Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 04/06/2017
AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., APRIL 6, 2017, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 30, 2017 "Special LDC meeting", February 2, 2017 and February 1f,, 2017 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PL20160001100 / CP -2016-2: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida proposing amendment to Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series by changing the designation of property from Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, to Urban, Commercial District, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area for uses allowed by right and by conditional use in the C4, General Commercial, zoning district, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18.6± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] B. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, establishing a temporary moratorium on cannabis dispensing businesses as further defined herein; providing for penalties, providing for non-inclusion in the code of laws and ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 30, 2017 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the 5:05 -- and it is 5:05 -- p.m. 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: Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good evening. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Diane is here. Mr. Strain? ,M /.1 I.7u_/.12VINA.1112m, rm- COMMISSiONER EBERT: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Davenport (sic). COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Dearborn. Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Dearborn. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda: Tonight is a special meeting of the Planning Commission for the review of the Land Development Codes. The statutes require an evening meeting when we do the codes like this, and evening is after five. So that's why it's that strange time of 5:05. We have one item on, but there are one, two -- there are five separate chapters of the code being reviewed tonight. Planning Commission absences: Our next regular meeting is Thursday, and I believe everybody had previously said they'll be here. We have one item on the agenda for Thursday. There's no minutes. BCC report: That will be on Thursday. Chairman's report: There is one thing I wanted to make sure everybody in the crowd is aware of. The golf course conversion language that we're reviewing tonight is supposed to be finished tonight. Hopefully we'll be able to finish it. We provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners ma1c.- the final decision. They are scheduled to hear this, the same Land Development Code language that we're going to forward, on Tuesday, March 14th at 5:05 and on Tuesday, March 28th at 9:00 a.m. So after it leaves here tonight, those are the two important dates for those of you who are here for the golf course conversion. And that takes us down to our first and only advertised public hearing. It's for amendments to the Land Development Code Ordinance No. 04-41. We have, like I said, five chapters to discuss. Based on the people here, I know you're -- everybody that is here for the golf course conversion, please raise your hand. Then we will do that one first. Otherwise I have a feeling you all will be waiting here for a while. So we'll get to that one first. So with that, Caroline's going to do the presentation. And, Caroline, we'll just move to that first section. Tell us what page to start on, and we'll go right to there. MS. CILEK: Great. Thank you very much. Caroline Cilek with the Growth Management Department. All right. So the first amendment we're going to take a look at is 2.03.09, and that begins on Page 2. And there were no changes to this amendment since the last meeting where you reviewed it. So let me know if you have any questions or comments at this stage. Page 2 of 29 M "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, just so the audience understands, currently most of the golf courses are in what's called an open space zoning district and it allows, basically, golf courses. This would then increase the allowei uses in that district, not housing or residential, but other recreation -related uses with the idea that if they had another opportunity to leave the area for recreation, meaning golf courses and in this case hiking trails, walkways, multi -use paths, passive recreation, or disk golf, maybe the golf course or some of those uses would stay in lieu of converting to residential. And so that's the intention of this section of the code. It's not the main section of the conversion process. It's a section to consider alleviating the need for a conversion. But along with that are a series of conditional uses that would go through a conditional use process if they were to be approved, but they would be acknowledged as being applicable for a conditional use. A public meeting would be required, and then in those conditional uses are a series of 11 different things: The commercial establishments that normally go with golf courses; cemeteries and memorial gardens; equestrian facilities; museums; water -related activities; courts, including bocce ball, basketball, handball, pickleball, tennis, and racquetball; neighborhood fitness and community centers; parks and playgrounds; pools, indoor and outdoor; botanical gardens; then other recreational uses that are compatible with those listed above. And what would happen is if someone wanted to add those to a golf course, they would come in and apply for a conditional use to get that done. That process is a public meeting. It requires a neighborhood information meeting, so you would be notified, or some of you within a certain distance of those locations, and then we would look and see if they are compatible with your neighborhood. They would have to have setbacks and buffers and things like that. That's what this is for. So it's not the conversion part of it. It's just allowing more principal uses. And, Caroline, there are a few things that grammatically might need to be corrected. And on Page 4, the top, No. 1, compiercial establishments orientated to the golf course including, and you might want to put a colon there, and then go, gift shops, comma, instead of a semicolon, pro shops with equipment sales in excess of 1,000 square feet, comma, restaurants with seating greater than 150 seats, comma, and that would be more of a listing nature than it's set off here, to avoid any confusion. Is that -- MS. CILEK: Yeah. We can look at how they listed it out, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the issue of equestrian facilities, the various courts and the neighborhood fitness and community centers, what is the minimum setback those would have to have now from the -- since this is a principal use or a conditional use allowed, what would we be looking at as setbacks, a minimum; do you have any idea? MS. CILEK: So when looking at the setbacks for these, I think it's important to keep in mind what we're doing in LDC Section 5.05.15, which is introducing a setback there, and that would be 50 feet. Now, that would basically override any minimum setback elsewhere in the LDC for these uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this conditional use section of the golf course zoning would have to abide by a minimum of a 50 -foot setback? MS. CILEK: Uh-huh. It has a little bit of flexibility. It's, like, 50 feet and then 35 at any one point, just in case there was a need for it to be a little bit smaller in one certain area. But 50 feet is what we're looking for there, because this is an open space that is being converted to something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to refer this to someone to find this, we could look up a standard in the open space district that would indicate it would be 50 -foot setback in, like, a table or something; is that correct? MS. CILEK; Right. If you look under A on Page 3, the last sentence of the purpose and intent section directs you to take a look at design standards and 5.05.15.H, which will then identify the minimum setback of 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to verify. MS. CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well -- Page 3 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did have to call -- I did have to call her today and ask what disk golf was. I had never heard of it. MS. CILEK: I'm happy to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's a Frisbee. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Frisbee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's a Frisbee, yeah. MS. CILEK: They're disks that you throw into, like, a metal ring, and you kind of go around a course trying to get them in. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. CILEK: Think of it as a form of Frisbee. They are different. Disk type, though. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'll do -- for the members of the public, this is just a piece. A bigger picture is coming up next. Does anybody want to address any of the issues that we've just discussed on this one piece? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Normally, when we get to the next one -- and I'll ask for registered speakers, but after I get -- the registered speakers get done, I'll still ask for anybody that wants to address. That's what we're here for, to listen to you. So we'll go right to you afterwards. Okay. Other than the changes in the grammatical issues, I think, Caroline, that one seems to be as complete as it can be at this point. MS. CILEK: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's move to the next one then. MS. CILEK: Perfect. So the next one is 5.05.15, introducing a conversion of golf course LDC section. And I can walk through the changes that we have. If you would like, you can give an overview of this one for the audience. That might be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. I think that's -- there's more people here than there has been here before, and I'm not sure all of them have gotten this documentation, so let's try to be as careful as we can to state what's going on, so that would be fine. MS. CILEK: Great. Would you like me to provide that? CHAIRMtiN STRAIN: Yes. MS. CILEK: All right. So what this amendment is doing is introducing a brand new section in the code to guide conversions of golf course. And we have two main concepts that are being introduced. The first one is called a stakeholder outreach meeting where people who live within a thousand feet of a golf course would receive notification that meetings are going to take place. And the applicant is encouraged to create a meeting that is collaborative in nature and to gather input from the stakeholders and then apply it to their proposed development. And in doing so, we are hoping that there can be consensus among what is developed on the parcel. In addition, the applicant is required to evaluate a no -conversion option and reach out to the HOAs, existing or new, to see if they're interested in purchasing the golf course, a portion or all of it. Also, they are required to reach out to the county to offer or to see if there's interest in the county buying some or all of the golf course, and then the third is the develop amendment (sic) proposal. Following the stakeholder outreach meetings which occurs through the intent -to -convert process, they can proceed through a rezone or a PUD amendment or several other forms of approval which would be done through the Board. One of the main development standards is a greenway concept. The greenway is designed to provide a nice green buffer between the existing residential area and the proposed development. Alternatives would be allowed to this. It's designed to be a standard 100 -feet buffer filled with trees and passive recreational areas. Page 4 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 There are some other development standards as well, but they are aligned with many of the other LDC sections, such as stormwater. And I can list off a couple others. Soil and groundwater testing is another very important one. That's it for a big -picture overview. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if a golf course comes in for conversion, they've got to have at least two or more outreach meetings with the stakeholders. The stakeholders are the people that live within about a thousand feet of the golf course. They're the most affected people. And then, of course, anybody else that's in the community that would attend it. Everybody will express their views, they talk about it. A developer tries to conform with as many possible issues that are brought up, and they go back and forth a couple of times, then they come here for what's called a rezoning process. That rezoning process gets developed by staff in a staff report, then the neighborhood information meetings start, and then it comes before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. So there are a lot of meetings required to convert a golf course, and your input, just like tonight, is tailored all along the way. You'll constantly have input into the process. That input then is all brought forward and the boards try to help and find a consensus, as Caroline had indicated. And with that, let's just move into the staff part of it first. For those of you who haven't been here before, this board did receive information on case law that took a look at how these cases are looked at if they're appealed all the way through the courts, and the consensus seems to be -- and, Caroline, correct me if I am wrong -- the courts seem to feel that you can't force somebody to lose money on a golf course and, some way or another, most of the courses that have requested it -- in fact, I don't think you brought anyone in here that didn't succeed,_ and to have some form of conversion. So we're trying to head that off by finding one that's got a comproi,iise. And then we also ask for appraised values based on the tax assessor's reports. They produced a table indicating that a hundred -foot greenway would be similar in value to a view on a golf course. That's basically what would protect your home values. That's another issue that was key to this board and I know will be a key to Board of County Commissioners. So with that, Caroline, did you want questions from the staff narrative first before we get into the actual language; does that work? MS. CILEK: Yes, that would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody for -- the first pages of the report all the way up until the 15th page is the staff narrative. Does anybody have questions on this panel right now? And it's the narrative; a lot of it we've seen before. There's some new language in there. Did anybody have any questions on that? Patrick? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, sir. Everything that's in here we've seen -- pretty much have seen before, so I have no questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just making sure that -- obviously, this is my -- I'm new at this, so everything we discussed at the last meeting, I'm seeing that highlighted here? Would that be highlighted or something different? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of it was from us. I think some of it was from possibly meetings with the County Attorney's Office or others. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAIq STRAIN: Caroline, I have a couple questions, because it's going to come up in the text, about the processes for golf courses that currently are zoned to have other uses including residential. And on Page 6 you have a table, Table 2, and it starts out with golf course GC, and there's nine of those in Collier County; golf course GC/RMF-6/RMF-16, there's one of those; and golf course GC/RSF-3, there's one of those. Way down on the bottom, we have an RMF -16, and it says one. So it look like there's one golf course that's in an RMF -16 zoning; is that the way -- MS. CILEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does someone on your team who's here tonight, can they give us the Page 5 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 names of those three courses that have the zoning in the addition to the GC? MS. CILEK: Yes. I can ask my staff to pull that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd like the audience to know just in case they happen to be around one of these, because those are looked at differently than the rest of everything we're going to be looking at, and I haven't had time today to look follow up and see which of those three course there are. Basically, those courses would need what's called a rezone. They would still have to come through what's called a public process but not necessarily a rezone. MS. CILEK: It's in orange, unfortunately, but it is Highpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Highpoint is one of them. Now, that one is -- MS. CILEK: It's the RMF -16 one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one at the bottom, okay. MS. CILE ,- What other ones would you like to see? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The two up on top that's zoned GC/RMF-6/RMF-16. MS. CILEK: Okay. So we -- when they are multiple like that, it's that they have a little bit of RMF -6 or a little bit of RMF -16, but the majority of it is GC. For example, I know LaPlaya is that third one down. Golf course, and then it has RSF-3, and it's just a tiny, weeny bit of that golf course that is zoned RSF-3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LaPlaya being the Palm River golf course? MS. CILEK: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. So a piece or some pieces may be zoned RSF-3, but the bulk of it's golf course. MS. CILEK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. RMF -16 at the bottom is the Highpoint. That's on U.S. 41 down by that Citgo gas station, or it used to be. I'm not sure what kind of gas station -- MS. CII.,EK: I can pull up the map if that would be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make sure, if people are here from those, they'll recognize the name. And what's the one up on top, the RMF-6/RMF-16? MS. CILEK: That one is another one of those pieces one. We can get it for you. I think -- okay. So one of them is RMF -6, and 16 is Glades golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a portion of the Glades golf course has -- MS. CILEK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- house zoning already on it. MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A portion of the RSF-3, which that's not -- that's the one you just talked about -- already has residential zoning on it. MS. CILEK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The RMF -16, which is Hamilton Greens, has residential zoning on it. MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you bring that a little closer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: RSF-3 was the Palm River. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the RMF -16 wasHighpoint. Okay. And what that means is those three would be able to go through a compatibility design review which would take a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners? MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then NIM or not a NIM? MS. CILEK: So -- and when you go through the compatibility design review, you're still required to do the intent -to -convert application, which means you're still doing all that stakeholder outreach. I will say, though, some of these residential zonings on these straight zone golf courses are very Page 6 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 small, and so the likelihood that they would be able to convert that in and of itself is very unlikely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CILEK: I think the LaPlaya/Palm River one is only the maintenance sheds, so it's just a very tiny amount of land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that provision that we have may not even be that effective. Okay. MS. CIL EK: Yes. Staff is aware it might not be used for the GC golf courses, but it would apply to a PUD -- PUDs that have allowed for residential on the golf course lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other thing I'd like to ask you, on No. 9, Page 9, the bottom. I spoke to you about this earlier. You may want to clarify those two sentences after your Figure 1 table. MS. CILEK: Yep. I'll take care of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a little confusing the way it's written. In the following page, Page 10, fourth paragraph down, I'd like to have this following sentence struck from the paragraph: It says, county staff recognizes that it is within the bundle of rights as a property owner to sell and develop land within the parameters of county codes. You know, the Board of County Commissioners interprets the code. I would rather leave that with them and not get into whether or not golf courses have to -- this has to be acknowledged by staff. Do you have any objection to that? MS. CU EK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just checking to make sure there's nothing else -- oh, on Page 13 under stormwater and floodplain compensation, it says, the objective is to ensure the property owners that surround the golf course would not be adversely affected by additional stormwater runoff after the conversion of a golf course. I would like to add in there, or the loss of existing stormwater management area, something to that effect -- MS. CILEK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because in some cases, the development surrounding the golf course are simply using those lakes, and they want to make sure they can continue that process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, wouldn't any conversion still -- if it was going to impact stormwater, wouldn't it have to go through a South Florida Water Management permit? It still would have to go through the re -permitting process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right; absolutely. Okay. I'm ready to move into the text language, if you'd like. MS. CU EK: All righty. So if we look on Page 16, we have highlighted new language from our last meeting. A couple of -- I'm not going to go through the small, small changes. Sometimes we just relocated a word or added words that were missing. But there were some larger changes and, in general, we were looking to tighten it up and make sure that there's connectivity between the staff report and the Planning Commission and the board review and approval process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any -- we're on Page 16. Anybody have any questions on Page 16? MS. CILEK: And under B.1, that's where we're following the Planning Commission's direction to allow for golf cours--s that are separated to go through the PUD process even though they are not connected or contiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a couple of things that I would like for you to consider. Under B.1 and 2, the word "currently" is used in front of the word "permitted." That word probably should be dropped. It's not necessary. MS. CILEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under A, the first paragraph, it talks about the property owners within a thousand feet of the golf courses shall hereafter be referred to as stakeholders. And this is probably from Heidi's or Scott's viewpoint. Could we add stakeholders and considered affected parties for the purposes of this section? Page 7 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What line are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Line 16 on the top of Page 16. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For purposes of this section, property owners within one thousand feet of a golf course shall hereafter be referred to as stakeholders. And your question is? I was still trying to find -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can they be considered, for the purposes of this section, affected parties? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think you need that language, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there a problem with standing if they're just stakeholders, not affected parties? MS. ASH1,,ON-CICKO: Well, the standing is governed by the case law, and so regardless of how you define it in here, I think the case law's still going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dominate? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- dominate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we had as much leverage for the property owners as we can. That's all I've got on that page. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline? MS. CILEK: All righty. We can move to Page 18. Here is what I was referring to, just tightening up the process of what is shared with the stakeholders during the outreach meetings and then also making sure that the Board is reviewing the staff report and the findings that are in D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on. MS. CILEK: Same thing on Page 20. On F, Line 6, again, just making sure that those findings are reviewed. We really want to make sure that the Planning Commission and the Board are evaluating this through their rezone or PUDA process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's a page that could use some fixing. Line 36, the word "commissioner," as you need, to be "commission." MS. CILEK: Yes. I will fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On F.3, before it said review and then it went on, and then the new language, findings for compatibility design. We'd be better off not adding that, and that occurs both in 3 in the beginning sentence and in the second line and, of course, those -- yeah, those are the two. I don't think that's needed. And, Heidi, did you take a look at this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know Caroline and I had discussed it, but I didn't see what actually made it in. I agree that the heading can be "review" instead of "findings" for compatibility design review. MS. CILEK: I do want to make sure that it's connected, though. So although we do make a cross-reference to it, it's easy for people to find if it's labeled, you know, findings, findings, as we do in other sections of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want to be limited in the type and amount of information we can utilize to establish our findings, and that's why a review is a little broader. And, you know, there's a lot of times that there is some information available that comes out at the public meeting, and I don't want to see us hampered by that. That's why "findings" has different standard than just "simple review." MS. CILEK: Well, that's a good question. I mean, would that limit -- if it does say "findings," would that limit other concepts -- or just related concepts being brought up by the planning commissioners during their review? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you'd be better off revising Line 46. And you can change it to review like you had it before, because that wasn't really an issue. But I would make a few revisions so it says, the Planning Commission shall review the staff report as described in 5.05.15.13, the compatibility design review application, and make a recommendation to the Board on the following criteria. But if you want to Page 8 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 go -- MS. CILEK: Right. We're just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That cleans it up from my perspective. MS. CILEK: Yeah. We don't identify them as criteria. I can spend a couple minutes taking a look at it anywhere else. So we just need to make sure that it's clear to the reader where the findings are and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want this one cleared up tonight if we're going to pass this tonight. So I want to make sure that all of us are in the same concern. I don't like the reference to findings. I'm worried that it's limiting, and I don't want the review to be limiting, and that's my concern. MS. CILEK: So we could do three, F.3, compatibility design review. The Planning Commission shall review the staff report as described in 5.05.15.D. Can we do the criteria? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you can put the criteria at the end of the sentence. So you would -- if you delete "findings for the" and just put "the compatibility design review application," delete "as follows" and make a recommendation to the Board on the following criteria. MS. CILEK: Okay. That will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us past Page 19, unless anybody else has any questions. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 20. Page 20 on Line 7, "commissioners" is "commission." MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then at the bottom of Page 20 in a section we previously read and didn't have a change to, I just want to verify something. Item -- Line 50, G. Portion of the greenway may provide stormwater management; however, the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake area than exists pre -conversion. Any newly developed lake shall be a minimum of 100 feet wide. I just want to make sure that someone can come into a golf course that has existing lakes and say, well, I'm going to fill all these lakes in, I'm going to move them all to the greenway and wipe out the greenway because we're not going to create any additional acreage of lakes; we're just going to move them all. That may defeat the purpose. And I know some of these things may sound farfetched, but we've seen everything lately in squeezing things into Collier County. And I just want to make sure we maintain what we intend to. MS. CILEK: What we can do there is just add that this is supposed to be only in the greenway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. That would work. MS. CILEK: So it would read at the end, the greenway shall not create more than 30 percent additional lake area than exists pre -conversion in the greenway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds good. MS. CILEK: Thanks. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, on Page 20, Line 6, since you changed the other page, I would change "findings" to "criteria" on Line 6. So the Board shall consider the criteria in LDC section instead of findings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. CILE�C. Taking a double look at 3.A., or 3, is it common for the Planning Commission to review the actual application itself? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in all of our packets. MS. CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We get all the applications, some preapp notes; everything. MS. CILEK: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, on issues like this, the more we get the better, so I'd just as soon we kept it that way. Anything else, Heidi, on that page? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move to Page 21. Anybody on 21? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Line 10, could you take out the "and" in front of the half Page 9 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 acre? It just doesn't sound right. MS. CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 22. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us to the end of the golf course conversion LDC language. Caroline, do you have anything you want to add, or are we going to public comment now? MS. CILEK: Under D and E, those now say "findings." Do we want to change those now to "criteria" so that thcl�'re the same? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which page are you on? MS. CILEK: Nineteen. I could just change all of the "findings" to "criteria," and that way it's consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be safer. MS. CILEK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with you, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good, thank you. Okay. Before we call public speakers, there has been a member of the -- a representative of a couple of the golf courses at our previous meetings, and he hasn't commented, and I understood he would be here to comment. I don't see him. Richard, if you're hiding someone in a little chair, speak up. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So he didn't show up after all. My only concern there is whatever his thoughts are, it would have been nice to have them before we send this to the Board of County Commissioners. And I wanted that known to the public before they start so we could comment on it. But so we'll just leave it as it is, and we'll move -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Richard, you mean Yovanovich? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard Yovanovich, yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This PUD language was added for him, just for Lakewood or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What are you talking about? Nothing was added for him that I know of. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's what he was asking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 16, zoning actions for PUD rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I actually added that. I suggested it be added because I knew it was a problem we already ran into. And it would be highly beneficial to look at these as a PUD, as a collective PUD for the ability to find compromise and have compatibility standards; whereas, individually zoned for straight zoning, it makes it real difficult to have -- to get something accomplished. So that was my idea, not Richard's. But he was -- I mean, I was hoping we'd get some input from the other side of things, but... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He had issues, but I don't know what -- he never made them public. I know he spoke to staff extensively, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I haven't heard him either. So I imagine that will happen at the board meeting, so we'll just -- it will have to be dealt with there then. Okay. Let's move forward with public speakers. We'll start with those people that are registered to speak, and then I'll ask for anybody who's not registered and who has not spoken if they'd like to address the Board. And when you come up, use either microphone. If you have -- I know someone has a PowerPoint. That needs to be utilized where Caroline's standing. And we ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, and as long as -- we ask you not to be redundant. But if someone's coming with a PowerPoint and they're representing a larger crowd, we certainly will accommodate more time. So with that, Michael, if you'll call the first speaker. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. We have five registered speakers. The first is Dwight Keogh, followed by Charles Holloway. MR. KEHOE: Good evening. My name is Dwight Kehoe, spelled K -e -h -o -e, and I live in Riviera Page 10 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 Golf Estates. In 1960 my grandparents moved from New York to Daytona, and for the next 22 years my family and I would visit them. The environment and the climate and the personality of the East Coast led me to believe that I would never live in Florida. In 2000 I met the woman that was to become my wife, and she said we had to visit her aunt and uncle in Naples because they were not well enough to go north for our wedding, and we went in July. Those nice folks lived in Riviera Golf Estates. Their home was situated on the 13th green of the Riviera Golf Club. One morning, while sitting on the lanai with a mug of coffee looking out at the golf course, my wife and I were both surprised when I said to her, I could get to like this. After Wilma, my wife's aunt moved to senior living here in Naples. We bought that home on the 13th green. From our home, we have an unobstructed view of the 13th tee some 400 feet away. We have another unobstructed view of more than 600 feet of the 14th fairway. We hear the chirping of birds, the coo of doves, the ratatat of woodpeckers, and watch squirrels scamper around the beautiful trees that line the fairways. In the summer we have an unobstructed view of fireworks at Sugden Park, and we also see the fireworks show from downtown Naples. In Riviera Golf Estates, there are -- more than 50 percent of the homes -- and there are 692 individual single-family home., in Riviera. More than 50 percent of them can boast of a similar bucolic experience. Residents in other areas of East Naples, especially those that live in close proximity to the golf course, are at risk of losing a healthy benefit of golf course conversion if golf course conversions go unchecked. I want to thank the Planning Commission on putting a high priority on protecting us from unincumbered residential development and thank you for permitting me to address you this evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So you came in July, and you decided to stay. That's rare. Glad you did. MR. BOSI: The next speaker is Charles Holloway, followed by George Danz. MR. HOLLOWAY: Good evening. My name's Charles Holloway. I live at 830 Charlemagne Boulevard. Last name is H -o -1 -I -o -w -a -y. I was asked by some of the people in the community to make a couple comments tonight because for the last three -and -a -half years not only am I a resident of Riviera Golf Estates, but I'm also a licensed realtor with Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate on Fifth Avenue. I can tell you that 1, over the last year -plus, have been the top seller in the community, very active; sold over 20 properties in there. And I can tell you -- I just want you to be aware that already I have had buyers and -- in the sense of fairness, we've disclosed to those buyers that there is the possibility of the golf course being sold and potentially being something other than a golf course. I have had specific buyers indicate that they were taking that into consideration in making their offer on the property, lowering that offer. And I've had in a recent appraisal where a -- not myself, but a professional appraiser evaluate a property on the golf course, and in comparing it with the comps of houses in the same community, similar houses not on the gq'T course, made $20,000 adjustments to those comps just because the house in question was on the golf course. So it is a significant impact on the property owners. And the other thing that concerns me in addition to that immediate $20,000 potential impact that we're seeing right now, that's with nothing really in the works. I mean, that's just homes existing there now. Inventory's low in there right now. I can definitely foresee -- because my parents resided in Riviera Golf Course before myself, and I know when the discussion came up about the conversion of the golf course before, there was a mass exodus of people; people who just didn't even want to take a chance that they wouldn't be able to live on the golf course anymore. And my concern is not only under the current circumstances are the properties being evaluated $20,000 more for being on the golf course but when -- it's supply and demand. If people start exiting the community because they're no longer on that golf course, which is why they bought the property in the first place, then inventory goes up, prices go down that much more. Page 11 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 So I think you're going to see an immediate impact, just what we're seeing now, $20,000, potentially significantly more as inventory goes up, because there are a lot of people in there that are there because of the view. You're not only -- and it's -- you know, you're paying for that view. It's not just being on the golf course. It's the privacy. There's a lot of things. And we are a 55 -and -over community. You know, we're not people who come down here in their 30s and 40s, buy a condo, and can move next week. We're a blue-collar neighborhood for the most part. These are people who took their life savings, bought a house here. This is where they want toretire and, potentially, it's here to assisted living or whatever. And I just want you to take into consideration the impact and the people who are being affected. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A question for you, sir. MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- the provisions we're talking about tonight and that will go to the Board, if they stay as they're currently written, which provides 100 -foot greenway and a lot of other things that have to happen that will be trying to reach a compatible nature with the surrounding houses, let's assume all these things work out and there's a compromise and we end up that way. Did you take a look at the appraised values that the tax assessor's office provided to our staff in relationship to houses on a 100 -foot buffer, let's say, greenway, versus a golf course? They're about comparable. Is that something you have any experience with or you could weigh in on that? MR. HOLLOWAY: I do not. I did not see that document, and I do not have any experience with that. I'll only say, a hundred feet is 33 yards. It's three first downs a football field. When you're looking down a fairway like Mr. Kehoe is, and 33 yards away is whatever they decide to put in there. You know, I don't care what it is; it's not the golf course. It's not the lake. It's not the privacy, and that's what people paid for. That's why they moved to Riviera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Patrick, did you have something? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just wanted to thank him for his comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: Walter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope, George. MR, BOSI: George Danz, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DANZ: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is George Danz, 813 Charlemagne Boulevard, Riviera Golf Estates. I'm also president of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association. First of all, I wanted to thank staff, Caroline and her staff, and you folks for the time that you have spent on this issue. We have attended most of your meetings. The time you've spent, I think, has been tremendous, and I think the safeguards that you've put in there have been beneficial both to the owners of golf courses and the residents that live around them. We are a residential community of 692 homes. As previous speakers have indicated, we are an over -55 community. We have a lifestyle that is, I think, very compatible to what we're looking for in Florida. One of the things that I think is important, too, is there's been a lot of discussion about affordable housing, particularly for senior citizens in Florida. We are not $500,000 or a million dollar or $3 million homes. We are moderately -priced homes ranging from moderate type homes, 70-, 80,000, up to the 250-, $280,000 range. And in Naples I guess that's moderately -priced homes and particularly for senior citizens living in Florida. But we want to thank you for the time. I think Roland is going to show you some pictures of some of the things that we're concerned about, particularly the quality of life and compatibility in our neighborhood. So thank you all very much for the time that you have spent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike? MR. BOSi; - Walter Roland, followed by Shirley Sackett. Page 12 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Walt, I believe's got a PowerPoint, or I think that's what he was planning to do. And those are the hard copies that we'll retain for the court reporter afterwards. MR. ROLAND: Yes, that's correct. I, too, would like to thank, on behalf of the association, your efforts and your diligence in doing what you can to protect our community and our quality of life. So in this presentation, we appreciate very much the compatibility, and I'd like to talk a little bit about the traffic concerns. Riviera Golfs a little bit unique. Maybe you'd like to go to the next slide. I have a map. You can see the yellow portion of it is the golf course area. You see lakes. Yellow arrows are the entrances to the association. To your right you'll see County Barn Road. Some of the photos I show later, a large portion of the areas where we have the major traffic have no sidewalks on. And I have some photos that shows, you know, our community's a very active community. Even though we're over 55, we're probably average over 70 years old. To the east you'll see County Barn. To the south, it's Charlemagne Boulevard. That goes south. Any increased traffic from additional housing would have to go down Charlemagne. There's also a number of subdivisions or condominiums in that area. And then to your left you'll see Riviera Colony. That would be -- there's no sidewalks. There are some pathways, but ,hat would have -- increased traffic would have significant impact on that community also. If you'd like to go to the next slide. This is a view of County Barn coming in from County Barn going into Riviera Golf. As you can see, this is the reworked County Barn Road. To the left and right, no sidewalks. Once we're in, this is making a turn into -- on Charlemagne from County Barn Road. And what I have next -- this is the area where the golf course is located. There's actually a single entrance. It's on Marseille. Charlemagne's to the south. You turn right onto Marseille, and there's a single drive that goes into the golf course facility. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that the only access to the actual golf course? MR. ROLAND: That's correct. Now -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was that an in access to the parking? MR. ROLAND: That's into the parking. The only other access there is are some cart paths. Maybe you'd like to put that map back up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I understand. MR. ROLAND: It's probably important to talk about that and address that. Just one -- the large map that I had where the complete -- there you go. Great point. Thank you for asking that. The red area on the bottom is the main entrance to the golf course facility. You may be able to see some red dots or some lime -colored dots on there. Those are the cart paths between each of those areas. The cart path's actually eight -foot wide. In most cases 20 -foot widths between the homes that connects these playing areas. But that is the single access point to the golf course for use of the facility. Okay. What we have next, this is traffic. The golf course parking and the main office is on the right. This was Saturday worning. If you go into our community, you see a lot of traffic like this: People walking, people on bicycles. So the big concern is, you know, what's the impact of increased traffic into the community. This little more shot to the right of the golf course shows the relationship to the highway, the roadway there. And there is another shot that shows the single drive that goes into the golf course. This is continuing on down. Our clubhouse is in the front, as you can see. There's a very congested area right at the corner. We have some walkways, but traffic's there; very dangerous. You have to be careful now. And so our concern is additional provisions maybe that could be incorporated into the language that would minimize that exposure to people in the community with the lifestyle that we have. This is looking to the south. Going south would be Rattlesnake Hammock Road. And, again, you can see people down the highway -- or down the roadway walking. This is that same intersection again with the vehicle going to the right; could be very well going into the golf course, and you can see a number of pedestrians in the area. This is looking back to the east again, same -- you can see the entrance on the left to the golf course. Page 13 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 This is looking to the north, as you can see ladies exercising. Again, very active community; a lot of traffic and people walking. This is the golf cart location crossing one of the mini crossings. Again, about eight foot in width. Thank you. This is a little different view of the golf cart crossing, excuse me. This is looking on Le Mans towards -- the golf course is onto the left side of the highway, or the roadway, again. Nei'walking, pedestrian traffic -- increased concerns about increased traffic. This is another view of the same area just a little further down the road. Swales. And then this is looking towards Riviera Colony. This is one of the exits that goes south that I was talking about. And so, again, lack of walkway and facility pedestrian traffic is the concern. Are there any questions? That concludes the presentation. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: No. I think it was helpful to see the way your road system is, because we've brought the roads up. And the roads are a consideration in the language, so they will have to be addressed. And if they aren't safe, that certainly provides a good argument for your community. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Are there no sidewalks in your community? MR. ROLAND: No. Portions of the community do have sidewalks. The main area where we would see -- expect to see increased traffic and congestion, at those locations, have no sidewalks in them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Glad we have them on both sides now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your accessways for the cart paths are wide enough for one cart path, which means the road system. I think we've gone down to between 40 and 50 feet for roads at times, but with the requirement of sidewalks and things, it will be interesting to see how it could even fit in your community. So it's something that you certainly have to take a look at it if the conversion ever goes forward. MR. ROLAND: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: The final registered speaker, Shirley Sackett. MS. SACKETT: Good afternoon. I want to thank you also for putting in so much work for us and the other people involved. My name is Shirley Sackett. I live at 141 Fleur de Lis Lane at the present time. I've owned eight homes in Riviera Golf. When I came, the first day of March in 1956, I'm now one of those people that Kehoe talked about: I'm over 70; I'm 80. And my husband and I came, and we rented in there. And we drove everywhere in Collier County that had open houses and, you know, and every time we came back to compare apples to apples, being 50 -- you know, he was 55 by that time -- everything came back to Riviera. It was the best place to be, and it offered so much for our age. And the fact that -- I don't hate children, but I don't have any, but... So the facilities are for over 55, and the golf, everything, is geared towards us, you know. So that part has been fantastic. And the fact that I've had different homes is because I've now ended up in one of the best views and see five golf holes and in the center of a lake, and I don't want that disturbed. I mean, that's really my choice for staying there and becoming 90 there. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. MR. BOSI: No more public speakers are registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any members of the public who have not spoken but would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Come on up. Since you're not registered, I do have to ask you a question. Were you sworn in when we -- oh, this isn't swearing in tonight. Never mind. It's legislative. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Legislative. Page 14 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 MR. FURGASSO: My name is Joe Furgasso; F -u -r -g -a -s -s -o is the last name. I bought in 2011 in Riviera. I have questions down the road about utilities. If they ever put housing in there, the sewer system, what are they going to do about the sewer system, the water system? What we have now presently ain't going to handle any more houses. Is the town going to come in, county going to come in and give us all new systems? I mean, there are going to be a lot of hopes. And then Army Corps of Engineers put us in a floodplain about two years back, three years back. That changes all the difference in construction. As a former building inspector, grades have to be raised. Do they create water problems for us? That's all I have to ask. And I thank you for your time and putting in, you know, your time into this stuff, but I hope you consider the rest of the bundle (sic). Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The questions you asked are exactly the ones that this process is supposed to ferret out and see how the developer or the potential conversion is going to apply and address those issues. And if they can't w�en it comes forward, there's going to be more reason to say it's not practical to do this. Which brings me, I guess, then, since we've had all the public speakers that want to speak right now, Caroline, when the Board asked you -- this panel asked you to look for court cases involving the conversions, I think we came back with most of the -- in fact, every one that you brought forward resulted in some kind of development being added to the golf course; is that a fair statement? MS. CILEK: So when staff does research, we try not to look at court cases specifically, but we look at news articles. I'm not an attorney. I'm a land use planner. So what we did -- when we did our research, what we found were the majority of newspaper articles about golf course conversions resulted after a long period of time, sometimes lots of litigation, in a development. Now, not in every case. There was one instance where that didn't happen. I don't know if that's changed over time. But our research shows that most of the time development occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I've asked is the preferable way is to require the course to be continued and be maintained as a course. I think all this is being done in case that isn't a practical outcome, and it looks like it could go a bad direction, rather than let the courts deal with it, we're trying to find a way to find a solution so that everybody walks away with something better than if it went possibly into the court system. That's why we're here tonight, and that's how we got this far in this whole process. If these standards that we're talking about get adopted and if someone comes in and basically tries to ignore them, it provides a more stronger position for this board and others to say, no, it's not a possibility. It's not something that should go here. And I guess that's where it all comes from. So I just wanted to tell you we're not necessarily in favor of any conversion. It's trying to figure out how to do it in the >?�.st way possible if the courts would find -- if the courts already feel that it's something that should be allowed. So we're kind of backing up our position in the future. MS. CILEK: And it's important to recognize that the stakeholder outreach meeting process is designed to give the stakeholders a voice, what they're looking for, their questions. All of that will be documented, and it will be a very transparent process. And based on that, the Board can then take a look at all this information and make a decision with the knowledge of what the stakeholders are looking for and with the knowledge of what the developer is looking for, and hopefully there will be some type of consensus at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any comments or questions about the golf course conversion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I just have one question on this, because it -- I hear the people from Riviera. Is this all Riviera people here in the -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Those people that are here from Riviera, please raise your hand. Page 15 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The whole back row. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those people that are here from another community that involves a golf course, please raise your hand. COMMISAI.ONER EBERT: Okay. They just didn't want to speak. Because I've heard of the other golf course, and I thought, hmm, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. There's been four golf courses that have been approached for a conversion: Riviera, Evergreen, Lakewood, and Golden Gate Golf Course, so... Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think -- I commend staff for developing this, because it is a delicate balance between property rights versus the property rights of the homeowners who reside adjacent to existing golf courses. Hopefully we -- and I want to make sure we -- the folks who spoke, this is not going to prevent the conversion. It's just a mechanism to give you a voice and to deal with any request to convert, and I think we've done that. And it certainly provides -- it is a very onerous process to go through this. So in that regard, it's not something that you're going to have a golf -- it doesn't appear that you're going to have a golf course conversion overnight. It would be a very difficult process. And, of course, when I looked even -- when you look at the Riviera, I just don't know how they would fit homes in there, but I assume that somebody's already made that determination and would attempt to do that. But what we've done here is nothing more than just to provide the instrument to at least give you a voice and through that process. So I think, staff, you've done a great job on this. Thank you. MS. CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the attempt on Riviera was a letter sent to, I think, the county offering for the county to buy it, and they said they basically want to sell it to somebody. And they stated a price, and they offered it to the county, which they did that before all this process was in place. So now that this process is in place, it's going to provide a different way of looking at it probably by every golf course owner in this county. So maybe things will get back on -- like it should. We'll try. Okay. Anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I believe, Caroline, we've reached the end of the discussion on the golf course, and our consensus will be to recommend, and we'll do that -- we'll list all these at the end of the meeting, but that will be the end of the discussion tonight on the golf course conversion part of our presentation, our discussion. And we'll take a break for 10 minutes and then go on with the rest of the agenda. So we're going to take a break for 10 minutes so the room can clear for the people that don't want to stay for the rest of the meeting. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Sony, Chair. You have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, and -- it's still ladies and gentlemen, but it's only staff. So everybody else has left, and we will move into the next part of our public process and review of the LDC. And we left off, I believe, on Page 23, which is the preservation standards that had been discussed a while back, and we're -- they've been refined a bit, and we're going to go through them. So, Caroline. MS. CILEK: Super. All right. So we can go through the narrative, if you'd like, but it would probably be easier.to walk through the actual language and use the table. We tried to craft a table that would show you the LDC 'Jxt based on the advisory board recommendations, so either CCLAC or DSAC or the Planning Commission, and then that specific justification. So, for me, that is probably the easiest to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on the page then that -- MS. CILEK: Okay, 41. And the first page is actually not the two alternatives; monetary land. It's Page 16 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 changes to 3.05.07H. LF, and we just have a couple of changes in yellow based on Planning Commission discussion at the last meeting and just also the environmental staff wanted to make a clarification that this process does not apply to the RLSA or RFMU districts. They each have their own specific offsite programs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Want to move on to the -- if we get into numbers, I think that's probably where the questions are going to be. MS. CILEK: Right. Do we want to go over the Planning Commission's monetary payment alternative? Do you want to go through the previous ones or just focus on yours? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, I think the synopsis of the Planning Commission's one -- and I don't think anybody predetermined this. If you look at DSAC's recommendation on a per -acre basis, it's $50,000. If you look at CCLAC, C -C -L -A -C, it's $357 million (sic). If you add those two together, you get 425-. If you divide it by two as an average, then you're at 212-. Planning Commission's recommendation actually came back at 213,000. So, honestly, it's a right -in -the -middle compromise, and I don't think we could have predicted that as good as that. So from that perspective, it seems to be balancing between the two. Go ahead. I just wanted to point that out because it wasn't clear. It wasn't summarized that way, but I think it's interesting it came out that way. MS. CILEK: Yeah. I mean, the DSAC recommendation was 50-, and then the CCLAC recommendation in green has a calculation at the end. Did you say 375- for the CCLAC one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't it? Let me see what it was. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. MS. CILEK: I think -- it's 375-. I think you said 400-. I just want to make sure we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You add the two together, you get the 425-. MS. CILEK: Oh, okay. Got it. Okay. So let's focus on the CCPC recommendation. Based on our conversation at the last meeting, staff went back to take a look at this, and we propose that the AUIR is used based on the Planning Commission's direction, and then there was a discussion amongst staff and the chairman about how to address specifically when a rural land area, so basically nonurban area, is being developed, how do you assess that? Because the AUIR is probably swayed more toward an urban calculation, urban value, and so we used CCLAC's ratio of what they found to be urban values for when they buy and compared that against what they buy in the targeted areas, and that produced a ratio of 8.37 percent. And when you take a look at that, it works in our favor to split the two. So urban would have one value, and rural would have another value as identified here. And then we have the hypothetical calculation at the bottom. And we're q:aintaining the same cash endowment as CCLAC has -- yeah, as CCLAC has recommended, and the 4,000 for initial exotic. So that's, A, monetary payment alternative, CCPC recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as -- you have two systems, a monetary payment and a land purchase ratio format. MS. CILEK: Correct, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The monetary payment, theoretically, if you were to use the Planning Commission's recommendation, it would be valued every time we did an AUIR. It would be tied to the land purchase values in the AUIR with a discount for rural areas different than the urban areas. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, that probably gets us to a very -- much more fluid way of doing it rather than I think before we were looking at values on a to -be -developed basis or -- MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It got to be complicated, so... MS. CILEK: Right. This one kind of follows the AUIR, which is good. That's done every year. Page 17 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see why that doesn't work. It works for all our capital improvements projects. Why wouldn't it work for this? Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: AUIR stands for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Annual Update and Inventory Report, and it's something that we do every year at this Planning Commission. You'll -- it's a lot of fun numbers. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Looking forward to it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You just missed it I want to let you know, but you can watch the tape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, you were on but out of the country at the time. That's right. MS. CILEK: And this AUIR is tied to the AUIR community and regional parkland summary per acre unit cost, just to be specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm satisfied with the Planning Commission's representation from before. It seems to calculate out right, so -- MS. CILEK: Okay. Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't know if anybody else has any negative. I think we're okay. I think there's two issues we need to talk about, and that is probably the land donation alternative just doesn't seem to be making sense, and I'm wondering why we would need it. If we've got a monetary value, let's just keep it at that. Is there -- it gets kind of awkward to deal with a ratio that's been -- we just came up with a 4-1, but we know that it's different than that because the value of the rural to urban land, by your 8.37 percent, is not 4-1. It's less than 10 percent. So it would be like 10-1 in some cases. Is there any thoughts on that from -- MS. CILEK: Yes. Looking back at the staffs recommendations to the Board, one of them -- and I'll mention it, but Alex can come up here and speak further if she'd like -- was that only the monetary payment option be available and just to remove the land donation option. So that could be one recommendation that the Planning Commi;sion makes, which would just be, you know, easy for them to move forward with money provided to buy lands. Conservation Collier to buy lands, rather. Maybe I'll get a thumbs -up from Alex? More complicated than that, okay. MS. SULECKI: Good evening. Alex Sulecki, for the record, coordinator of Conservation Collier. That was my initial idea when I went to the Board, and that was not accepted well by the Conservation Collier Committee. They really wanted to have a land donation option in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but how do you justify -- okay. Let's say we go that route. How do you justify the 4-1 ratio? MS. SULECKI: Well, I think that was added in so that the value could equal the value of the monetary donation so that they would -- both options would be about the same value, monetary value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How does a 4-1 -- so let's say you have a monetary donation rounded off for 200,000. That means you'd be looking at 50,000 an acre. MS. SULECKI: I think it was like -- something like 34,000 an acre based on a sale. So, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the value -- MS. SULECKI: Or, I'm sorry, 11,000 an acre based on a sale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the value of the rural lands is that high, then why are we looking at an 8.37 percent of urban when we calculate out the monetary value? MS. SULECKI: I can't answer that. I can tell you that the monetary value was developed to try to be somewhat equal with the value of the property that was going offsite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, which is what we're talking about for 4-1, aren't we? It's offsite property, right? MS. SULECKI: Right. That was -- the monetary was about the same value as their value of their property that they were now going to be able to use, and then the land donation was crafted to be roughly the same value. If I'm not answering that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure -- okay. If the rural values are looked at at less than 10 percent of the urban values, and that's acknowledged by the monetary change from urban to rural land, then Page 18 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 how does a 4-1 ratio from urban value to rural value work for the amount of acreage purchased as a land donation? It doesn't -- the two don't fit. One is a 25 percent ratio, and the other is a 10 percent -- or less than 10 percent ratio. So wouldn't you want 10-1 instead of 4-1? I mean, and then it gets into a practicality of how practical is land donations then. I'm just wondering, it just doesn't seem like it gets there evenly. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't know how you equate it. MS. SULECKI: Well, we had to also leave part of the equation for the land donation, I mean, the endowment amount. So with the land donation and the endowment together, they were equaling that 200,000, roughly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and the endowment's a whole nother issue we've got to discuss here in a minute. But in a land donation, based on -- say that we use the Planning Commission's number, 213-, that still has got the endowment on top of it; is that correct? No, that's including the endowment. MS. SULECKI: That includes the endowment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's based on 176,000 per acre which, in the case of rural, it would be 8.37 of that number. So in the case of this particular thing ata 4-1, I'm not sure it's -- I'm trying to figure out how it's equivalent to the -- MS. CII EK: We're also doing, like, two different time periods here. When we were working with CCLAC, we were using different numbers than what we used to provide you with the 8.37 percent, okay. They're total different numbers. So when you compare them, they're not going to line up. When we were working with CCLAC, their one goal was to provide a number that was more on par with urban land, and to get there, we had to go up to a higher ratio. They weren't using a 14- or $15,000 number. They were using a higher number for when they -- for the purchase of land, from what I recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's -- I don't know. No one else seems to have any questions on that, so I'll stop. And let's move on to the next one. We'll come back and deal with that when we have to vote on this. The other issue is the cost between -- for the endowment. DSAC had a value of 13,200 as the beginning principal value -- balance, and it depreciated over time, do an annual management cost, and what they looked at was, after five years, the annual management cost dropped down substantially because, I would assume, then, you've got some control over the new growth, and the old growth is stumped and squirted and it's finally died, and now you've got the remaining seedlings coming in from nature or whatever, the winds, the birds, whatever else brings them in. CCLAC, on the other hand, started out at 32,5-, which is the number they've been using and, with the annual management posts, they see management -- actually, it looks like it's going up all the way through the process. Can you explain the two wide deviations between the analyses of those two organizations? MS. CILEK: Well, first it's important to keep in mind that the table includes inflation, so that's, like, why it's going up. Because in 20 years $558 won't be $558 worth of value as it is today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it always starts with the base and goes up. There's no credit for getting control of the property's exotics and eventually dropping the value, because you're not going in and clearing 100 percent of all the exotics there. You're clearing what little saplings might start or stumps restarting, right? MS. CILEK: So Alex can speak to this, but basically what she's finding is that five years isn't the right number. She's not finding that it costs less after five years to take care of the lands, and so she has numbers to support that. Do you want to use those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on the CDD, right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you find? Because you've got vendors out there clearing exotics, and I know they're taking care of the exotics in the south side of the project. Already that was basically a maintenance issue after it got cleared initially. Do you see number -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've not -- after the initial clearing, I've not seen much maintenance Page 19 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 since. They've been out there and sprayed probably five years after the first clearing, and I've not seen -- that was probably three or four years ago. But I've not seen much. I mean -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Joe, Fiddler's Creek? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. What -- I'm just confused, though; if I can ask a basic question. Why are we putting fees in the LDC rather than the fee schedule? MS. CILEK: I can speak to that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. CU EK: So we're not proposing to put actual flat fees in the LDC. They will go in a fee schedule. I actually had a meeting today about this. So if the monetary one goes forward with the endowment amount, we're looking to put that in actually the parks and rec fee schedule, so I'm going to work with their staff and propose it goes there, because Conservation Collier is under the parks and rec's department. I'm comfortable putting, like, a -- like, the percentages in there in the LDC but not a flat fee for an endowment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I could see an example being described in the LDC, but... MS. CILEK: And that's what it is. We're not proposing to put the actual fee in there. Just the description of how to calculate so there's no confusion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because when I go through this -- and I've seen the example. Excuse me. I'm not sure, are you looking tonight for us to decide which of the three alternatives? MS. CILEK: More guidance tonight would be great, but I'm happy to come back. We're going to go to the Board for the golf course amendment on the 14th. This one may need more time. I totally recognize that. It has been slowly coming along behind the golf course amendment. So it would be awesome if we could take it to the Board by the 28th. But we'll just play it by ear. We need to get it right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I think the proposal for offsite mitigation is great because instead of creating these quarter -acreage preserves like we had in the past to be in compliance with the LDC -- and I think that's -- but I just don't understand why we're trying to dig into the fees when it's really a fee schedule issue and not an LDC issue. MS. CILEK: Well, determining the fee is where the LDC part comes in, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why? MS. CILEK: -- it will go into the fee schedule. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, I know it was not a pleasant time when I was part of staff when you had to bring fees to the Board because the fee -- the Board only likes one thing, when fees are reduced. But it's a fact of raising revenue to support the effort of staff and providing reviews. It should be a part of the fee schedule, not a -- not the -- MS. CILEK: The program -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- LDC. MS. CILEK: -- has always been established in the LDC, as far as I know. So just making sure that they're paying and putting an amount in the fee schedule is what we're looking to do. Just as a reminder, the Board has asked us to come back and evaluate the land management slash endowment because it's not sufficient as of right now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're short. MS. CII EK: And it's come up several times. They are excited, I think, to have a number to move forward with. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can we work on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your microphone. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can we have them bring this particular one back? Because I know that I remember this one causing some problems, and when the previous board asked them to, because they just plain stopped buying land, and we were short money maintaining it. MS. CILEK: Sure. I mean, if I could get more direction, I think we're okay in the monetary payment one using the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think that's true. Page 20 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 MS. CII:,EK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We stopped buying land because we no longer had the program and raising the revenue. There's -- Alex, correct me if I'm wrong. Again, I'm going back seven years, but didn't the Conservation Collier raise sufficient revenue to put monies into perpetuity and to maintain the lands that were purchased? MS. SULECKI: We began to -- when the economic downturn came, we looked at what we had, and we projected out our management into the long term. And at that point it looked like the split that we had set aside for land management was not going to be enough. So in 2011 we stopped buying and put the remainder of the land -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MS. SULECKI: -- money that we were going to buy with; we backfilled the land management account so that we would have enough money to go into the future with that. And that's why we stopped buying several -- a couple years earlier than the levy stopped. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, we also made a significant purchase in eastern Collier, which was a -- MS. SULECKI: We did, but we still had money left. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just --I'm just kind of confused on where we're going with this, Mark. I like the Planning Commission recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that solves one of them. The problem is that we've still got this 4-1 ratio, and I can't see how that's making sense. And at the same time, there's a discrepancy in the endowment portion of it that -- again, I mean, Joe, with your position having to review things for maintenance of acreage of exotics on your CDD, if you were to turn to Page 46, some of these costs just don't make sense, and I'm trying to understand them better; at least they don't appear without maybe further explanation. And that's part of this big number of endowment that is added to every acre that comes through. This is an initial clearing of exotics that's not here -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's looked at at 4,000 an acre. But Item 1, nuisance and exotic weed control, herbiciding, annual cost based on work performed to date. It's 166,000 per acre. But then you go down to No. 2, assessment of vegetation for nuisance and exotic weed presence, another $160.72. Well, honestly, when you're walking around spraying weed control, why wouldn't you be assessing what you're spraying and all wrapped up in one walk? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you work down the field notes, No. 3; $40 an acre twice a year. What kind of field notes would you need? MS. SULECKI: Well, that's staff costs for the field, and the staff works with the developers, works with maps, does some other things here. Let's see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what does staff-- I don't understand what staffs got to do for field notes. Oh, there might be exotics out there. Check it. MS. SULECKI: We have field logs, and they have to create maps for the contractor that shows where the exotics are. It does take some time; two hours a year. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But these are costs for maintaining Conservancy Collier lands. MS. SULECKI: Yes. And this acreage, this is based on the nuisance and exotic weed control that we are now paying at the multi -parcel projects. And this -- right now you can't use this option other than for the multi -parcel prc cts that we have. So these costs are based on those particular areas and what it's costing US. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the next question is, if these are your costs, have you -- since we're talking costs, have you gone out to CDDs and other entities that have to raise revenue to take care of lands that are in preservation on properties specifically in some of the large developments? I mean, I don't think they incur these kind of costs. MS. SULECKI: No. But we have to use what -- the contractors that are on our county contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but you use them based on the RFPs given to them. For example, Page 21 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 No. 9, routine monitoring schedule, one hour a month, $40, but we're doing field notes for -- MS. SULECKI: That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --forty dollars. MS. SULECKI: -- two hours a year for field notes, working with contractors, documentation, logs and photos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how -- I mean, this certainly seems like overkill for maintenance. I don't understand it Iisyself. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Preservation, even if you -- in a PUD, what is it, once a year, a report on your preserves. I'm not sure. MS. SULECKI: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it is, yeah. Tim -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Basically once a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim does the one that you're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Tim does that. MS. SULECKI: So staff time in here, we have four hours for two site visits during the year, and then we have two hours for in the office working with it, and that seemed reasonable to us given our experience. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Do you visit every acre you have right now twice a year? MS. SULECKI: No, not every acre, but every property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But this is based on every acre, right? MS. SULECKI: This is based on the multi -parcel projects specifically, how long it takes to get there, what we do there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But it's a per acre or per parcel? MS. SULECKI: This is per acre. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it's based on doing every acre twice a year? MS. SULECKI: It's based on doing those particular acres that we get in from the donation, yes, we go twice a year. Well, actually, we go more than that, but for exotics we go twice a year. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You just said you don't do every acre twice a year. MS. SULECKL• We do the acres that are donated. We don't visit, let's say --in Red Maple Swamp, we own 150 acres. We don't visit every of those acres every year. We're waiting to gather contiguous acreage so we can treat it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because when I see a lot of preserves, I see a lot of exotic vegetation all the time, and I've said this many times, and I don't think any of this takes into account controlled burns. And the environment down here, every few years you should do a controlled burn to burn everything down to give new growth for the fauna that lives among the flora. You know, you have a big concern with the flora, but the biosystem is the fauna, too. MS. SULECKI: We do that in pine flatwoods, but these are wetland areas. We don't burn them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point, I mean, from my perspective, I can't -- the maintenance costs just don't -- something doesn't seem right with those. I talked about two or three sections of them that I certainly question. I think that DSAC had the same -- had some concern over them, obviously, because they didn't see the evaluation staying what it was. And I think that after -- I don't have any argument with the initial clearing. Everybody has to do that, and it is much more expensive. But part of that initial clearing is the ability for the contractor -- at least it was when I was in the private sector, the contractor had to cut and squirt everything or haul away depending on how far back from the perimeter it was. And if they missed something, they came back out at their midyear check, and they took care of it. If we're not doing that, maybe we should be. But that wouldn't seem to need this much followup, because most of it should have been taken care of right the first time. MS. SULECKI: Well, I'll just mention that in the beginning of redoing this option, we did -- I did some research among other counties to see if they had these kind of programs and what they charge for Page 22 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 maintenance, and they don't all have them and it's not all the same, but two of them, Orange County and Brevard County, charge $500 per acre. I also talked to some of the -- I'm sorry -- mitigation banks, and they charge between 500 and $1,000 per acre for management. That's what it costs to them, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's perpetual? MS. SULECKI: I don't know. I didn't ask for perpetual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you want to go from here? I know we're not comfortable with passing this one tonight. When we get to the list of recommendations to the Board, we can just ask this one to come back with some further refinement on the issues we brought up for discussion. MS. CILEK: Well, we can bring this back to the Planning Commission. I think we'll wait to go to the Board. So we have -- maintenance cost is an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two issues: The ratio for offsite mitigation and how that's justified based on the fact that rural lands is about 10 percent value of urban lands, and then I think this maintenance cost is a little concerning to more than the majority of us as far as how that's derived. And I'm not sure going to another government is the answer. Government may be the problem. And so maybe we need to look at something other than government for comparison, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, again, just for clarification, when this comes back, are we looking for -- you're looking for our final recommendation on, basically, choice DSAC, choice CCLAC, or choice CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That will be the first one, but there's three elements: There's that, there's the ratio of offsite mitigation, whether it's 4-1, 10-1, or even needs to exist, or do we just keep it monetary, and then is the endowment -- what ratio should the endowment be? And we've got multiple inputs on that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, in the Army Corps, when you're -- typically, there's a 3-1 ratio was the rule of thumb for impact to wetlands. That was sort of rule of thumb. So if you're going to a mitigation bank and you're going to impact wetlands, it was kind of a 3-1 was basically what we would tell folks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem we have here is we have a monetary donation that, if you can -- if you can reduce that monetary donation by doing a 3-1 ratio on any wetlands to wetlands, you put a big hole -- everybody's going to be doing that, and we're going to see a lot of the green space in the urban area demise because it's going to be easier to sell it off and do a 3-1 ratio to the -- but that's for core wetlands, not necessarily what we're trying to accomplish. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, when I say 3-1, it was what you had to pay in a mitigation bank. So if somebody wanted to impact wetlands, you basically were told to consider -- can figure for every acre you impact, you're going to mitigate three times as much through a mitigation bank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The value of the Corps -- did the Corps look at the value of the property that was being mitigated or the mitigation lands out east somewhere? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It had to be an approved mitigation land. It had to be an approved mitigation bank through a mitigation bank service. So, like, panther -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So they'd buy three acres of panther land for one acre of urban land. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the urban land would be worth 200,000, but the panther land would be worth 8- or 9,000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: See, they didn't look at value. They looked at the quality of the wetland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It was a wetland quality and whether it was deemed, you know, that the -- MS. CILEK: Right. To confirm, if we were to justify the ratio using the same percentage or the same number in the AUR rural area, we would have a much higher ratio. Okay. Page 23 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Right. It would be higher than even 10-1 because, you're right, the dollars out east compared to here... MS. CILEK: Okay. Just to confirm... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think the point is what are we trying to do with this whole thing of allowing offsite mitigation? If we're trying to encourage it, then, yeah, keep the ratios low, keep everything low. If we're trying to discourage it and keep more green space in the urban area, then we want these ratios all consistent and higher. That's the bottom line to this whole thing. MS. CILEK: We can come up with a different higher ratio based on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the ratio's got to be consistent across the board. You don't use one as a low ratio, like we did in the monetary one, then we go to a different ratio in the other one, a higher ratio; 25 percent versus 10 percent. That's a pretty big spread. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. Just remember, when the Board of County Commissioners were discussing that, it really wasn't a discussion as to whether there was value or not value within offsite mitigation or presence of preserves within our urbanized area. It was specifically a concern of the long-term maintenance cost and the donations to Conservation Collier not being able to handle that. And I think what the chair has established is if we don't make the land donation option almost identical in the cost component to the cash donation, then we're only going to allow for people to take advantage of a lesser cost option, and it's going to result in the depletion of the urban preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good way to put it, Mike. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because the land is so much more expensive. I remember speaking with the panther mitigation, and they were charging at the time, last year, 75,000 an acre. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that's expensive, very expensive for an offsite mitigation. MS. CILEK: So we'll take a look at the ratio, and we'll take a look at the maintenance costs. I do think it's important just to keep in mind the Board's objective, which was to make sure the maintenance costs were enough. So if the off chance staff is doing a little over -the -top work, that may be the case, but if there is slightly more money in the funds, it just means they're going to be able to take care of them longer and take care of any things that come up that are surprises along the way. That's just something to keep in mind with the maintenance costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I don't trust that those private sector numbers are accurate as far as what it actually costs, because they make a profit. And if they can make a good profit, they will. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: These costs numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the numbers in our -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, what Diane just said about Panther Island and how expensive that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, I think we've talked in that one -- MS. CILEK: Sure. Another thing we might recommend then, is if we do change the maintenance costs, would be to put a provision in to just reassess it in five years to make sure that it is enough. And if the maintenance costs are coming out above that, then it could be examined at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know that water park in North Naples? MS. CII.,EK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a big preserve on the south of that water park. It's a pretty good size. MS. CILEK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you ask Barry Williams what he's paying to maintain that preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. Good point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just had a fire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just ask him. See what -- but he's going to have to have the records, so Page 24 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 we can go back and see what he's put in the AU -- we can pull those records at some point. But why don't we see what he does? MS. CILEK: Yeah. We just have to make sure we're comparing apples to apples when it comes to preserves. A lot of Alex's stuff is in the middle of a targeted area with lots of other areas that are not being removed of exotics; whereas, that area isn't really connected to a lot of other preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but exotics tend to be more proficient around disturbed areas like roadsides and things like that, and that you have a lot more of in the urban area than you may have in the rural area, so... MS. CU EK: We can take a look and see what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just -- Alex, again, as an example, Serenity Park, which is, of course, along Collier Boulevard/951, that's Conservation Collier, right? MS. CILEK: Nope. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that -- no, it's not. That belongs to the parks now? Didn't Conservancy Collier buy -- I'm just curious because that's a parcel of land that I'm thinking about would be -- something would be comparable. MS. SULECKI: I think the Transportation Department is actually owning and managing that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. There's another piece of property they can look at. What does it cost to maintain that? I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, David's here, and he could get us the numbers from the Transportation Department, and that would work for that, and Barry Williams could get us the -- it would be nice to see what the other agencies or departments in Collier County do for the same thing. And if they're not coming in at 5- or 600- an acre, that certainly would help to understand how they're doing it. MS. SULECKI: Well, I would just note that these costs were developed based on this particular land, and costs change with different types of land, different methods of access, and the amount of exotics that are out there. So the costs are very variable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Caroline, let's try to move on to Page 51. MS. CILEK: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the floodplain -- well, the compensation one, isn't it? Stan's favorite one. Water management requirements and stormwater plans for -- MS. CILEK: It's not floodplain compensation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I know. I just wanted to get him -- he's awake now. MS. CILEK: That's fine. Wake me up, too, there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go into a discussion, does anybody have any questions about this particular one? Because it went through last one without any problems. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's good. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. So let's move to the end of our agenda. And, Caroline, that takes through the five things that we had to discuss; is that not right? MS. CILEK: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll read them off under 9A. We have Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The first one, Chapter 2, zoning districts and uses including Section A, 2.03.06, Planned Unit Development districts, and Section 2.03.09, open space zoning districts. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you tell me what page you're on, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on the agenda. This was the first several pages we discussed in our packet, and we asked Caroline to make some adjustments to them, but they're minor in nature in regards to -- they were very clear, so most of it's grammatical or something. Is there a motion to approve subject to the changes directed to staff? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Page 25 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Next item is Chapter 3. This is resource protection including -- well, this is the one we're going to continue. This is the preservation standards. We're going to move that. We're going to just bring that onto another meeting. So that takes us to Chapter 5, supplemental standards, adding Section 5.05.15, conversion of golf courses. And this, again, will be subject to all the discussion that we had as we went through it. Caroline? MS. CILEK: And if I find any other typos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, yes, typical is the staff normally handles these. Subject to those discussions we had, is there a motion to approve? COMMISeMNER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen jumped. Karen seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye, COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Chapter 6, infrastructure improvements and adequate public facilities requirements. It was this last one we did. It's Section 6.05.01 and 6.05.03. Is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 26 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And the last one is Chapter 10, application review and decision-making procedures, including Section 10.03.06, public notice and required hearings for land use petitions. Is there a motion to recommend approval on that one subject to any staff corrections? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have a question. CHAIRMt� N STRAIN: Go ahead, Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So doesn't that still -- included in that is section -- does this Chapter 10 include anything that we're going to postpone on, which goes back to the infrastructure improvements or no? MS. CILEK: Technically, this Chapter 10 section is a part of 5.05.15, the golf course conversion amendment. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Procedural, Mark. You passed over 3.05.07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But there was a piece of that that has to be amended for the golf course conversion, which we -- MS. CILEKi Yes. Typically, you would just approve, like, the golf course amendment, and I think you did that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know you said on the record that we were passing that, but there is a section -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The section that we're going to be moving forward on is the section involving Conservation Collier. That was what was meant. MS. CILEK: So let's continue that to a date certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't do it Thursday. MS. CILEK: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do it the second meeting in February. That way you'll have time to get it into the March hearing. Will that work? MS. CILEK: Yes, that should work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the March hearing for the Board. Okay. Is there a motion to continue Section 3.05.07 in regards to the Conservation Collier aspects of it to the second meeting in February? Page 27 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And discussion? Oh, Mike? MR. BOSI: Chair, that's the February 16th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to just move it to the February 16th meeting, which is the second meeting in February. There's a motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And I think that takes us to the end of it, right, Caroline? For tonight, at least. MS. CILEK: Yes. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business, no old business. Anybody -- there's no members of the public left. S(� let's -- is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Page 28 of 29 "Special LDC" CCPC meeting January 30, 2017 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:52 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 29 of 29 February 2, 2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 2, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Fred Reischl, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 16 February 2, 2017 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. I shouldn't say "everyone." I think it's almost just us and a couple of -- okay. Welcome to the February 2nd 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: Okay. 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. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's one item on today's agenda. I don't know of anything that needs to be changed under addenda to the agenda. Ray, do you have anything? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is February 16th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the February 16th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll have a quorum. The approval of minutes is the January 5th meeting. Those were sent to us electrically. Are there any corrections or a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. BCC report and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 24th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD rezone for Hamilton Place. That was approved on their regular agenda by a vote of 5-0 subject to the CCPC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report: I just had one thing I wanted to ask if staff could do some research on. The LDC Page 2 of 16 February 2, 2017 and GMP and other kinds of amendments that come to us, generally Judy Puig is in charge of handling the packages for this commission, and she's well versed and does that very competently, but those other two elements, when an LDC item comes through or sometimes I think it's GMPs, they may not always go through her if they're stand-alones. Is there some way that we could have the consistency of having her involved in all of the agendas for this panel instead of others doing it? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I don't believe that would be a problem. I thought she was involved in those, quite frankly. But if not, we will work to make sure that consistency's in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it would be helpful to everybody. She has a good pattern down, and we've worked with her a long time. So thank you. Consent agenda: There are no items. ***We'll move right into our advertised public hearing. It's Item 9A. It's Petition No. PUDA-PL20150002280. This is a continued item from the January 5th CCPC meeting. It's for the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development. 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: And disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission: We'll start with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not since the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since last time I have talked with the applicant's representatives a couple of times, there's been some correspondence and emails going back and forth, and numerous conversations with staff. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Richard, you want to take us through today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, hopefully -- sorry. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Hopefully you have all received the strikethrough and underline changes to the PUD that have been made since the last time we met incorporating the discussions we had. I believe all of the changes accurately reflect the changes that were brought up mainly pertaining to buffers and assuring that the new uses can be placed into existing buildings, I think, were the primary issues that needed to be addressed. And if you need me to go page by page, I can, but I believe you have all of that; am I correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- I think that all came to us. There was some changes, though, after that packet came out. MR. YOV;NOVICH: Okay. So I don't know -- