 1 Internal Version: false Issued on Wed, 09 Sep, 2015 Created on Wed, 09 Sep, 2015 by Ariba System Supplier: Cardno ATC 5602 Thompson Center Ct, Suite 405 Tampa, FL 33634 United States Phone: 1727-631-6009 Fax: 1 Contact: Kimberly Gravelle Ship To: DEP-PETROLEUM RESTORATION PROGRAM SECTION 3 BMC RM 479 MS 4530 2600 BLAIR STONE RD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 United States Bill To: DEP-PETROLEUM RESTORATION PROGRAM SECTION 3 BMC RM 479 MS 4530 2600 BLAIR STONE RD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399 United States Deliver To: Michael Dunaway (Contracts) Entity Description: Department of Environmental Protection Organization Code: 37450404555 Object Code: 000000-139900 Expansion Option: JG Exemption Status: No Exemption Reason?: Item Description Part Number Unit Qty Need By Unit Price Extended Amount 1 Contractor has been selected to perform a ... Dollar 5,030.58 None $1.00000 USD $5,030.58000 USD Contractor has been selected to perform a Well Abandonment (WA) at the Ecol #819, 3280 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Collier County, Florida, FAC ID 118518213. Attachment A, Scope of Work, attached to the purchase order (PO) describes the work to be completed by the Contractor. All work shall be performed in accordance with the terms of the Agency Term Contract (ATC). The PRP reference number for this project is 844-008B. Attache d hereto and made a part of this PO is Attachment B - Schedule of Pay Items and Other Related Documents. Pay Items are at or below the negotiated maximum rates included in the ATC. Contractor must submit the appropriate completed documents from Attachment B to the Site Manager with each deliverable, as instructed. Upon completion and approval of all work under this PO, Contractor shall submit a signed Release of Claims document, along with the final invoice. Contractor must include Subcontractor Utilization Report form, included as a tab on Attachment B, with each invoice. The Department will retain 10% of the total amount of each payment made. Contractor may submit a request for release of retainage upon completion, and DEP approval of, all work performed under this PO. The Department will evaluate the Contractor as specified in the Agency Term Contract. The Contractor agrees to perform the services described in the PO in accordance with the terms of its ATC (as those terms may have been amended) which are in effect on date of issuance of the PO. The applicable ATC terms are available at the following URL: https://facts.fldfs. com/Search/ContractD etail.aspx?AgencyId= 370000&ContractId=GC 844 Distributors?: N Requester: Michael Dunaway (Contracts) Ship To Code: DEP306S State Contract ID: Contract ID: Requester Phone: 850-222-6446 x.248 Page 1 of 2Order AD78F6 9/9/2015file:///E:/75116%20-%20Speedway/0068%20-%20SSA%20#%209819%20-%20Naples/Tas... Comments z Leslie Cross (Contracts), 08/26/2015: The following attachments are attached hereto and made a part of this Purchase Order. Attachment A – Scope of Work Attachment B – Schedule of Pay Items and Other Related Documents (Leslie Cross (Contracts), Wed, 26 Aug, 2015) z Lauren Mackey (Contracts), 08/27/2015: PRP ref # 844-008B (Lauren Mackey (Contracts), Thu, 27 Aug, 2015) z COMMENT by Gwenn Godfrey (Contracts) on 09/08/2015 Contractor has provided the DEP with quotes for some of the activities for this project. The terms and conditions of the DEP Agency Term Contract (ATC) apply to and control all work performed by Contractor, and DEP does not accept, agree to, or incorporate any other terms and conditions. Any terms and conditions negotiated between Contractor and any subcontractors or suppliers that seek to supplement, or are in conflict with the ATC, are not binding on or apply to the Contractor and DEP’s contractual relationship. Contractor bears the risk that additional terms and conditions negotiated between it and subcontractors or suppliers will delay, interfere with or frustrate its performance under the ATC. (Gwenn Godfrey (Contracts), Tue, 08 Sep, 2015) z COMMENT by Gwenn Godfrey (Contracts) on 09/08/2015 This work is associated with the attached cost-share/co-payment Agreement. The Department will only compensate you for the Department’s share of the cleanup, pursuant to this Agreement. Therefore, you must make arrangements with the Participant/Applicant to that Agreement to receive payment for the remaining balance of your payment. You may not reduce the Applicant/Participants cost-share/co-payment. Contact information is in this Agreement. If the Applicant/Participant does not timely compensate you, please immediately inform the site manager. (Gwenn Godfrey (Contracts), Tue, 08 Sep, 2015) Attachments z ATTACHMENT by Leslie Cross (Contracts) on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 4:06 PM Attachment A - WA Scope of Work - 118518213.pdf (312864 bytes) z ATTACHMENT by Leslie Cross (Contracts) on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 5:54 PM PAC297 Agreement - 118518213.pdf (441455 bytes) z ATTACHMENT by Leslie Cross (Contracts) on Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM Attachment B - Schedule of Pay Items & Other Related Documents - 118518213.xls (2359808 bytes) PR No.: PR8935551 MyGreenFlorida Content: N Method of Procurement:: J - Agency ITN [s 287.057(1) (c ), F.S.] Shipping Method: Best Way FOB Code: INC-Dest FOB Code Description: Destination freight paid by vendor and included in price. Title passes upon receipt. Vendor files any claims. Encumber Funds: Yes PO Start Date: Wed, 9 Sep, 2015 PO End Date: Wed, 6 Apr, 2016 Fiscal Year Indicator: 2016 PUI#: 3701 Site Code: 370000-12 Terms and Conditions: http://dms.myflorida.com/mfmp_PO_TC P Card Order?: No Total $5,030.58000 USD Page 2 of 2Order AD78F6 9/9/2015file:///E:/75116%20-%20Speedway/0068%20-%20SSA%20#%209819%20-%20Naples/Tas... Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries APPENDIX B Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries APPENDIX C Australia • Belgium • Canada • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy • Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates • United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries APPENDIX D HALDEMAN CREEK DEED BOOK 28 PAGE 193 0 200'100' SCALE: 1" = 200' GradyMinor Civil Engineers Ɣ Land Surveyors Ɣ Planners Ɣ Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) ___________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS ______________________________________________ CITY _______ STATE ______ ZIP ______ TELEPHONE # __________________________ CELL # ______________ FAX # ______________ E-MAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________ ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): __________________________________________ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range _______ / _______ /_______ Lot: _______Block: _______Subdivision: _______ Plat Book _______ Page #: _______ Property I.D. #: __________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: ________________________________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME _________________________ c. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT (GPD capacity) __________________________ d. SEPTIC SYSTEM TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME _________________________ d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) X KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100 Indianapolis IN 46204 317.577.5600 317.577.5605 estrickland@kiteco.com 3420, 3390 and 3260 Tamiami Trail East 11 50 25 1, 2, 3 A Eastgate OR 32 478 Please see attached Exhibit 2 Please see attached Exhibit 3 ✔ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net February 4, 2011 TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: ____________________________ PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER-PEAK ___________ AVERAGE DAILY _____________ B. SEWER-PEAK ____________ AVERAGE DAILY ______________ IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED _______________ NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT: If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PROVIDERS: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 18,000 square feet 1,800 GPD 1,080 GPD 1,800 GPD 1,080 GPD Connection exists Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment Exhibit 2 Property ID #’s Folio Number: 28750000769 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: NO SITE ADDRESS Folio Number: 28750000523 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 28750000028 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3390 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 30480040100 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3260 TAMIAMI TRL E Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment Exhibit 3 Legal Description Page 1 of 1 BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Courthouse Shadows PUD Deviation Justifications Deviation Justifications (rev5) 10-06-2016.docx Page 1 of 5 Deviation 1: Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10’x20’ (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. Justification 1: The Sam’s Club currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 s.f. According to the code for this size of a store a total of 7 loading docks would be required. Sam’s currently shows a total of 5 loading docks (12’ wide by 90’ long), based on business knowledge and historical information this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam’s Club operates their own vehicle fleet and controls the timing of all truck deliveries. Deviation 2: Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15’ landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. Justification 2: The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist between the parent tract and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD, is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an 8’ wide planting area and is even greater in some areas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. Deviation 3: Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5’ wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. Courthouse Shadows PUD Deviation Justifications Deviation Justifications (rev5) 10-06-2016.docx Page 2 of 5 Justification 3: The existing water management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional water management system. The water management areas will have planting shelfs along the perimeter to support the required landscaping within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibits. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not consistently meet the 20’ wide minimum for activity centers adjacent to roadways. Deviation 4: Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. Justification 4: There are existing areas in the shopping center in the northern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscaping island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. Deviation 5: Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6’ away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. Justification 5: The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security and safety for nearby residents by creating a barrier from the projects surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. Courthouse Shadows PUD Deviation Justifications Deviation Justifications (rev5) 10-06-2016.docx Page 3 of 5 Deviation 6: Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.B, which requires separation from adjacent facilities with fuel pumps to a minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a separation of 0’ feet for the fuel facility separation from residential. Justification 6: The proposed Sam’s Club will have a member only fueling facility as an ancillary use as part of the overall project. The fueling facility will not be located on a separate tract or parcel. The proposed Sam’s Fuel Station canopy is located approximately 293’ away from the existing Chevron Fuel station canopy located along the project frontage. The gas station for this development is an accessory use to the main membership warehouse use of the redevelopment and is not open to the public without a membership. This location is the least intrusive for the public and ideal for access by customers and fuel tank delivery trucks. The gas station use could be developed elsewhere on the site in such a way to meet the separation requirement on the site; however, that will put it immediately at the Airport Pulling and Tamiami Trail intersection and further away from the main building. No reduction for residential is necessary if the applicant can measure the separation from the fuel canopy as the fuel canopy to the nearest residential property line is approximately 300’. This deviation is justified because the property is separated from the nearby residential use by an existing canal and mature landscape buffer. The applicant also proposes to install a 7’ high wall, which will result in a total wall height of approximately 11’ above grade of the nearby residential lots. The applicant proposes to deviate from the requirement to center the proposed wall by locating the screen wall in the area closest to the project parking and to have the required landscaping located at the property line and adjacent to the wall as shown on Deviation #6 exhibit. This requested buffer meets the intent of the LDC required buffer. The special landscape requirements are not necessary for the area located along Peters Avenue, as the Sam’s Club warehouse building will be located between the fueling area and the residences along Peters Avenue. The active parts of the fueling facility are the fueling stations. There is no convenience store associated with the fueling facility. Deviation 7: Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25’ to remain. Justification 7: Courthouse Shadows PUD Deviation Justifications Deviation Justifications (rev5) 10-06-2016.docx Page 4 of 5 The redevelopment proposes to update the existing pole signs to be monument signs that are consistent with the architecture for the redeveloped site. Although fewer than 8 tenants are anticipated to occupy the site if the warehouse club use is constructed, the signage structures exist and it would be more cost effective to retrofit the existing sign structure, rather than to remove and replace. A base will be constructed on the signs and landscaping will be installed consistent with the code. Please see the included exhibits for reference. Deviation 8: Deviation #8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area, a maximum length, or uninterrupted curve of any façade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations along the western portion of the truck dock side (north) and the rear (west) building elevations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit A-11. Justification 8: The proposed building massing, articulation, and materials are appropriate for the style and scale of the building type, and the context of existing buildings in the area. The overall massing, building elements (i.e., canopies, pitched roof, overhangs, etc.), and upgraded building materials such as stone are concentrated near the entrance and kept at a pedestrian level so that customers can experience these architectural features. Likewise, landscaping included foundation plantings are incorporated on all sides of the building to enhance and further break up the articulation of each façade. The proposed building design complies with the above-listed section of the zoning ordinance for architectural design with the exception of two areas – along the western portion of the truck dock side (north) and the rear (west) building elevations. The large pilaster elements on the north elevation are kept at a 2’-0” maximum projection in order to not impede on the “back of house” operations of the store. Truck turnaround and maneuvering restricts this area of the building from 10’ deep projections. Due to existing landscape, undergrowth, and the additional plantings that will be required along Peters Avenue, the building along the west side will have limited visibility. Additionally, due to required detention ponds on the west side of building and site constraints, there is limited opportunity for architectural “bump-outs.” Because of these limitations, the current proposed design includes large pilaster elements to comply with the intent of the code requirement. A 6’ high fence and gate with slats will be installed for fire access along Peters Avenue will further decrease visibility of the rear façade. Deviation 9: Courthouse Shadows PUD Deviation Justifications Deviation Justifications (rev5) 10-06-2016.docx Page 5 of 5 Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15’ with an average width of 20’ as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. Justification 9: The existing project perimeter buffer for the developed portion of the project varies from approximately 13 feet in width to 20 feet, The deviation will permit the property owner to install a buffer more consistent with that immediately adjacent to the 0.28± acre parcel being added to the PUD. Please see Deviation #9 Buffer Exhibit. Deviation 10: Deviation #10 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which establishes landscape standards for facilities with fuel pumps where they are within 250’ of residential districts, to permit an alternative landscape buffer consistent with the proposed Deviation #10 Cross Section exhibit. Justification 10: The applicant is offering an alternative buffer between the facility with fuel pumps and the nearby residential use. The proposed buffer will be approximately 44’ wide, and consist of two landscape buffer areas and solid wall. The proposed 7’ solid wall is at an elevation that will achieve the same height otherwise required by code. Courthouse Shadows PUD Petition PL2012-1515 Neighborhood Information Meeting December 17, 2012, 5:30 p.m. D. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant opened the meeting at 5:40 p.m. Representatives for the project in attendance were Richard Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., and Kay Deselem representing Collier County. At the time the meeting began one member of the public was in attendance. A sign-in sheet was provided at the entrance of the meeting room. Mr. Arnold began the information meeting by introducing the Owner/Developer representatives and County Staff. He then proceeded to explain the petition request and the addition of the 0.28± acre parcel to the PUD and what the development intentions were. Mr. Arnold asked the member of the public if he had any questions, he responded to Mr. Arnold by asking if any changes were proposed for the existing buildings within the PUD. Mr. Arnold replied that one part of the existing building square footage may be expanded but no specific changes were determined at this time. Mr. Arnold indicated that no new uses were proposed in the PUD. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com June 23, 2016 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting; Petition PL20120001515, Courthouse Shadows PUD Dear Sir or Madam: A formal application has been submitted to Collier County, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, by KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., for the following described property: The subject property is comprised of approximately 20.3± acres, on the Southeast quadrant of Peters Avenue and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC is asking the County to approve this application to allow an amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Courthouse Shadows PUD. The Courthouse Shadows PUD is an existing retail project. The PUD amendment proposes to add a 0.28± acre FDOT surplus parcel of land adjacent to the northwest PUD boundary, and increase the maximum commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet. Membership warehouse club with associated liquor sales and gas pumps is proposed to be added to the already approved list of uses that can occur in the PUD. A new conceptual Master Plan has been prepared for the PUD. The property is located within Activity Center #16 and the existing uses are consistent with the commercial uses permitted in the activity center. Deviations are being requested to seek relief from specific architectural, sign, and site design requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC). You are invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting hosted by KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC to inform nearby property owners, neighbors and the public of the proposed PUD amendment for the subject property. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing, and will be held on Wednesday, July 13, 2016, 5:30 pm at the Collier County Government Center, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Board of County Commissioner’s Chambers, Naples, FL 34112. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by e-mail, phone, fax or mail to: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Sincerely, Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician Courthouse Shadows CPUD Location Map FLN NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL SECT TWP RANGE SUBCONDO BLOCKBLDG LOTUNIT 30480120004 2947 PETERS AVE INVESTMENT LLC 2210 VANDERBILT RD ATE 1201 NAPLES, FL 34109---0000 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 6 + 7 OR 767 PG 1684 11 50 25 270700 A 6 394360003 3550 SOUTH TRAIL 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13, E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 420FT TO POB, E 286.03FT, SWLY 129.90FT, W 13 50 25 100 47 71800000640 ADDORIO, JOHN 3339 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5959 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 39 LESS N 15FT, AND LOT 38 14 50 25 611200 F 39 74412600008 ADELA, ARIEL SOCARRAS 3420 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5932 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 15 OR 544 PG 250 13 50 25 635500 D 15 74410040000 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC 649 GALLEON DR NAPLES, FL 34102---7641 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 1 13 50 25 635500 A 1 61841920003 ASLI, ABBAS AHRABI 473 BANYAN BLVD NAPLES, FL 34102---5103 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 LOT 124 LESS N 1300FT LESS R/W ,ALG WITH BEG AT PT ON NLY R/W US 41, 108.15FT SELY FROM 11 50 25 504400 124 71800000763 BALAJ, VERONICA & MIHAI 415 GATE STU PO BOX 829 NIAGARA, ON CANADA L0S1J0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 4A 14 50 25 611200 F 41.4 392120009 BAUMGARTNER, CHLOE C F MEYER STRASSE BASEL SWITZERLAND 544059 13 50 25 BEG AT A PT 183FT N OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE + W SEC LI E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB,13 50 25 100 8 48680320007 BECK, EDWARD F & BARBARA E 1322 ROUTE 83 CAPE MAY CT HSE, NJ 08210---0000 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 8 14 50 25 394000 8 392440006 BISSAILLON, FAITH 3353 DOMINION DR NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 S 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 1654 1408 13 50 25 100 14 71800000404 BLACKLIDGE, LISA 3334 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 25 14 50 25 611200 F 25 26830960006 BRAWNER, JAMES C & LEEANN 3097 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5905 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 27 OR 1840 PG 662 11 50 25 226900 27 71800000381 BREITENBUECHER, RICHARD IM BRUEHL # 17 STAUFEN GERMANY 79219 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 23 14 50 25 611200 F 23 26830280003 BROWN, DONNA 130-04-225TH ST SPRINGFIELD GARD, NY 11413---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 10 11 50 25 226900 10 74411800003 BURTON, WILLARD D & PEGGY L 3500 TAMIAMI LN NAPLES, FL 34112---5946 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK C N1/2 OF LOT 5 + ALL LOT 6 OR 631 PG 655 + OR 373 PG 865 13 50 25 635500 C 5 74413240001 CADENHEAD ET UX, ROBERT E 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOTS 10 + 11 OR 334 PG 543 13 50 25 635500 E 10 74413200009 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 9 OR 1185 PG 1438 13 50 25 635500 E 9 74412440006 CADENHEAD, TARA LEIGH 3434 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 11 13 50 25 635500 D 11 393040007 CARDILLO, JOHN P DANIEL R MONACO 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4905 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13, E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 706.03FT TO POB, N 89 DEG E 139.60FT, S 38 DEG E 13 50 25 100 24 26830240001 CARR, PHILIP R 111 MAHOGANY DR NAPLES, FL 34108---2926 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 9 11 50 25 226900 9 26831040006 CARROLL, CINDY 2805 S HORESHOE DR STE 1 NAPLES, FL 34104---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 29 11 50 25 226900 29 26831320001 CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF VENICE INC PO BOX 2116 VENICE, FL 34284---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 37-40, LESS THAT PORTION OF LOT 39 AS DESC IN OR 2072 PG 1405 11 50 25 226900 37 26831120007 CAZIMIR, YVES 2973 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5921 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 32 OR 1851 PG 1825 11 50 25 226900 32 391520008 CHRISSY'S AT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 2412 PINEWOODS CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---2538 12 50 25 OUTPARCEL 1, COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS: COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12, S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG 12 50 25 100 45 30480600003 COLEMAN II, JAMES E & RACHEL 3148 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 23 & S 10FT OF LOT 22 11 50 25 270700 B 23 389600008 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 12 50 25 PAR 3 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX DESC AS; COMM SW CNR SEC 12, RUN N ALG W SEC LINE 1858.24 FT, E 70 FT TO E LINE 12 50 25 100 3 391280005 COLLIER COUNTY % OFFC OF COUNTY ATTORNEY 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E STE 800 NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12, N 89 DEG E 1216.63FT, N 89 DEG E 75FT POB, N 24 DEG E 45FT, S 66 DEG E 80FT, S 24 12 50 25 100 39 1 394280002 CONNOLLY, COLLEEN 3501 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 13 50 25 S105FT OF FOLL:PT ON W LI SEC, 865FT S OF NW CNR, E 175FT TO POB, SAID PT ON E LI OF 60FT R/W, CONT E 135FT 13 50 25 100 45 389960007 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS INC % POTEET PROPERTIES PO BOX 10667 NAPLES, FL 34101---0667 12 50 25 BEG AT SW COR SEC, RUN N 1213.44FT, S 52 DEG E 167.05FT TO PT OF CURVE, FOLL CURVE 422.10FT TO POB, CONT 12 50 25 100 12 26830480007 CRAIG TR, GERDA THE FORREST CRAIG FMLY TR UST UTD 5/7/98 131 JORDAN RD EMERSON, NJ 07630---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 16 11 50 25 226900 16 71800000705 DES NOYERS, RICHARD & SANDRA S PO BOX 8178 NAPLES, FL 34101---8178 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 1A 14 50 25 611200 F 41.1 26830120008 DEVARISTE, JEAN E VIERGELENE DEVARISTE 2872 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 5 + 6 OR 1975 PG 363 11 50 25 226900 5 26830320002 DONAUS, ERNEST BERTHUDE FAUGUE 2972 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 11 11 50 25 226900 11 26830720000 DUNCKLEE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 248 SPRING HILL, TN 37174---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 22 AND 5FT OF LOT 23 11 50 25 226900 22 392160001 ELLEN D WERNICK REV TRUST 3388 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 13 50 25 FROM PT OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE WITH W SEC LI RUN N 130FT FOR POB, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 13 50 25 100 9 392480008 FAIRHOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC 139 MAIN ST # 203 UNIONVILLE, ON CANADA L3R 2G6 13 50 25 N100FT OF FOLL: FROM PT ON W LI OF SEC 13- 50-25 DISTANT 865FT S OF NW1/4 CNR OF SEC, RUN E175 FT TO POB,13 50 25 100 15 26830840003 FAWNKY LLC 20533 BISCAYNE BLVD #1238 AVENTURA, FL 33180---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 24 11 50 25 226900 24 26830040007 FIRST CHOICE STORAGE LC 4401 GULFSHORE BLVD N # 704 NAPLES, FL 34103---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 1-4, LESS STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING OR 2012 PG 1717 CASE# 94-1880-CA PAR 137 11 50 25 226900 1 71800000307 FLICK, ROBERT A 2401 COUNTY BARN RD NAPLES, FL 34112---5430 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 18 14 50 25 611200 F 18 74412480008 FOWLER, JENNIFER C 3422 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 12 13 50 25 635500 D 12 26830360004 GARCIA, ISAAC MEDRANO LETICIA RAMOS GARCIA 2998 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 12 OR 1185 PG 479 11 50 25 226900 12 26831160009 GARCON, JEAN L & MARIE A 2947 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 33 OR 1861 PG 178 11 50 25 226900 33 26830200009 GERTRUDE L STURGILL TRUST 2898 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 8 11 50 25 226900 8 30480480003 GLAUB, FRANK P & MARYANNE 3064 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S 10FT OF LOT 15, LOT 16 + N 25FT LOT 17 11 50 25 270700 B 16 48680400008 GRACIA, ANTHONY 4241 5TH AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34119---2908 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 10 14 50 25 394000 10 26831240000 HANDELMAN, LUCILE 1527 GULF COAST DR NAPLES, FL 34110---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 11 50 25 226900 35 26831260006 HARVEY, MARIAN D 2897 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5961 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 11 50 25 226900 35.1 74413920004 HERBERT, CHARLES N & ANNA K 3500 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5902 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N 45 FT OF LOT 6 & S 30 FT OF LOT 7 OR 789 PG 238 13 50 25 635500 F 6 74412520007 HOLMES, LILLIE 520 AUGUSTA BLVD # 102 NAPLES, FL 34113---0000 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 13 13 50 25 635500 D 13 74414000004 HUGHES, SHARON K 3416 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 9 + N 15FT OF LOT 8 OR 764 PG 1825 13 50 25 635500 F 9 394640105 I E C RENTAL INC 3100 NORTH RD NAPLES, FL 34104---4807 13 50 25 COMM AT NW CNR SEC 13 , E 331.37FT, S 281.88, N 89DEG E 150FT TO POB N 89DEG E 100FT, S 182.72FT, N 89DEG W 13 50 25 100 55 48680440000 INGROSSO, ANGELA MARCO ZANETTI 3124 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5918 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 11, AND COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 21 AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 DESC IN 14 50 25 394000 11 26830160000 JEAN & VIERGELENE INC 2872 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 7 11 50 25 226900 7 393000005 JOHNSON JR, ROAN E 3000 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC, E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT TO POB, N 89 DEG E 250FT, S 182.72FT, N 89 DEG W 250FT, N 180FT 13 50 25 100 23 74413440005 JONES, GINGER G WILLIAM M JONES EST 3508 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5906 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 16 13 50 25 635500 E 16 30480360000 JONES, MICHAEL E STEVEN J HAMMER 3022 NE 20TH CT FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305---1808 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 11 + N1/2 OF LOT 12 11 50 25 270700 B 11 71800000682 JONES, SHADE 203 TORREY PINES PT NAPLES, FL 34113---7541 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 41 14 50 25 611200 F 41 391960008 JONG TJIEN FA, GINA B 15361 SW 154TH TER MIAMI, FL 33187---0000 13 50 25 LOT 8 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DES. IN OR 5-66 ALSO FURTHER DESC 13 50 25 100 4 74412360005 JOSEPH, JEAN & ESTHER 3415 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5933 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 9 13 50 25 635500 D 9 71800000666 KAREN L BEATTY REV LIV TRUST 3113 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 40 + N 15FT LOT 39 OR 1458 PG 336 14 50 25 611200 F 40 48680200004 KATHLEEN JOAN PFEFFER TRUST 28439 DEL LAGO WAY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---2809 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 5 14 50 25 394000 5 392040008 KING II, JAMES D & JANE G 3308 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---5916 13 50 25 LOT 6 UNREC PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 DESC AS: BEG AT A PT 342FT N OF THE 13 50 25 100 6 74413400003 KRAL, MARIANNE 3416 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 15 13 50 25 635500 E 15 28750000028 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT A 12 50 25 248200 A 1 26830880005 KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 25 11 50 25 226900 25 26831280002 LAGUERRE, MULCAR 2873 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 36 11 50 25 226900 36 74413960006 LAMBERT, J C APOLLO LAMBERT MATTHEW LAMBERT 3450 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 33962---0000 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N1/2 OF LOT 7 + S 45FT OF LOT 8 OR 698 PG 294 13 50 25 635500 F 7 392280004 LARSON, THOMAS G 1956 5TH ST S NAPLES, FL 34102---0000 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, S 460FT, E 175FT, N 70FT, E 75.10FT, N 20FT, W 12.50 FT, N 88.12FT, E 72.40FT, S 13 50 25 100 12 392080000 LBD HOLDINGS LLC 2902 GARDENS BLVD NAPLES, FL 34105---5688 13 50 25 LOT 5 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 845 PG 1341 13 50 25 100 7 30480440001 LOVE JR, JOHN N PO BOX 9822 NAPLES, FL 34101---9822 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 14 + N 40FT OF LOT 15 OR 1221 PG 1986 11 50 25 270700 B 14 392200000 LOYOLA, JOSE L 2831 STORTER AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 13 50 25 BEG AT PT ON W LI OF SEC, N 77FT OF ARECA AVE, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB, AKA LOT 2 OR 13 50 25 100 10 30480560004 MARIAN C NAROZNY TRUST 6572 MARBELLA LN NAPLES, FL 34105---5050 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 20, S30FT OF LOT 19 AND N 10FT LOT 21 11 50 25 270700 B 20 30480680007 MENDES, ANTONE C 2256 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4706 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 25 OR 1572 PG 560 11 50 25 270700 B 25 28750000743 MK REALTY 3440 TAMIAMI TRL LLC 6685 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114---0000 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT D 12 50 25 248200 D 1 30480520002 MLJL INVESTMENT LLC 2347 COACH HOUSE LN NAPLES, FL 34105---0000 EASTGATE BLK B S 25FT OF LT 17, LT 18, N 20 FT OF LOT 19 11 50 25 270700 B 17 74413160000 MORENO, GIOBERT PETRONILLA ALAMEIDA 3419 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 8 13 50 25 635500 E 8 30480640005 MORGAN, JOHN MORGAN, RACHEL 3164 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5930 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 24 11 50 25 270700 B 24 48680040002 MORGAN, ROBERT T & FRANCES 3282 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 1 OR 1288 PG 1647 14 50 25 394000 1 394120007 MOTT, DAVID K 3400 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, E 331.37FT, S281.88FT, E250 FT TO POB, E170FT, S184.64 FT, W170FT, N182.72FT TO POB .72 13 50 25 100 41 26831200008 MOXAM, ABDIEL D MARIE S RIVERA 2540 53RD TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---7652 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 34 11 50 25 226900 34 392400004 NAPIER, DONNA M 3317 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 N 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 2611 PG 592 13 50 25 100 13 30480240007 NEUROLOGY PHYSICIANS BUILDING & LAND LLC 1660 MEDICAL BLVD STE 200 NAPLES, FL 34110---1416 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 1-6 INCL 15FT ALLEY LESS R/W DESC IN OR 107 PG 449 11 50 25 270700 B 1 71800000268 NICHOLS REALTY INC TRUST 1475 OSPREY AVE NAPLES, FL 34102---0000 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 16 OR 1439 PG 1625 14 50 25 611200 F 16 26830520006 NICHOLS, ARTHUR S & STELLA M 3112 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 17 11 50 25 226900 17 26830640009 NUNEZ, JAIME A 3174 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 20 LESS OR 1691 PG 1469, OR 1156 PG 1888 11 50 25 226900 20 26831000004 NYGARD, CHRISTOPHER M 1011 ANGLERS COVE #304 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 28 11 50 25 226900 28 48680120003 O CONNOR, JOHN & COLLEEN TRACY LARETZ ANGELA LARETZ O'CONNOR 7836 FARGO RD YALE, MI 48097---4819 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 3 PLAT DB 39 PG 190 OR 1087 PG 2100 14 50 25 394000 3 74412640000 PARLIER, RUTH DARLENE 3502 CALOOSA STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 16 13 50 25 635500 D 16 71800000394 PAUKER LLC JULIET DIAMOND FAMILY LLC ALLAN B WOLF REV TRUST 1438 MUREX DR NAPLES, FL 34102---5146 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 24 14 50 25 611200 F 24 392240002 PENSCO TRUST PO BOX 173859 DENVER, CO 80217---0000 13 50 25 W 115FT OF S 77FT OF N 805FT OF NW1/4 OR 1472 PG 2269 13 50 25 100 11 26831080008 PICKLE, ERIC 11101 HENGE DR AUSTIN, TX 78759---4573 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 30-31 11 50 25 226900 30 74412280004 PICON, CARLOS MANUEL MARIA TERESA RAMIL 3505 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 7 13 50 25 635500 D 7 26830560008 RAMOS FAMILY LAND TRUST 3122 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34102---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 18 11 50 25 226900 18 48680080004 REIF, EVELYN S 3280 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 2-PLAT-DB 40-21 OR 1683 PG 09 14 50 25 394000 2 26830400003 ROSENDAHL, MATTHEW S 3026 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5904 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 13 11 50 25 226900 13 74412320003 RUWE PROPERTIES LLC 4810 LAKEWOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 8 13 50 25 635500 D 8 71800000323 SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOTS 19, 20 & 21 14 50 25 611200 F 19 391440007 SHADOW COURT FUELS INC 2200 S DIXIE HWY # 601 MIAMI, FL 33133---0000 12 50 25 OUT PARCEL 2 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS: COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12, S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG 12 50 25 100 43 74412560009 SHEAFFER, THERESA 3416 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 14 13 50 25 635500 D 14 30480400009 SIZEMORE, PAMELA R 2996 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S1/2 OF LOT 12 + ALL OF LOT 13 11 50 25 270700 B 12 391920006 SMITH, ROBERT E & HELEN J 3312 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 E 55FT OF W 110FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 1054 PG 261 13 50 25 100 3 4 26830600007 SMITH, WILLIAM A 3124 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 19 11 50 25 226900 19 28750000727 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP 324 SW 16TH ST BELLE GLADE, FL 33430---2824 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT C 12 50 25 248200 C 1 74413120008 SOWERS, CHARLES G & SANDRA M 135 7TH ST NAPLES, FL 34113---8555 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 7 13 50 25 635500 E 7 30480580000 STATON, RAYMOND W 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 EASTGATE BLK B N 40FT OF LOT 22 & S 40FT OF LOT 21 11 50 25 270700 B 22 74410240101 SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 1891 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34109---2133 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 6 AND 7 OR 1981 PG 856 13 50 25 635500 A 6 30480720006 TIF-FL-B LLC PO BOX 630535 MIAMI, FL 33163---0535 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 26 + 27 11 50 25 270700 B 26 30480040003 TIITF /DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 801 NORTH BROADWAY AVE % GREGG BODHE BARTOW, FL 33831---0000 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 1, 2 + 3 ALL OF VACANT ALLEY ADJOINING, LESS THAT PORTION LOT 1 AS DESC IN OR 32 PG 478, AND LESS 11 50 25 270700 A 1 391840005 TOWNSEND, RONALD A 3324 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 E 110FT OF W 220FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL 13 50 25 100 3 1 26830440005 VADER PROPERTIES III INC 170 E 78TH ST #3F NEW YORK, NY 10075---0000 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 14 + 15 OR 1074 PG 1915 11 50 25 226900 14 26830800001 VALENCIA, FELIPE VALENCIA, JOSE 3173 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5923 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS SUB N 70FT OF LOT 23 11 50 25 226900 23 391800003 VANDERPOOL, JIMMIE H 3300 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 W 55 FT OF W 110 FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 806 PG 876 13 50 25 100 3 390080002 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP TAX DEPT PO BOX 8050 MS-0555 STORE #1119 BENTONVILLE, AR 72716---0001 12 50 25 THAT PART OF SEC 12 AND 13 DESC IN OR 1766 PG 2234 12 50 25 100 14 2 48680160005 WASSBERG, PAUL R 3250 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 4 PLAT DB 38-110 OR 1435 PG 2197 14 50 25 394000 4 71800000721 WOODWORTH TR, DAVID C DAVID & LUCRETIA REV TRUST UTD 04/28/08 2735 LAKEVIEW DR NAPLES, FL 34112---5817 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 2A 14 50 25 611200 F 41.2 PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE No.1145881 June 26,2016 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PETITION PL20120001515 The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by D.Wa yne Arnold,AICP,of Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.and Richard D. Yo vanovich,Esq.of Coleman,Yo vanovich and Koester,P.A.,representing KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC on: We dnesday,July 13,2016,5:30 pm at the Collier County Government Center,W.Harmon Tu rner Building, 3299 Ta miami Tr ail East,Suite 303, Board of County Commissioner’s Chambers,Naples,FL 34112 The subject property is comprised of approximately 20.3±acres on the Southeast quadrant of Peters Avenue and Ta miami Tr ail East (U.S.41)in Section 11,To wnship 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC is asking the County to approve this application to allow an amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD)known as Courthouse Shadows PUD.The Courthouse Shadows PUD is an existing retail project.The PUD amendment proposes to add a 0.28± acre FDOT surplus parcel of land adjacent to the northwest PUD boundary, and increase the maximum commercial square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet.Membership warehouse club with associated liquor sales and gas pumps is proposed to be added to the already approved list of uses that can occur in the PUD.A new conceptual Master Plan has been prepared for the PUD.The property is located within Activity Center #16 and the existing uses are consistent with the commercial uses permitted in the activity center.Deviations are being requested to seek relief from specific architectural,sign,and site design requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC). Business and property owners,residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation.The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,it is not a public hearing.If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail,phone,fax or e-mail by July 13,2016 to Sharon Umpenhour,Senior Planning Te chnician Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134 Phone:239.947.1144 Fax:239.947.0375 sumpenhour@gradyminor.com 1 2 3 4 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 5 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 6 FOR COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PUD 7 JULY 13, 2016 8 9 10 11 12 Appearances: 13 WAYNE ARNOLD 14 DOUG KIRBY 15 JIM BANKS 16 DAN SMITH 17 DIANE EBERT 18 JEAN JORDAN 19 SHARON UMPENHOUR 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to go ahead and get the 2 meeting started, everybody. 3 I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor engineering. 4 This is Sharon Umpenhour from my office, who most 5 of you have met. Sharon is required -- she's not 6 required to, but we're required to make a recording 7 of the meeting. So Sharon will be taping the 8 meeting. So try to -- small crowd, so we try, big 9 crowds, not talk over each other, but I'll give a 10 short presentation. Then we'll open it up if you 11 all have questions or comments, et cetera. 12 Doug Kirby standing here, some of you met. 13 Doug is with Kite Development. Kite owns the 14 shopping center and is proposing the amendments to 15 -- that we're here to discuss tonight. 16 This is Jim Banks. Jim is a traffic engineer 17 and is working on the project with us. 18 And Dan Smith is the project planner for 19 Collier County government, and he's here to listen, 20 hear your comments, take notes and take back to add 21 to his staff report or staff comments, things that 22 he may hear here. 23 Diane Ebert. You recognize Diane. Diane is a 24 Planning Commission member who is here as well. 25 And Jean Jordan is with the CRA. 1 So I think we have a good representation of 2 those who are going to be involved in the process, 3 and I know that -- 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Who did you say 5 owns it? 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Kite Realty Group. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Kite. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Kite Realty Group. 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Kite? 10 MR. ARNOLD: Kite, K-I-T-E. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: K-I-T-E. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Kite owns Courthouse Shadows 13 Shopping Center and several other shopping center 14 properties that are based in Indianapolis, but own 15 several Collier County properties. They just 16 developed the Tamiami Crossing property out at 17 Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41, if you've been out 18 that way to see what they've done, so -- but they 19 own the Kings Lake Square, for instance, also down 20 in this end of town that did the substantial rehab 21 with Publix in the past, what -- 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Two years ago. 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Two years ago. 24 MR. ARNOLD: So, anyway, well, thank you. 25 We're here to discuss Courthouse Shadows. I'm sure 1 everybody in the room knows where that is, but it's 2 at the intersection of Peters and U.S. 41. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Can you talk 4 louder, please, Wayne? 5 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Thank you. 7 MR. ARNOLD: So it's located at the 8 intersection of Peters and U.S. 41 and Airport 9 Road, immediately across from the government 10 center. And also the Walmart across the street. 11 We're here to do several things as part of a 12 PUD amendment. It's an existing old planned 13 development. It's had several uses in the 14 principal building for years. The last major 15 tenant was Publix that moved out and relocated to 16 Kings Lake when that store was complete. 17 And so Kite owns everything except the 18 outparcels that have been developed. So they 19 control all of the PUD. 20 And the only building that would remain in our 21 proposal is going to be the one that houses the 22 Wild Wings, and everything else would be demo'd as 23 part of our proposed amendments. 24 And what we're proposing are to do a handful 25 of things. One, this parcel that's right at the 1 intersection of Peters and U.S. 41, it's just a 2 little over a quarter of an acre, Kite has been 3 trying to buy that from the Florida Department of 4 Transportation for several years. 5 There was a former gas station on the site, 6 those of us who have been around long enough to 7 remember it, and there was some remediation they 8 were having to do. So you've seen the events 9 there, et cetera, but Kite has now successfully 10 closed on the property. So we're adding that 11 parcel to the PUD. 12 We're also increasing the square footage of 13 the overall commercial entitlements from 147,000 14 square feet that are approved today to allow 15 165,000. So that's an 18,000 square feet increase 16 to the square footage for the overall planned unit 17 development. 18 We are proposing to obviously modify the 19 master plan, and this is our zoning master plan, to 20 show where the principal new building location 21 would be, the parking field, and also call out some 22 of the other features. 23 It gets a little busy, and I'll show you 24 another plan in a moment. This is the aerial, and 25 I thought it would be helpful just so any of you 1 who live in the immediate area can sort of see 2 where your house is related to where the 3 improvements are going to be for the new project. 4 The other thing that we're doing, we're adding 5 a use. We're calling it a membership warehouse 6 club, and that would have gas and liquor box, and 7 that's going to be a Sam's Club. I'm sure that's 8 no secret to most of you who have been around East 9 Naples, but that's been the worst kept secret. 10 But our documents that have been submitted 11 look like this, because I think that Sam's Club did 12 a good job in coming up with a more illustrative 13 plan, but it's key to some of the deviations that 14 we've been working with Dan and other staff members 15 to talk about. 16 I mean, the codes that have been written 17 really don't deal very well with one redevelopment 18 as some of you who are involved in the CRA know, 19 and also for a large box format retailer in the 20 function of a Sam's Club. 21 So we're having to work through those. So 22 some of those include site standards and some are 23 architecture. And we've had a few meetings with 24 staff and we're working through that. 25 Kimley-Horn is the design engineer for Sam's 1 Club and we're going back and forth with them 2 trying to establish what I think is a good format, 3 and I think staff likes it. It's keying on the 4 plan, where that will be. 5 For instance, number seven, it's the fuel 6 islands for the membership club, but it needs a 7 separation from the Chevron, because it's not 500 8 feet away. As some of you know, there's a 500-foot 9 separation requirement. So we've asked for a 10 deviation to be less than 500 feet for the fuel 11 sales here to the Chevron station, even though the 12 fuel sales are for Sam's Club membership. 13 So some of the highlights, you can see that 14 the buildings get reoriented. This is the -- what 15 was the Publix box here. It gets shifted and 16 enlarged to become what would be Sam's Club. The 17 main access to Sam's Club is going to face, what is 18 that, southeast, towards U.S. 41, this direction. 19 This is proposed service bays for Sam's Club. 20 They're contemplating closing one of the access 21 points on Peters. They haven't made that final 22 decision yet. On our zoning plan, we're still 23 showing two access points on Peters, but in their 24 latest plan, they're looking at potentially 25 eliminating that access point and then being able 1 to turn their vehicles around to get into the full 2 loading docks that they would have in that 3 location. 4 So -- so we're adding membership club as a 5 use. We're adding property. We're adding another 6 18,000 square feet. And then we're adding some 7 deviations that deal with the specific use. 8 The process that we're in is called a PUD 9 amendment. It requires us to have this 10 neighborhood information meeting once we have staff 11 comments back, which we had our first round of 12 comments and we're working through. 13 We do want to make a presentation to the CRA, 14 but due to their vacation schedule, we weren't able 15 to get that scheduled to coincide with all of 16 everybody else's vacation schedules, so we're going 17 to hold the NIM separately and then still plan on 18 seeing the CRA before we get to, hopefully, the 19 Planning Commission, which we think may be as early 20 as September, which we would like it to be. I just 21 don't know yet. We owe staff a resubmittal based 22 on some of the latest iterations from Sam's Club 23 themselves. 24 And then, obviously, the Board of County 25 Commissioners will act on this in final form. We 1 would hope then it would be in October, but -- 2 November, but we hope for sure by the end of the 3 sure. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yep. 5 MR. ARNOLD: But you all will see the signs go 6 up once there are public hearings established. The 7 four-by-eight signs will go up on the property. 8 And, of course, you'll receive notice again. If 9 you received notice of this meeting, you'll receive 10 notice again from the county prior to the Planning 11 Commission hearing. 12 And then, obviously, we'll have a presentation 13 before them. They will vote, make a recommendation 14 to the Board of County Commissioners. 15 So that, hopefully, will play out by late fall 16 for us if all goes well. 17 So that's really the, I think, the 18 significance of what we're doing. I'm happy to 19 answer any questions. I don't know all the 20 operational details about what Sam's Club does, but 21 I know where their front door and I know where 22 their service areas are. 23 And I can talk about some of the deviations 24 that we're asking for. They affected buffers in 25 some cases, because the site is tied -- there's 1 some controlled discharge from the site, so we're 2 trying to work within the confines of the area that 3 we have to make that function. 4 So with that, I'll open it up to any questions 5 or comments you may have. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I just had a 7 question. Do you have the available staff comments 8 from planning? In other words, that might be good 9 information for -- 10 MR. ARNOLD: I'd be happy to provide those to 11 you. If you'll leave your e-mail address or 12 something with Sharon. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sure. And it's 14 there. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And that way, the 17 public can see what also staff is -- see how that 18 might be addressing their concerns or something 19 like that. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. Yep. Be happy to give it 21 to you. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I have a question. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Go ahead. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The yellow that 25 you show going over the canal there, is that a 1 paved area? 2 MR. ARNOLD: This? 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 4 MR. ARNOLD: No. That denotes the easement 5 area that's in place. That's the Haldeman Creek 6 drainage easement. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I understand, but 8 what are you -- why are you showing that easement? 9 MR. ARNOLD: It's included -- it is an 10 easement and it's on our property. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I know, but what 12 are you -- 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Nothing. 14 MR. ARNOLD: It's proposed to continue to be 15 drainage easements. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, there's no -- 17 no -- 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. So that 19 you're not using it in any way? 20 MR. ARNOLD: No. You can see the access point 21 remains the same on 41. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 23 MR. ARNOLD: And then this is the limit of 24 that same line. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Uh-huh. 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Where does your 2 drainage go? 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It goes to Haldeman 4 Creek. 5 MR. ARNOLD: It goes into Haldeman Creek. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Where does -- 7 where? 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: From the parking 9 lot? 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 11 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, that's why -- these areas 12 that are shown here are dry retention areas, and 13 the water will go into those and then it bleeds 14 down, ultimately, and discharges into Haldeman 15 Creek. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. From -- 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: From the retention 18 pond? 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And that's the way 20 it is now? 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's the way it is 22 now. See these green areas behind the building? 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Uh-huh. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And then there's 25 another one that's almost overgrown through here 1 that connects these two dry retentions, this little 2 drainage swale connects to a pipe that ultimately 3 outfalls to a riprap area. 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, I've seen 5 that. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And overflows into 7 Haldeman Creek. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I had a question. 9 The original -- as Courthouse Shadows is now, 10 there's approximately 71,000 square feet of dry -- 11 drainage detention area. 12 This plan shows about 45,000 feet. Why was 13 that allowed to be reduced almost by half? 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's underground 15 detention proposed with this. So the difference in 16 the volume -- 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- not just the 19 square footage, but the volume of detention -- 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The volume. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- will be handled 22 underground. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Where underground? 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Underneath the 25 parking lot. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh, it's under the 2 parking lot? 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, it will all be 4 under this parking lot. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You're going to 6 have -- 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Does that 8 ultimately drain somewhere? 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And then -- it's 10 part of the water quality system. It will get 11 stored there. So the water quality settles out -- 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So the retention -- 13 water on-site retention will remain about the same, 14 then -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- as far as volume? 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Store 18 (indiscernible). 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It will -- it will 20 -- we will -- it will meet the existing -- meet or 21 exceed the existing discharge rate. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What's -- stored 23 in what? 24 MR. ARNOLD: They're concrete vaults, 25 typically. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They're plastic 2 vaults. 3 MR. ARNOLD: Are they plastic in this case? 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They're plastic 5 vaults. They're premanufactured plastic vaults. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Perforated? 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They're open bottom. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And there would be 9 no treatment for this -- 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So they're really 11 not stored. It's a bit of a joke. 12 MR. ARNOLD: It's -- no, it's considered -- 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No, it's -- 14 MR. ARNOLD: It's for water quality treatment. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. It's for 16 water quality. 17 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Open bottom water 19 quality treatment? 20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, think about it. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's the same as 22 what's in there now. 23 MR. ARNOLD: It's the same as if you had open 24 air, the detention areas. They're open to the 25 bottom. It's for water to be able to percolate. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It naturally 2 percolates through the soil, the subsoils down to 3 the water table. 4 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I mean, we did 6 away with septic systems. I mean, and now we're 7 putting in a gigantic septic system. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Septic is for sewer 9 and this is storm water. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, septic is for sewer. This 11 is storm water that gets -- it takes water from the 12 impervious areas. It collects it. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The parking lot. 14 MR. ARNOLD: It pretreats it. Then it 15 discharges from the site. It's the same thing that 16 every other developer does. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's no treatment 18 -- there's no treatment of this water, though, 19 that's draining into Haldeman Creek. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The treatment is in 22 the detention. 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: In the percolation. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Did you have to 25 get any further usage amendments? I mean, are you 1 seeking further, higher use in your PUD? 2 MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure what you mean. We 3 are seeking more square footage, yes. 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Uh-huh. So you -- 7 it's not just -- I mean, what else are you seeking 8 in the amendment? 9 MR. ARNOLD: We're adding a membership 10 warehouse use. We're asking for another 15,000 -- 11 or 18,000 square feet of commercial space, and 12 we're adding this parcel. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you're adding 14 this part (indiscernible). 15 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So are you 18 overburdening any easements? Are you asking for 19 larger roadway usage? Are you widening roads or 20 anything? 21 MR. ARNOLD: No. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I have a question. 23 Are there any plans -- you know, I recently 24 showed a property -- I'm a realtor in Naples -- and 25 I showed -- I'm also on the CRA advisory board, so 1 I'm always listening to the citizens in the area. 2 I showed a property on Collee Court, and I was 3 really shocked to see the delapidated fence in the 4 back between the development and that person's 5 yard. And the owner was there. And he just -- 6 MR. ARNOLD: You're saying it's this area, 7 Karen? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: He did share that, 11 over the years, there have been quite a few 12 homeless people who park behind there either in 13 cars or just camp out, and many of them have come 14 onto his land multiple times. He's had to shoo 15 them off. 16 I live on Haldeman Creek on the other side. I 17 can see my home right there. And I -- what I'm 18 concerned about for all the people on -- facing 19 Collee, Peters, Canal and the next street over is 20 the sound that echos from the trucks loading in the 21 middle of the night. 22 And I just wondered, is there any plans for a 23 soundproof wall along the edge of the property 24 line? 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No, there's not any 1 plans for that. The loading is now all 2 concentrated up here on the north side of the site, 3 behind this green wall and it's all fully enclosed. 4 MR. ARNOLD: And, obviously, this is the 5 entire building in this area. So the loading is 6 all in this location, Karen. So none of that 7 loading takes place near Collee Court. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You have a gas 9 station, though, that's near Haldeman Creek, and 10 there's going to be trucks going in there to fuel 11 up probably in the middle of the night. 12 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know what their schedule 13 for deliveries are going to be. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think it would 15 be fairer to the citizens to have some sort of -- 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Solid wall. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think no matter 18 how far that is, it's going to echo. And then also 19 you're going to have people that are going to be 20 going behind the building, homeless. Do you have 21 any security plan for it? 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I think she's 23 talking about commercial trucks coming in and 24 fueling. 25 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's no -- 2 there's going to be no commercial trucks fueling. 3 MR. ARNOLD: Are you talking about trucks 4 using to fill or deliveries for fuel? 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Delivery. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So when a truck 9 has a spillage and it goes into your swale, 10 open-bottom swale system, it just spills into your 11 swale system and goes in -- 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No. In -- this is 13 not my expertise by any means, but the 14 (indiscernible) on storage tank rules of the state, 15 there's overflow protection on the whole system. 16 MR. ARNOLD: The gas station portion will have 17 its own -- 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 19 MR. ARNOLD: -- separate containment area for 20 fuel spills, et cetera, like every other gas 21 station, modern gas station has. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the Chevron 23 station just went through upgrading their tank tops 24 for that reason. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I've lived where the 1 black arrow is on the right-hand map. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Here? 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's the general 4 location of my home. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And in that parking 7 lot area, all of those parking spaces are head-in 8 parking spaces, both along Collee Court and Peters 9 Street. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There are ten homes 12 that will be affected by headlights coming into 13 that parking area unless there is a solid concrete 14 panel fence put in along that parking area. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It would also buffer 17 not only from the light aspect, but from the 18 activity of that parking lot as well as, you know, 19 the sound activity that would be generated in that 20 parking lot. 21 It would also act more like -- the woods 22 people that were living in those areas, it would 23 keep them out unless they had to climb over a 24 six-foot-high concrete panel fence. 25 So we'd ask -- those -- there are ten homes 1 that are affected with this problem. And we ask 2 that you put in a concrete panel fence along Collee 3 Court and up Peters Street to -- to enclose that 4 parking area. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I will definitely 6 be petitioning the planning board on that for sure. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: To buffer us from 8 the activity. 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think it's a 10 very important thing for the citizens of that area. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And I hear your 12 concerns. We've been weighing back and forth in 13 numerous discussions with staff about that area, 14 and the buffer that's along those roads now. To 15 put in a wall, we're going to have to disturb them, 16 get rid of all that landscaping, is what I'm 17 saying. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We've lived there 34 19 years. We saw the good and the bad. 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Right. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We saw Walmart, when 22 they moved in there initially after Collier 23 Development built it, and they were terrible 24 neighbors. They ran their trucks all night. They 25 unloaded all night. They had no consideration for 1 the neighbors. 2 Then we saw Publix move in and Publix were -- 3 and you folks were good to work with, too, the 4 people of Kite. If we had a concern, we could call 5 up Indiana and you addressed it. So I have nothing 6 against Kite, but Walmart and Sam's scare the hell 7 out of me, how they operate. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Well, let us take that under 9 advisement. 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And if they can't 11 afford a concrete fence, they own -- the six 12 Waltons own 40 percent of the wealth of this -- 150 13 million people in this country, the six Waltons. 14 They can afford to put in a concrete panel fence 15 along there. They own 42 percent of that Sam's 16 building that's being built, those six people. 17 They can afford to give us a fence to buffer us 18 from that. 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Have you guys ever 20 actually used that, that shopping center in your 21 lives, like ever driven into those shopping centers 22 and used that on a regular basis? Because it's a 23 -- it's a crap location. I mean, honestly, and I 24 think that's why it's never -- I think it's a dog 25 for retail, honestly, because it's a difficult -- 1 it's a difficult parcel. It's a difficult parcel 2 to drive in. It's a difficult access point for the 3 -- for the way you come in and out of it, for the 4 government center, for the light, for the Airport 5 drive to 41. It's a -- it's just a hard place to 6 get in and out of. It's a problem. 7 If I were Sam's Club, I would go over into the 8 Walmart. That's where I'd go. And I would say 9 turn that into retirement living or something 10 different, because that is a dog. It barks like a 11 dog. It whines like a dog. That parcel will 12 always be a dog. It's crazy. That's pretty much 13 it. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thanks. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I got -- I'm kind of 16 curious from the county's perspective. If somebody 17 were going to come in this area new, would there be 18 requirements for (indiscernible) walls and 19 separation from a commercial establishment like 20 this to the residential areas and both 21 (indiscernible) talk about there. 22 And then also from a water quality perspective 23 as far as the existing water quality of Haldeman 24 Creek, and I realize things have been done in the 25 past to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean you 1 really want to continue on. 2 And so I am kind of curious about the water 3 quality perspective that -- 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I've lived on 5 Haldeman Creek for 34 years. There are thousands 6 of Walmart bags floating in that canal. I was 7 looking for a fishing pole and I drug a rake along 8 the bottom and all I picked up was old Walmart 9 bags, thousands of them. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Can you still eat 11 the fish out of there if you're -- 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No. It's all 13 totally polluted. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the county person can -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: From that Walmart 16 across the street. 17 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I can address the -- from a 18 water management standpoint, the -- you're going 19 through the review process with the South Florida 20 Water Management District. They look at water 21 quality standards for all projects. 22 So there's a separate permitting process 23 through the Water Management District that deals 24 with water quality and the surface water management 25 aspects of this project. 1 Collier County used to do it and some number 2 of year ago the powers to allow the county to do it 3 have gone back to the State of Florida. So there's 4 a basis of review that Doug's group will have to 5 look at as they go through the permitting process. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And that information 7 would be available to the public? 8 MR. ARNOLD: It is a public document. Those 9 documents haven't been submitted yet to the 10 district, have they? 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No, nothing has been 12 submitted yet. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, do you know, 14 is there a program for looking at the water quality 15 of Haldeman Creek? Because my understanding, it's 16 pretty high in pollution, and I'm just -- in other 17 words, when you come in and often have to build 18 something new like this, it isn't -- you know, you 19 try to improve, and sometimes that's a requirement, 20 is for improvement from what's existing, you know, 21 there, and -- 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think one of the things 23 that we have to keep in mind, too, I mean, this is 24 in your CRA and you're hoping to have it 25 (indiscernible) redeveloped to something that can 1 be successful here, because obviously the 2 grocery-anchored shopping center hasn't been a 3 successful enterprise over the 25 plus years. 4 So what I'm saying is I don't -- there's going 5 to be a level of water quality review that is 6 conducted as we get further along in this process. 7 Haldeman Creek, I don't know the status of Haldeman 8 Creek in terms of its (indiscernible) or anything 9 like that, but we have discharge rates and water 10 quality standards that we would be required to 11 meet. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: One of the other 13 problems with Haldeman Creek pollution was when 14 they put in the storm water drainage system from 15 Bayshore Drive or Kelly Road all the way out to 16 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, all of that water goes 17 into Haldeman Creek at the bridge. 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: From the Glades, 19 yeah. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. It all goes 21 -- all of that road runoff. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Underneath Walmart 23 parking lot. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Untreated, goes 25 right into Haldeman Creek. So not only do we have 1 the shopping center concerns, but it's the county 2 that has the right-of-way pollution problems to 3 face. 4 The other question I have is, along Peters 5 Street, Collier Development was allowed to not put 6 in a sidewalk when they originally built the first 7 shopping center. They were -- that was waived, the 8 sidewalk along Peters. They were required to put 9 in a sidewalk on U.S. 41, but they were allowed to 10 deviate from concrete and put in asphalt. 11 We are -- that area is in the Bayshore 12 beautification MSTU district, and as well as our 13 home, and we paid those MSTU taxes for over 20 14 years, and there's been no beautification done 15 along Peters Street or Gordon or Collee Court. 16 And I didn't think -- I thought that -- 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: There have been 18 lights, lights, lights. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- it might be a 20 good time to put a sidewalk along Peters Street so 21 that kids didn't have to walk in the street to go 22 to -- catch the school bus up on 41, as well as 23 some beautification, and work in conjunction with 24 the Bayshore beautification MSTU to provide us not 25 only that concrete panel fence, but some 1 landscaping and a sidewalk adjacent to that 2 development along Peters. 3 MR. ARNOLD: Well, Dan beat you to the punch, 4 because Dan and his staff, in their first review 5 comments, commented on the possibility of having a 6 sidewalk installed along Peters, at least on one 7 side of the street. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 9 MR. ARNOLD: We've had a separate meeting with 10 the transportation staff. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh, I see. 12 MR. ARNOLD: We've looked at that opportunity. 13 It's a challenging cross section because of the way 14 it's built. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 16 MR. ARNOLD: It is challenging. So Jim Banks 17 is our traffic engineer. He's -- he's looking at 18 potential options. It may not result in a full 19 sidewalk without a complete rebuild of the road, 20 which is a significant, huge cost. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 22 MR. ARNOLD: We also had a conversation with 23 one of Jean's employees, and there's a new utility 24 project that looks like it may occur between the 25 City of Naples. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, some water -- 2 yeah. 3 MR. ARNOLD: So with some water improvements, 4 and piggybacking some other roadway improvements on 5 that project may be something that's viable. We 6 don't have their plans yet. I just had an e-mail 7 communication with the CRA today, and I guess 8 they're still working through the process of -- 9 with the City of Naples, but we have started a 10 dialogue, and we're aware of the (indiscernible) on 11 it. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So that possibility 13 exists -- 14 MR. ARNOLD: That possibility does exist. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- that there could 16 be a walkway or some method to walk along that so 17 that -- 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. And we're 19 trying to work together with the county and the 20 CRA -- 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Because my 22 brother-in-law lives in the 3200 block and he's in 23 a wheelchair. And when they want to go to the -- 24 they have to push that wheelchair down the street. 25 There's no provision for them to get to the 1 corner -- 2 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- and get 4 transportation. So -- 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Well, my fear 6 would be that there would be a sidewalk put in, but 7 no concrete wall, because then that would be more 8 traffic from Sam's Club. So I think that if 9 there's a sidewalk put in, the concrete wall would 10 need to be in conjunction with that. So I'm not 11 sure how I would go about petitioning for that, but 12 -- I mean, the sidewalk is definitely -- would be 13 great, but I think there needs to be some kind 14 of -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: A concrete wall, 16 yeah, we want that. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, separation 18 from Sam's to all of us, Peters and -- 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And Collee. 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And Collee, yeah. 22 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Definitely. 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Could I just 24 intervene real quick? 25 MR. ARNOLD: Sure. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: This is a rezoning. 2 And we're talking about land use. The sidewalks, 3 we're in discussion with the applicant right now. 4 From what I'm aware of from the deviations 5 that the applicant is asking for, I think a wall is 6 going to be required. It's more or less where the 7 wall is going to be; is that correct? 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. Well, we're looking at 10 fence/wall combinations. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 12 MR. ARNOLD: I know that we've been sensitive 13 to -- some of the areas have nice, mature 14 vegetation that we'd rather not tear down. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Tear good, mature vegetation 17 down. So I can't say that we're going to -- that 18 we can concede and put a solid wall around all of 19 this area, but we certainly will look at that. 20 Obviously, several of you have expressed that, so. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I know they tried -- 22 the original developer tried to fight this fence. 23 It was ever maintained and the ficus now are 40 24 feet high. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So with rezoning, it 1 would -- you know, some of this stuff 2 (indiscernible). 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the chain link 4 is awful. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. What happens 6 is -- 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Please don't do that 8 to us. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just to let you 10 know, as a zoning process -- 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: In front of our 12 homes, you see (indiscernible). 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- there is -- 14 there's a process of deviations. And the code 15 requires, let's say, a wall, the sidewalks, 16 whatever, and then it's up to -- through the course 17 of the land use and the PUD where they ask for 18 deviations, and this is where we talk about this. 19 And it goes in front of the Planning Commission. 20 As far as I know, the wall would be required. 21 The issue that they had is the deviation is exactly 22 where the wall is, because normally you want 23 vegetation in front of the wall. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So it doesn't look 1 like just a piece of concrete. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. Yeah. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Those are -- those 4 are the things that they're asking for, and we do 5 have a process through administrative waiver of 6 walls, but that's -- that's another -- that doesn't 7 happen at this point in time. It happens later on 8 during the -- after the rezoning takes place. 9 So we're here just talking about the rezoning 10 process in general, and as far as I know, from the 11 building side, a wall would be required. Now, how 12 that gets implemented, that's something that we can 13 talk about, you know, during the Planning 14 Commission stage. We're in that talk right now 15 with the applicant right now, so. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the rezoning, in 17 kind of laymen terms, how does that affect it being 18 a residential area in the redevelopment area for 19 their requirements? In other words, they're 20 rezoning -- 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's huge. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Are they changing, 23 you know, the sense of use? In other words, like a 24 (indiscernible) versus -- 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, the only thing 1 that's happening through this rezoning is they're 2 asking for more square footage of the building. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They're asking for 5 waivers so they can put a gas station in, because 6 there's a gas station in proximity to the area, and 7 they're asking for deviations, let's say, instead 8 of putting the wall, which you usually have 9 landscaping in front of, it's six feet away from 10 the -- they're asking to be on the property line. 11 Those are -- those are deviations that we're 12 looking at through the rezoning process. 13 MR. ARNOLD: And just to let you know, if 14 you're not aware, this is in an activity center, 15 where the county has said this is where we want our 16 most intensive uses to be. It's called activity 17 center 16, I believe, and so it's in the activity 18 center. It's in your CRA. It's at a major 19 intersection. It's been a shopping center for 25 20 plus years. And I think this is repositioning to 21 hopefully be successful for Kite Development and 22 all of you. 23 So there -- you know, one size doesn't fit 24 all, and I think we've seen that through the CRA, 25 that a lot of the (indiscernible) are just -- are a 1 little cumbersome to apply. Parts of this have 2 never applied well for a large format retail store, 3 so there's -- this is not atypical for us to ask 4 for a deviation as part of a rezoning process. 5 They're pretty typical for us. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is the gas station a 7 requirement from the Sam's Club use perspective? 8 In other words, can they have a Sam's Club without 9 the gas station? 10 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the answer to that. 11 I've not seen a Sam's Club that didn't have fuel 12 islands with it. I don't know that they have that 13 prototype somewhere. I can't say that they do or 14 don't. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We do have the 16 ability to put the gas station there without a 17 deviation. It makes more sense where we're 18 proposing to put it. 19 MR. ARNOLD: And it has -- we've laid it out. 20 There actually can be some repositioning in this 21 corner to actually get the fuel islands to fit back 22 at the intersection, but, honestly, Kite really 23 doesn't want to put the fuel islands front and 24 foremost at the major intersection. Rather, the 25 well-landscaped, nice signage and put the fuel 1 island back here, because if it's for the Sam's 2 members, it's probably in the least visible area to 3 the traveling public to put it near the 4 southern-most entrance to the project. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: How many feet is 6 it from Haldeman Creek, the gas station? 7 MR. ARNOLD: I mean, our parking areas are 8 proximate to the drainage easement. So -- I mean 9 the parking lot exists there today. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm just saying 11 the gas station, how close will the gas station be, 12 how many feet? 13 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know exactly, Karen. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. I have -- 15 now I have to make a comment. 16 Okay. So you've called it an activity center 17 and now you've made it a club. So that's not the 18 highest and best use. 19 You've sought rezoning for a club, which is 20 not the highest and best use. 21 If you're going to rezone something, I would 22 assume you would have rezoned for the highest and 23 best use if that's the way you -- 24 MR. ARNOLD: Well, actually, if you look at 25 our PUD, ma'am, it allows dozens and dozens of land 1 uses. We're adding that one. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I understand. But 3 usually when you seek rezoning and when the 4 community is looking to rezone, you're looking to 5 rezone for the good of the entire community, and 6 that's why you are granted rezoning. You're not 7 granted rezoning just because you want it. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Well, there are specific criteria 9 that the county has to find to grant rezonings. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I understand. 11 MR. ARNOLD: And because the community -- I'm 12 not trying to be argumentative, but because 13 somebody says I don't want it doesn't mean that the 14 County Commission can't approve it. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No, I understand. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But what I am 18 saying is that you're saying the county says this 19 is an activity center. Yet, you have one store 20 that requires membership. That's not a very 21 all-encompassing activity center, is what I'm 22 saying. 23 MR. ARNOLD: And that's not what their 24 activity center designation says it has to be. 25 It's -- 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm concerned 2 about the gas station being so close to Haldeman 3 Creek and (indiscernible) better placed somewhere 4 else. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible). 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And part of my 7 concern is the sound of the fuel trucks in the 8 middle of the night. And you're saying that 9 there's already been conversation about the fence, 10 but then you said, when I raised my hand and asked 11 if there was any plans for that, you said no. 12 But you're saying there's already been 13 conversation regarding -- 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. One of the 15 deviations is to -- 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But they weren't 17 aware of it, the conversations. 18 MR. ARNOLD: No, we're aware of it. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're aware of it. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I mean, we're -- that's 21 part of our discussions. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Does the deviation 23 allow a six-foot vegetative buffer before the fence 24 or are you putting the fence on the property line? 25 MR. ARNOLD: Well, keep in mind, part of the 1 property right now does not have a wall. It has a 2 fence, as you're well aware, right, and some 3 landscaping. 4 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) 5 MR. ARNOLD: So we're trying to work within 6 the confines of what's there to make it the least 7 impactive. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 9 MR. ARNOLD: And Doug is going to go back to 10 the Walmart folks and we're going to bring to them 11 your obvious concerns. 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 13 MR. ARNOLD: And look at where we might be 14 able to achieve some of the common things that 15 you're looking for. And it may not mean putting a 16 fence or a wall here. It may mean putting one 17 closer to the actual parking area. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, the ten homes 19 that are affected by it. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But we're saying 21 instead of here -- 22 MR. ARNOLD: It may be better to put it here. 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- it may be better 24 served here against the parking lot. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes, it may be. 1 MR. ARNOLD: Right. So we're -- we'll 2 certainly take a look at that. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible). 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, that, I don't 5 see a problem with. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So, also, are they 7 talking about Collee Court (indiscernible)? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, they're 9 talking about on Collee Court as well, I'm sure. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And then to the 11 side -- 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It needs it on the 13 sides, too. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- of the 15 (indiscernible). 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We need it on the 17 side. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Because of the gas 19 station activity, he should (indiscernible). 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Absolutely. 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, keep in mind, this portion 23 is commercial. So the county's requirements are 24 different for buffering for the section that's not. 25 So it wouldn't be residential -- 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No, the adjacent 2 property owner, the first property, yeah. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Where it turns. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You know, we're 6 talking about Peters, and then as it turns onto 7 Collee. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Right. Sure. 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And then it goes 10 down and it drops down like that. 11 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: All of that. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Right next to 14 (indiscernible). 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That area should be 16 buffered as well. 17 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I got it. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes, down to the 19 canal part of the -- 20 MR. ARNOLD: I understand. Sure. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: To the edge of the 22 parking lot. 23 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, understood. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. And so 25 you're saying the other part is commercial, so it 1 doesn't -- and you own all the way across -- 2 MR. ARNOLD: Right. The ownership line goes 3 across the -- 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And that 5 doesn't -- 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is that the full 150 7 foot width of the canal? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It is? 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's pretty close to 11 it. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That canal 14 right-of-way was 150 feet -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So all those 16 homes -- 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- and the adjacent 18 property owners on either side, allowing 75 feet 19 off the back of their property. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I believe that 21 easement (indiscernible). 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It looks like it's 23 the full 150. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So, in other 1 words, all the property owners there on the other 2 side of Haldeman Creek are going to hear those 3 sounds echoing over Haldeman Creek. 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because there's 6 not going to be any buffer there. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's an existing 8 -- the existing vegetative buffer that's there, 9 we're not touching that. 10 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Vegetative? 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. As you 12 pointed out, it's pretty thick and pretty overgrown 13 in there. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That is thick. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's a nice home 16 for (indiscernible). 17 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) 18 MR. ARNOLD: One at a time. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Once we get 20 businesses in there that are active, hopefully, 21 that other problem goes away. 22 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else who hasn't had a 23 chance to speak have a question or comment? 24 Yes, sir. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Compared to the 1 existing project that's there, will there be an 2 increase in impervious cover? 3 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know if I know the answer 4 to that in terms of -- 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Because there's some 6 future development that we're planning up here, we 7 don't know the exact number there yet. It's 8 probably close, maybe a little more impervious area 9 than what's there now. 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's pretty close. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Thank you. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else who hasn't had a 13 chance to ask? 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Does Sam's have 15 any security, nighttime security that would help 16 with the homeless issue in the back of the parking 17 lot? 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I don't know the 19 answer to that. 20 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the answer about 21 their security, Karen. That's certainly a question 22 we can ask. 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, 24 (indiscernible) security (indiscernible). I think 25 it was Kite that enacted a trespass kickout program 1 with the county sheriff. And if we called about 2 woods people, they were evicted by the -- or taken, 3 removed. So Kite was good about that. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And we're still -- 5 we're still going to own that. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What 7 (indiscernible)? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sam's is going to be 9 the tenant, so -- 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What's the wall 12 (indiscernible) lot? 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Absolutely. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It has to be a 15 wall they can't crawl over. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We need that, 17 because we went through hell with Walmart. We know 18 what to expect. 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You shouldn't have 20 to expect that in this day and age the way things 21 have changed. You shouldn't have to -- 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No. We lived there 23 before the building. 24 MR. ARNOLD: I'm sure you did, yeah. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It was a wooded 1 area. 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So the -- 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the other thing 4 is shielding of the lights. I'm sure Kite will 5 shield the lights at night from -- 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: County code. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: When is the 9 demolition scheduled to begin? 10 MR. ARNOLD: We have to get through the 11 approval process before the demo. So, I mean, I 12 don't think Doug's going to tear down the building 13 because -- 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I just want to 15 know. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm not tearing the 17 building down until we've got (indiscernible). 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So with the 19 additional 16,000 square feet -- 20 MR. ARNOLD: It's 18,000 square feet. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: 18. Do you have 22 parking for that additional square footage that 23 you've asked -- 24 MR. ARNOLD: We will provide parking to meet 25 the county code for everything we build, yeah. 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: For all the square 2 footage? 3 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And just to clarify, 5 that square footage includes all the existing 6 outparcels that are built in now. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And that -- that 8 easement is not included in the square footage? 9 MR. ARNOLD: This area? It's included in our 10 overall acreage for the project, but there's no 11 commercial assignment of development there. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Wait. The overall 13 -- when you say it's included in the overall, it's 14 not included when you figured your equation for 15 your overall square footage for your parking? 16 MR. ARNOLD: It's not a factor for parking. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Parking is 18 calculated based on the square footage of the 19 building, not the lot. 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But you get what 21 I'm talking about, right? 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I think so. 23 MR. ARNOLD: I don't understand. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: When you did your 25 parking calculation, you did not include that part 1 -- the unusable -- 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They wouldn't -- 3 MR. ARNOLD: No, you wouldn't. The county 4 code requires anything that's assigned under roof 5 and that would be a commercial enterprise, there's 6 a parking standard that we have to adhere to. 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: For the enclosed 8 area. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Not the -- not the 11 land. It's the buildings. 12 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I understand, but 13 I'm asking you, you only have so much that you can 14 park your cars on. I'm asking, if you used that 15 parcel that you cannot park cars on when you -- 16 when you figured your equation for the space that 17 you have to park cars on. 18 MR. ARNOLD: It's not part of the equation. 19 It's just not part of it. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We have to park -- 21 four parking spaces per thousand square foot of 22 enclosed area. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, uh-huh. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's over -- 25 there's more than four parking spaces per thousand. 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Excluding these 3 (indiscernible). 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Anything else from anybody? 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What's the building 7 height compared to -- 8 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we haven't asked for a 9 change in the building height. Right now the PUD 10 allows a maximum of 35 feet building height. The 11 same as almost every one of your residential homes 12 that allows 35 feet as kind of a standard height 13 for that. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And what's presently 15 there? 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The front of the 17 building, I think, is at 32, 33, and the elevations 18 we've seen from Sam's are less than that or within 19 that. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I think the front 22 entrance might be a little higher than that, but 23 they're fully parapet all the way around it to 24 shield all the rooftop units, so you can't see 25 those. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Where is the front 2 entrance of -- 3 MR. ARNOLD: It's located right here, facing 4 southeast, towards U.S. 41. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: What has the 6 transportation studies shown as far as the 7 additional impact of usage? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, there's going 9 to be a more thorough analysis done when we -- once 10 we get through this approval process, there's going 11 to be a more thorough analysis done as far as the 12 impacts on the adjacent roads and the access out on 13 41. 14 The additional square footage now is a nominal 15 increase in the amount of traffic that would be 16 generated simply because there's only 18,000 square 17 feet of additional retail space. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. But the 19 style of Sam's -- I guess, in other words, it looks 20 like probably the uses would be an increase, even 21 though it's only in a small square footage, but -- 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, it depends on 23 how you look at it. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sam's Clubs, you 25 know, they're going to expect a pretty high volume 1 of people coming in here and using this thing. 2 That's why they want to put it there. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No more than the 4 Publix would, and, actually, Publix, their hours of 5 operations are usually longer than that of Sam's. 6 Sam's has usually less hours of operation. So it's 7 more limited towards the daytime, where Publix 8 generates traffic for longer periods throughout the 9 day, so when you compare the Sam's straight to a 10 Publix, no. 11 I mean, you can -- you've been to Publix 12 stores. You see how busy they are. They are -- 13 they generate as much traffic as what a Sam's Club 14 does, if not more. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So am I seeing on 16 the map -- 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Particularly in the 18 size -- based on the size. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, based on size. 20 And, typically, the reason is, is because people 21 will go to Publix to buy a loaf of bread and a 22 gallon of milk. People don't go to Sam's to buy a 23 loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. They go there 24 to stock up for the week. So Sam's actually 25 generates less traffic than what a Publix does. 1 But if you run it straight on retail use and 2 say all variables are the same, it shows that there 3 is going to be a slight increase in traffic, but 4 actually there's not going to be. There's going to 5 be less traffic. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Would there be 7 anything to prevent Sam's from operating 24/7? 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, it's just 9 their business hours. You can go to any Sam's and 10 they have specific hours of operation. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I know they do. But 12 is there anything that would prevent them from 13 doing it -- 14 MR. ARNOLD: Not in the existing PUD. No, 15 just as the Walmart across the street, it used to 16 be 24 hours. I don't know if it still is or not. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes, it's 24, 18 yeah. 19 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know if the Sam's Club, 20 it is. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, the Walmart. 22 MR. ARNOLD: But there's nothing that 23 precludes it, I guess, in our document today. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Is your map 25 proposing three entrances from 41? 1 MR. ARNOLD: It's proposing the same existing 2 access points that are there today. 3 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The ones that are 4 there? 5 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And then still the 7 one from Peters? 8 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the one on Peters, I 9 explained earlier, I think it may have been before 10 you came. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm sorry. I was 12 late. 13 MR. ARNOLD: That's okay. We show on our 14 zoning plan, which this is two access points to 15 Peters, which exists today. This is the latest 16 iteration of the plan that came back from the Sam's 17 Club people, and they're actually proposing to make 18 that connection cut off. That's not something 19 we've committed to yet, but that's something 20 they're looking at. 21 So that would keep the traffic going to the 22 northern-most entrance under their plan, but it's 23 still under evaluation, and I think we'll be having 24 a give and take with transportation staff. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: One of the problems 1 with that entrance for the truck loading area was 2 the wide swing that those semis are required to 3 make. And Peters Street is not that wide, and most 4 of those semis ran off into the shoulder. And 5 gradually it broke down Peters Street in that 6 location where they were turning in to unload. 7 Is there any provision for widening that area 8 so when they come out of that loading dock, they 9 could be on a paved street rather than running 10 through the shoulder? 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: With this plan, 12 their deliveries don't go to Peters. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They're not -- 14 deliveries are not going down Peters Street? 15 MR. ARNOLD: Under that plan. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They're all coming 17 in and out (indiscernible). 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh, that -- that 19 solves the problem. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Where is the loading 21 docks at? 22 MR. ARNOLD: They're located in this area on 23 the north side of the building. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, that fixes it. 25 MR. ARNOLD: Which is one of the deviations we 1 asked for. The county code would require us to 2 have a greater number of loading docks. We want to 3 have a couple less. 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So in the center 5 of the building, halfway down Peters Street, what 6 is that little area? What is that? 7 MR. ARNOLD: This? That is designed to be an 8 emergency fire access for the fire department to 9 gain access to the property in the event that there 10 was -- 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So there will be 12 an opening there. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It will be gated. 14 MR. ARNOLD: It's an opening. It's going to 15 be gated. 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It should be gated. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It will be gated. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Right. It will be gated for 19 emergency personnel only. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It allows us to 21 eliminate putting in a driveway along the back of 22 the building. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because 24 (indiscernible) also. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 1 gas station that's being (indiscernible) right now? 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No. 3 (Indiscernible). 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Green space. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You bought it, 6 right? 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah 8 (indiscernible). 9 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is there -- is 10 there -- 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's a gas 12 station that's there now. Is there going to be a 13 conflict between the one you're proposing and that 14 little guy that's setting up there on 41? 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I don't think so. 16 Sam's is members only. You have to be a member to 17 use their gas. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: True. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So it's an ancillary 20 use to the membership. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: How big is their 22 gas station, how many pumps? 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Six. 24 MR. ARNOLD: 12 fueling positions, I think 25 they call it. I think that's what they're 1 depicting, 12 fueling positions on that plan. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The plan he has 3 (indiscernible). 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What about their 5 canopies, how high are their canopies and what 6 about their lights? 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sam's Club? 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. I'm talking 9 about the fueling station. 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's kind of hard to 11 remember the height off the top of my head. It's 12 less than the building. Excuse me. And the lights 13 will all be enclosed with it. They won't drop 14 down. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just to let you 16 know, the lighting for canopies have to be recessed 17 so they're not spilling out farther than the 18 canopy, under code. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh, that's good. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, they don't -- 21 the lights can't hang down underneath the canopy 22 anymore. They have to be recessed. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Does it have to be 24 (indiscernible) according to that dark 25 (indiscernible)? 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It doesn't have to 2 do with that. It's just the way the architectural 3 codes are. They have to be recessed. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: How will we get a 5 definite on the wall? 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We'll work through 7 it with staff and (indiscernible). 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We'll just let you 9 know when -- 10 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I know planning 11 is -- 12 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just to let you 13 know, with lights, compare that to the Walmart 14 across the street. Those are 42-foot tall lights. 15 The new codes require no more than 25 feet. So you 16 would not see those kind of lights over at this 17 property. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh, what a 19 difference. 20 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It seems like it's 22 big -- I mean, a big issue is that its location now 23 is getting much closer to the creek and to the 24 residential areas than -- 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Especially the gas 1 station. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's not getting any 3 closer to the creek. The existing curb line is 4 (indiscernible). 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No. I mean, the gas 6 station. In other words, the use of a -- and a 7 35-foot building, you know, top -- 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, there's a -- 9 there's a 25-foot building sitting right there now 10 that we're going to tear down. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What, the office 12 supply -- 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The office supply 14 building, yeah. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And that's where 16 the gas station (indiscernible). 17 MR. ARNOLD: Anything else from anybody? 18 Anybody else? 19 If you want to get any of this information, if 20 you signed in, just let us know and I'll be happy 21 to e-mail -- Sharon will be happy to e-mail you 22 these exhibits, and Dan probably has business 23 cards. They have cards. 24 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Your name is? 25 MS. BAKER: Karen Baker (phonetic). 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. Is there 2 going to be -- what would be the next meeting where 3 one would hear a little bit more about the staff 4 comments and then how you guys are addressing them? 5 In other words, to get a sense of how these 6 things -- 7 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- you know, a 9 little more in a final -- you know, it's 10 approaching these, you know, solving some of the 11 issues. 12 MR. ARNOLD: That would be our Collier County 13 Planning Commission public hearing, most typical, 14 and you'll all get notice of that if you got notice 15 of this meeting. There will be, like I said, signs 16 placed on the property notifying you of that 17 Planning Commission hearing date. 18 Dan will have a staff report available a 19 couple of weeks before the hearing, typically, that 20 will express issues of concern, things that we've 21 done to address them, things we haven't yet done to 22 address them, conditions of approval, et cetera. 23 And then the Planning Commission will take a 24 vote and make a recommendation to the board. 25 We are going to try to get back to the CRA 1 advisory board. I understand they're not meeting 2 July and August, so, you know, depending on our 3 hearing schedule, ideally, we do it before Planning 4 Commission, but it may have to occur between 5 Planning Commission and the board to get back to 6 the CRA, but obviously that's something we had 7 hoped to do. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. Is there any 9 kind of an estimated schedule on these 10 (indiscernible) one can look in the future? 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just to let you know 12 how planning -- how we work is they submit a -- 13 their application. We have 30 days to -- part of 14 the application process is, after the first review, 15 which we do, then a neighborhood information 16 meeting is required. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Which is what this 18 is? 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Which is what this 20 is, correct. Based on the information that they've 21 heard, there's usually another submittal. And 22 anytime during that time, though, and there may be 23 more comments from, you know -- he might come in 24 tomorrow and say I'd like to take a -- you've got 25 some issues. 1 During the course of that time, this 2 information is all put together, so I can put a 3 staff report together in front of the Planning 4 Commission. 5 A lot of times, it's two, three, four, five 6 submittals sometimes. I hope it doesn't go like 7 that, but I'm sure that you all have 8 (indiscernible). 9 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, but I think -- a quick 10 point is there's no set schedule. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Correct. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Every project goes a little bit 13 differently. 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sure. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Some jurisdictions, like in the 16 City of Naples, if you submit by the first Friday 17 of the month, you're on the planning and zoning 18 schedule the next month, you know. You may not be 19 ready to go, but that's their schedule. They're 20 that fixed. And Collier County is not that way. 21 So it's a negotiation and a dialogue back and 22 forth with stuff, like Dan said, over the course of 23 several months, typically. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You're consciously 25 blighting that entire neighborhood when you can 1 make a decision to put in beautiful hotels, 2 restaurants and shopping, and that is what Bayshore 3 set to do about 15, 18 years ago when they put 4 together master plans to beautify the entire area 5 on the water and that's what's set to be done. 6 Putting in giant Sam's Club in a beautiful 7 neighborhood that's on the water on a fishery, 8 Haldeman Creek has a snook in there that's this 9 big, it's probably 12 years old, and putting in 10 that eyesore is -- I understand it's your property 11 and I understand you can do what you want with it, 12 but you can do a bigger, higher, better use and 13 Sam's Club belongs further out. That is a 14 congested area, period. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: My opinion doesn't 17 matter. I understand that. You're going to blight 18 every single one of those homes. The trailer park 19 is already a pretty tough place as it is. You're 20 just going to put the nail in the coffin. 21 All these people have invested a lot of money 22 and they're cleaning it up and it's hard to clean 23 that place up. You don't live there. Everybody 24 here does, okay? It's been hard to clean this 25 place up. 1 You guys are going to just trash the hell out 2 of it. That's what you're going to do. 3 MR. ARNOLD: Thanks for your comments. 4 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: How does -- how does 5 the county look at that? In other words -- 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They don't give a 7 shit. 8 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well -- 9 MR. ARNOLD: Ma'am, let's be more respectful, 10 please. 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They're going to 12 give them all their square footage. They're going 13 to run all their crap water -- 14 MR. ARNOLD: Ma'am, ma'am -- 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: -- down into the 16 canals and they don't care. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, and I'm trying 18 to understand how the county -- in other words -- 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Money. It's tax 20 based. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- deals with that. 22 Right. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They don't give a 24 shit. 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But, in other words, 1 you know, in trying to do the -- 2 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm done. 3 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- beautifications 4 like she articulated, I think she articulated it 5 very well as far as a residential area, looking for 6 it to be probably more, you know, small business 7 interactive, you know, yada, yada, yada. 8 And that was the intent of part of the 9 beautification process and long-term plan. You 10 know, a lot of things got put back by the 2009, you 11 know, real estate thing, right? 12 But at what point does that not become 13 something strongly considered to maintain from the 14 county's perspective? 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, again, we're 16 looking at land use again. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Uh-huh. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And this is just -- 19 we're looking at the use to see if it's compatible 20 with the area, and this is something the Planning 21 Commission is going to have to address and that may 22 be something you might want to come in and talk 23 about -- there's a lot of issues you're bringing up 24 that doesn't necessarily pertain to this particular 25 use. It's kind of that whole area in general. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sure, sure. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the direction. 3 And I can only comment on, really, the land use 4 that's in front of me right now. 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sure, sure. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: When Collier 7 Development first built (indiscernible) Courthouse 8 Shadows, right where Office Max is located, they 9 had proposed a six-story hotel and (indiscernible). 10 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: In the original PUD. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And then where 14 Blockbuster Video is was a theater in that 15 location. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So there were minor 18 changes that they (indiscernible). 19 MR. ARNOLD: Things evolve. They have to, you 20 know. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, but -- 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But I mean, 23 obviously, this project sort of nixed that future 24 possibility. 25 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's right. 1 Totally. Forever. 2 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And so for a 3 redevelopment, you know, type of process, you know, 4 right now, it's -- it's a little more likely that 5 something like that might happen if you 6 basically -- 7 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the problem is, if you keep 8 waiting for that perfect use, it may never happen. 9 You've got a dark shopping center. Kite 10 Development is a very reputable group of people. 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, they -- 12 MR. ARNOLD: They have -- I think if you ask 13 anywhere in the county, you're going to find that 14 they've addressed any issues very well. 15 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. 16 MR. ARNOLD: They've got Sam's Club under 17 contract to lease this land. 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But I don't trust 19 Sam's Club. 20 MR. ARNOLD: But you can trust Kite. 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Because of our 22 experience with Walmart. 23 MR. ARNOLD: Right. And I understand your 24 concerns, and I think, to the extent we can address 25 any of those, we certainly will. 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It sounds like maybe 2 one of the contacts is to the commissioners a 3 little bit to also bring in the other issues that 4 are going around in the area. In other words, you 5 have potential things that are improving it. It's 6 going along -- 7 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We can improve the 8 area with the Bayshore beautification cooperation. 9 That could be -- we could improve it and live with 10 this development. I don't have any objection to 11 this development. You've got it away from our 12 home. You've got -- 13 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, I mean -- 14 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You've, I thought, 15 developed a (indiscernible). 16 (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I don't know about 18 another gas station needed in the area. 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Like she said, I 20 don't have any problem with it. It's 21 (indiscernible). 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's not a bad 23 development plan the way you've put it together. 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think what Dave 25 is referring to is, you know, the downturn, it 1 didn't help this shopping plaza at all. And I 2 agree that Sam's Club is not going to make this any 3 busier than it could be if it were full retail. 4 However, the problem is for the citizens who 5 live in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle, who have 6 been paying taxes, you know, have been having this 7 tax taken out and paying for it, they're not going 8 to -- the average citizen who doesn't belong to 9 Sam's Club is not going to be able to use this 10 commercial area close to their home. There's not 11 going to be anything there for them other than 12 perhaps the chicken wing place or the Dunkin' 13 Donuts. 14 They're not going to be able to use it. So 15 even though it's been a plaza that hasn't been very 16 successful, we're at a different time now than we 17 were when the economic downturn occurred. The 18 Gateway Triangle, Mini Triangle is under contract. 19 All the big parcels on Bayshore are now under 20 contract. It's sitting pretty for the next 21 developer to come in. 22 I think that's what Dave is referring to. 23 It's like is this really, for the people, the best 24 usage? How many of the local citizens are going to 25 join Sam's Club? I belong to Costco's already. I 1 probably am not going to join Sam's Club. 2 So there's nothing there for me, and I live 3 very close to it. 4 So I think that's something that's a concern, 5 too. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you all. 7 Okay. I'm going to close the meeting if 8 there's nothing else that has (indiscernible). I 9 appreciate all the feedback and comments and we'll 10 go digest it and Doug will talk to his contract 11 purchaser and we'll see what we can do to address 12 them. 13 Thank you all. 14 (Recording concluded.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF COLLIER 3 4 I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 5 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 71 6 contain a full, true and correct transcript of 7 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed 8 by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a 9 digital audio recording. 10 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or 11 employed by any of the parties in the above-entitled 12 cause. 13 3. I am not financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of this case. 15 DATED: August 2, 2016 16 17 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: 18 19 Joyce B. Howell 20 21 22 23 24 25 10/14/201610/14/201610/14/201610/14/2016 10/14/2016 Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / July 18, 2016 Deviation 1 Exhibit DEVIATION 1 DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION The Sam’s Club currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 s.f. According to the code for this size of a store a total of 7 loading docks would be required. Sam’s currently shows a total of 5 loading docks (12’ wide by 90’ long), based on business knowledge and historical information this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam’s Club operates their own YHKLFOHÀHHWDQGFRQWUROVWKHWLPLQJRIDOOWUXFNGHOLYHULHV Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10’x20’ (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 1 90’ 10’ Masonry Screen Wall 26’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 2 3 4 5 Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / July 18, 2016 Deviation 2 Exhibit DEVIATION 2 DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist between the parent tract and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD, is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an 8’ wide planting area and is even greater in some areas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15’ landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. Existing Chrissy’s Tavern Existing Chevron Existing Burger King Existing Dunkin Donuts 0.5’ 0’ 57’ 18’ 68’ 9’11’ 12’9’ 15’ 24’ 15’ 26’ 8’ 55’ 19’4’5’ 50’ 0.5’ 0’0’ 0’ 1’ Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / September 14, 2016 Deviation 3 Exhibit DEVIATION 3 DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION The existing water management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional water management system. The water management areas will have planting shelfs along the perimeter to support the required landscap- ing within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibits. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not FRQVLVWHQWO\PHHWWKH¶ZLGHPLQLPXPIRUDFWLYLW\FHQWHUVDGMDFHQW to roadways. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5’ wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. 8.5’ Planting Buffer Dry Pond Area Proposed 10’ High Screen Wall Proposed 6’ Screen Wall Existing 6’ Chain Link )HQFHWR5HPDLQ Grasspave Drive Lane 570’ = 75% area coverage 472’ = 100% area coverage 103’ = 100% area coverage 757’ Proposed 6’ Chain Link )HQFHDW3URSHUW\/LQH)HQFH7\SH/HJHQG Existing 6’ Chain Link Proposed 6’ Chain Link Sam’s Club Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / September 14, 2016 Site Cross Sections VARIES 6’10’5’63’ W.L.W.L. 5’ A: West Dry Pond Area Section Scale: 1”=20’Scale: 1”=20’B: South Dry Pond Area Section Plant Buffer Edge of BuildingProperty Line Existing 6’ Chain Link Fence Dry Pond Sidewalk Plant Buffer Parking Lot Proposed 6’ Chain Link Fence at Property Line Dry Pond Proposed 6’ Screen Wall Sod Bank VARIES6’44’ 4’ 7’W.L. Scale: 1”=20’C: South Dry Pond Area Section Plant BufferProposed 7’ Screen Wall Parking Lot Existing 6’ Chain Link Fence Dry Pond Sod Bank/Buffer Sam’s Club Ta m i a m i T r a i l E a s t ( U S 4 1 ) Burger King Chevron Chrissy’s Tavern Dunkin Donuts Buffalo Wild Wings TRACT A TRACT B TRACT E AA CCB B Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / July 18, 2016 Deviation 4 Exhibit DEVIATION 4 DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION There are existing areas in the shopping center in the northern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscap- ing island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 11 Spaces 11 Spaces Existing Buffalo Wild Wings Ta m i a m i T r a i l E a s t ( U S 4 1 ) 19 Spaces Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / July 18, 2016 Deviation 5 Exhibit DEVIATION 5 DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security DQGVDIHW\IRUQHDUE\UHVLGHQWVE\FUHDWLQJDEDUULHUIURPWKHSURMHFWV surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6’ away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 3URSRVHG)HQFH¶&KDLQ/LQN)HQFH (0’ off property line) 3URSRVHG)HQFH¶&KDLQ/LQN)HQFH (0’ off property line) ([LVWLQJ¶&KDLQ/LQN)HQFH (0’ off property line) ([LVWLQJ¶&KDLQ/LQN)HQFH (0’ off property line) Maximize storage area/landscape buffer Proposed 6’ Screen Wall 9$5,(66’ 44’ 4’ 7’W.L. Scale: 1”=20’A: South Dry Pond Area Section 4’ 7’7’7 Plant Buffer Proposed 7’ Screen Wall Parking Lot Existing 6’ Chain Link )HQFH Dry Pond Sod Bank/Buffer AA Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / July 18, 2016 Deviation 6 Exhibit DEVIATION 6 JUSTIFICATION 7KHSURSRVHG6DP¶V)XHO6WDWLRQFDQRS\LVORFDWHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\ ¶DZD\IURPWKHH[LVWLQJ&KHYURQ)XHOVWDWLRQFDQRS\ORFDWHG DORQJWKHSURMHFWIURQWDJH7KHJDVVWDWLRQIRUWKLVGHYHORSPHQWLV an accessory use to the main membership warehouse use of the redevelopment and is not open to the public without a membership. This location is the least intrusive for the public and ideal for access by customers and fuel tank delivery trucks. The gas station use could be developed elsewhere on the site in such a way to meet the separation requirement on the site; however, that will put it immediately at the Airport Pulling and Tamiami Trail intersection and further away from the main building. No reduction for residential is necessary if the applicant can measure the separation from the fuel canopy as the fuel canopy to the nearest residential property line is DSSUR[LPDWHO\¶7KLVGHYLDWLRQLVMXVWL¿HGEHFDXVHWKHSURSHUW\ is separated from the nearby residential use by an existing canal and mature landscape buffer. The applicant also proposes to install a 6’ high wall, which will result in a total wall height of approximately 10’ above grade of the nearby residential lots. The applicant proposes to deviate from the requirement to center the proposed wall by locating WKHVFUHHQZDOOLQWKHDUHDFORVHVWWRWKHSURMHFWSDUNLQJDQGWRKDYH WKHUHTXLUHGODQGVFDSLQJORFDWHGDWWKHSURSHUW\OLQHDQGDGMDFHQW to the wall as shown on Deviation #6 exhibit. This requested buffer meets the intent of the LDC required buffer. The active parts of the fueling facility are the fueling stations. There is no convenience store associated with in the fueling facility. DEVIATION Deviation #6 seeks relief from Section 5.05.05 B, which UHTXLUHVVHSDUDWLRQIURPDGMDFHQWIDFLOLWLHVZLWKIXHOSXPSVWRD minimum distance of 500 feet and from residential to be separated by 250 feet to allow a distance less than 500 feet for the fuel facility separation and less than 250 feet separation from residential. )XHO6WDWLRQZ.LRVN Existing Chevron Existing Burger King 300.4’155’ 293’ ([LVWLQJ5HVLGHQWLDO Home Sam’s Club Sam’s Club 4708 / PUD Amendment / July 18, 2016 Deviation 7 Exhibit DEVIATION 7 JUSTIFICATION The redevelopment proposes to update the existing pole signs to be monument signs that are consistent with the architecture for the redeveloped site. Although fewer than 8 tenants are anticipated to occupy the site if the warehouse club use is constructed, the VLJQDJHVWUXFWXUHVH[LVWDQGLWZRXOGEHPRUHFRVWHIIHFWLYHWRUHWUR¿WWKHH[LVWLQJVLJQ structure, rather than to remove and replace. A base will be constructed on the signs and landscaping will be installed consistent with the code. Please see the included exhibits for reference. DEVIATION 'HYLDWLRQVHHNVUHOLHIIURP6HFWLRQ)UHJDUGLQJGLUHFWRU\VLJQVWRDOORZWKH existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25’ to remain. Sam’s Club ([LVWLQJ0RQXPHQW6LJQ7R5HPDLQ ([LVWLQJ0RQXPHQW6LJQ7R5HPDLQ 394’ 596’T a m i a m i T r a i l E a s t ( U S 4 1 ) 868’ Burger King Chevron Chrissy’s Tavern Dunkin Donuts Buffalo Wild Wings 75$&7$ 75$&7% 75$&7( July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-1Building Perspectives July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-2Building Elevations (East) FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION 30’- 0” TOP 33’- 4” TOP30’- 0” TOP 27’-4” TOP 11’-10” 15’-10” 30’- 0” TOP 32’- 8” TOP 40’-10” TOR 32’- 0” TOP 6’- 0” TOM 8’- 8” TOM SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SECTIONAL OVERHEAD DOOR PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” EIFS - PAINT SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO”HM DOOR PAINTED SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” STONE VENEER STONE VENEER SHEET A-7TYPICAL WALL SECTIONSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” 10’ X 10’ SIGN 8’ X 8’ SIGN STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” CAP/CORNICE PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” CAP/CORNICE PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” STONE VENEER CAP/CORNICE PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” SALESSALES PICKUPPICKUP CANOPYCANOPY PICKUPPICKUP CANOPYCANOPY V E S T I B U L E V E S T I B U L E CART CART STORAGESTORAGE LIQUOR BOXLIQUOR BOXBIKE RACKSBIKE RACKS (TYP OF 7)(TYP OF 7) BENCH (TYP OF 2)BENCH (TYP OF 2) RECEIVING DOCKRECEIVING DOCK BENCH (TYP OF 2)LANDSCAPE PLANTER (TYP OF 2)BIKE RACKS (TYP OF 7)BIKE RACKS (TYP OF 7) LOUVERED TRELLIS - PAINT SW 6104 “KAFFEE “ LOUVERED METAL AWNING PAINT SW 6104 “KAFFEE “ PRE-FINISHED FASCIA PANEL “BLUE” July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-3Building Elevations (North) DOCK SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION 33’- 4” TOP 31’- 4” TOP 29’- 4” TOP 10’- 0” TOM 12’- 0” TOM8’- 8” TOM 32’- 0” TOP 32’- 8” TOP SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” MASONRY SCREEN WALL AT LOADING DOCK, SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” HM DOOR PAINTED SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SALESSALES WATER STORAGE WATER STORAGE TANK TANK PUMP HOUSEPUMP HOUSE COMPACTORCOMPACTOR RECEIVING RECEIVING DOCKDOCK MASONRY SCREEN WALLMASONRY SCREEN WALL AT LOADING DOCKAT LOADING DOCK DAILYDAILY SERVICESERVICE DELIVERABLESDELIVERABLES (DSD)(DSD) ENTRANCEENTRANCE WATER STORAGE TANK PUMP HOUSE INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” BALE/PALLET ANDBALE/PALLET AND ORGANICS AREA ENCLOSUREORGANICS AREA ENCLOSURE REFER SHEET A-12REFER SHEET A-12 LANDSCAPE PLANTERLANDSCAPE PLANTER (AT GRADE)(AT GRADE) 10’ X 10’ SIGN July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-4Building Elevations (West) REAR (WEST) ELEVATION 31’- 4” TOP 30’- 0” TOP 29’- 4” TOP 28’- 0” TOP 28’- 0” TOP 31’- 4” TOP SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” TIRE/BATTERY STORAGE ENCLOSURE- ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCING HM DOOR PAINTED SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” CAP/CORNICE PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO”CAP/CORNICE PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” CLUB PICKUP CANOPY SALESSALES WATER WATER STORAGESTORAGE TANK PUMP HOUSEPUMP HOUSE USED TIRE & BATTERYUSED TIRE & BATTERY STORAGE ANDSTORAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CAGEENVIRONMENTAL CAGE INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” 12’- 0” TOM 8’- 8” TOM 8’- 8” TOM 11’-10” 6’-0” 15’-10” WATER STORAGE TANKPUMP HOUSE July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-5Building Elevations (South) TBC SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION 31’- 4” TOP 40’-10” TOP 27’- 4” TOP 27’- 4” TOP 12’- 0” TOM 30’- 4” TOP 30’- 8” TOP SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” HM DOOR PAINTED SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” OVERHEAD DOORS CLEAR ANONDIZED ALUMINUM CO2 TANK ENCLOSURE COMPOSITE WOOD FENCING STONE VENEER SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” STONE VENEER STANDING SEAM INSULATED ROOF “ZINC GREY”CAP/CORNICE PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” USED TIRE & BATTERYUSED TIRE & BATTERY STORAGE ANDSTORAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CAGEENVIRONMENTAL CAGE RAISED PLANTER (TYP)RAISED PLANTER (TYP) TIRE & BATTERYTIRE & BATTERY CENTERCENTER SALESSALES VESTIBULE VESTIBU LECART STORAGESTORAGELIQUOR BOXLIQUOR BOX PICKUPPICKUP CANOPYCANOPY PICKUP CANOPYCANOPY INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7044 “AMAZING GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” INSULATED COMPOSITE PANEL ON STEEL STRUCTURE, PANELS PREFINISHED TO MATCH SW 7024 “FUNCTIONAL GRAY” 10’- 0” TOM6’- 0” TOM 10’ X 10’ SIGN LANDSCAPE PLANTER (TYP OF 2) July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-6Fuel Station SOFFIT 14’-6" T.O. CANOPY 18’-2" SOFFIT 14’-6" T.O. CANOPY 18’-2" SOFFIT 14’-6" T.O. CANOPY 18’-2" SOFFIT 14’-6" T.O. CANOPY 18’-2" T.O. ROOF 23’-2" T.O. ROOF 23’-2" T.O. ROOF 23’-2" T.O. ROOF 23’-2" INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE STONE VENEER SPLIT FACE CMU -PAINT SW #6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU -PAINT SW #6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU -PAINT SW #6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU -PAINT SW #6102 “PORTABELLO” STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE PRE-FINISH METAL CANOPY COLOR TO MATCH SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” PRE-FINISH METAL CANOPY COLOR TO MATCH SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” PRE-FINISH METAL CANOPY COLOR TO MATCH SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” PRE-FINISH METAL CANOPY COLOR TO MATCH SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF “ZINC GREY” BY BERRIDGE SPLIT FACE CMU - PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU - PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU - PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU - PAINT SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION LEFT (EAST) ELEVATION RIGHT (WEST) ELEVATION STONE VENEER STONE VENEER STONE VENEER STONE VENEER STONE VENEER CORBEL (TYP) CORBEL (TYP) July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-7Sightline Study/Conceptual Wall Section Typical Wall Section North July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-8Building Signage A 6 C B 263 A 1 B D45FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION REAR (WEST) ELEVATION TBC SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION DOCK SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION LEFT (EAST) ELEVATION RIGHT (WEST) ELEVATION E July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-9Building/Wall Signage Details Fuel Station Canopy Signage Building Signage Directional Signage Sign Qty Height Area (S.F.) Total S.F. A. Diamond Sign 1 10’-0” 100.00 100.00 B. Diamond Sign 1 8’-0“ 64.00 64.00 C. Liquor 1 2’-6” 35.33 35.33 D. Pharmacy 1 1’-0” 41.29 41.29 Optical - 1’-0” - - Photo - 1’-0” - - Tires - 1’-0” - - Total Building Signage 240.62 Sign Qty Height Area (S.F.) Total S.F. B. Diamond Sign 1 8’-0“ 64.00 64.00 Total Building Signage 64.00 Sign Qty Height Area (S.F.) Total S.F. 1. Liquor 1 9” 3.19 3.19 2. Tire Installation 1 6“ 2.81 2.81 3. Club Pickup 1 1’-0” 4.57 4.57 4. Welcome 1 9” 3.77 3.77 5. Exit 1 9” 1.45 1.45 6. Club Pickup (canopy) 2 1’-0” 5.19 10.38 Total Building Signage 26.17 Directional Signs may only be 6 s.f. maximum per sign Sign Qty Height Area (S.F.) Total S.F. E. Fuel Canopy Sign 1 1’-8” 9.05 9.05 Total Fuel Canopy Signage 9.05 LIQUOR SIGN LIQUOR SIGN 10'-5"2'-6"3'-434"AGGREGATE SIGN AREA: 35.33 SF WHITE LETTERS TYPICAL 1" DIA. PLASTIC MOUNT FOR ALL-THREAD STUD ON BACK OF LETTER FACE TYP 2"A E B C 1 4 5 6 2 3 AGGREGATE SIGN AREA: 3.77 SF WHITE LETTERS TYPICAL 1" DIA. PLASTIC MOUNT FOR ALL-THREAD STUD ON BACK OF LETTER FACE TYP 9"4'-7 1/16" 10 A2.1 AGGREGATE SIGN AREA: 3.19 SF WHITE LETTERS TYPICAL 1" DIA. PLASTIC MOUNT FOR ALL-THREAD STUD ON BACK OF LETTER FACE TYP 3'-1 1/2"9"11 A2.1 AGGREGATE SIGN AREA: 2.81 SF WHITE LETTERS TYPICAL 1" DIA. PLASTIC MOUNT FOR ALL-THREAD STUD ON BACK OF LETTER FACE TYP 6"AGGREGATE SIGN AREA: 1.45 SF WHITE LETTERS TYPICAL 1" DIA. PLASTIC MOUNT FOR ALL-THREAD STUD ON BACK OF LETTER FACE TYP 911/16"9"71/2"1'-9 3/4" WELCOME SIGN LIQUOR SIGN TIRE INSTALLATION EXIT SIGN D PHARMACY / PHOTO / OPTICAL / TIRES One sign allowed on canopy at 12 s.f. maximum3M OLYMPIC BLUE (PANTONE 3005) 3M APPLE GREEN (PANTONE 370) 3M VIVID BLUE (PANTONE 2945) 2" DEEP PLASTIC STUD MOUNTED DIAMONDS AND LETTERS, COLORS AS INDICATED AGGREGATE SIGN AREA: 9.50 SF 1" DIA. PLASTIC MOUNT FOR ALL-THREAD STUD ON BACK OF LETTER FACE TYPICAL WHITE LETTERS TYPICAL SAM'S FONT : SANS SERF LETTER STYLE CLUB FONT : ARIAL LETTER STYLE 5'-8 5/16" 2'-0 5/16" 4 11/16" 3'-3 5/16"1'-8"1'-21/4"41/8"17/16"91/16"1'-7 15/16" 9 11/16" SAM'S CLUB CLUB PICKUP SIGN CLUB PICKUP SIGN July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-10Site Signage EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO BE MODIFIED EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO BE MODIFIED A B Sam’s Club North A B 4FQUFNCFS, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-11Architectural Deviations FRONT (EAST) REAR (WEST) TBC SIDE (SOUTH) DOCK SIDE (NORTH) 8 WALL SIGNAGE, SEE SHEET A- 8 AND A-9 9 %FWJBUJPO Deviation #8 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.D.4 of the LDC, Variation in Massing, which requires buildings 40,000 square feet or larger in gross building area, a maximum length, or uninterrupted curve of any façade, at any point, must be 150 linear feet. Projections and recesses must have a minimum depth of ten feet within 150 linear feet limitation, to allow variations along the western portion of the truck dock side (north) and the rear (west) building elevations as shown on Architectural Deviations Exhibit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ÎBEF 5IFQSPQPTFECVJMEJOHEFTJHODPNQMJFTXJUIUIFBCPWFMJTUFETFDUJPOPGUIF[POJOHPSEJOBODFGPS BSDIJUFDUVSBMEFTJHOXJUIUIFFYDFQUJPOPGUXPBSFBToBMPOHUIFXFTUFSOQPSUJPOPGUIFUSVDLEPDL TJEF OPSUI BOE UIF SFBS XFTU CVJMEJOH FMFWBUJPOT 5IF MBSHF QJMBTUFS FMFNFOUT PO UIF OPSUI FMFWBUJPOBSFLFQUBUBwNBYJNVNQSPKFDUJPOJOPSEFSUPOPUJNQFEFPOUIFiCBDLPGIPVTFw PQFSBUJPOTPGUIFTUPSF5SVDLUVSOBSPVOEBOENBOFVWFSJOHSFTUSJDUTUIJTBSFBPGUIFCVJMEJOHGSPN EFFQQSPKFDUJPOT %VFUPFYJTUJOHMBOETDBQF VOEFSHSPXUI BOEUIFBEEJUJPOBMQMBOUJOHTUIBUXJMMCFSFRVJSFEBMPOH 1FUFST"WFOVF UIFCVJMEJOHBMPOHUIFXFTUTJEFXJMMIBWFMJNJUFEWJTJCJMJUZ"EEJUJPOBMMZ EVFUP SFRVJSFE EFUFOUJPO QPOET PO UIF XFTU TJEF PG CVJMEJOH BOE TJUFDPOTUSBJOUT UIFSF JT MJNJUFE PQQPSUVOJUZ GPS BSDIJUFDUVSBM iCVNQPVUTw #FDBVTF PG UIFTF MJNJUBUJPOT UIF DVSSFOU QSPQPTFE EFTJHOJODMVEFTMBSHFQJMBTUFSFMFNFOUTUPDPNQMZXJUIUIFJOUFOUPGUIFDPEFSFRVJSFNFOU" IJHIGFODFBOEHBUFXJUITMBUTXJMMCFJOTUBMMFEGPSGJSFBDDFTTBMPOH1FUFST"WFOVFXJMMGVSUIFS EFDSFBTFWJTJCJMJUZPGUIFSFBSGBÎBEF July 25, 2016 Naples (S), Collier County, FL #4708 DESIGN REPRESENTATION ONLY – NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION The building images shown are a representation of the current design intent only. The building images may not reflect variations in color, tone, hue, tint, shading, ambient light intensity, materials, texture, contrast, font style, construction variations required by building codes or inspectors, materials or final design detailing. AR No. #95510 A-12Bale/Pallet & Organics Enclosure REF CIVIL FOR LOCATION. PLAN SHOWN FOR INFORMATION ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. 11’-4” 66’-8” 18’-8”1’ 1’ 45’-0” 66’-8” 1’ ORNAMENTAL FENCINGORNAMENTAL SWINGING GATE ORNAMENTAL SLIDING GATE 10’-0” TOM 10’-0” TOM 10’-0” TOM SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” SPLIT FACE CMU SW 6102 “PORTABELLO” PROPOSEDPARCEL LINEPUDBOUNDARYGradyMinorCivil EngineersƔLand SurveyorsƔPlannersƔLandscape ArchitectsCERT. OF AUTH. EB 0005151CERT. OF AUTH. LB 0005151BUSINESS LC 26000266Bonita Springs239.947.1144Fort Myers239.690.4380www.GradyMinor.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.9499#DEVIATIONDeviation #9 seeks relief from Section4.06.C.4 of the LDC, which requires aperimeter landscape buffer forproperties within activity centers to be aminimum of 20 feet in width, to permita minimum width of 15' with an averagewidth of 20' as shown for the 0.28 acreparcel located at the intersection ofPeters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. Thebuffer may include traffic controldevices and utilities.4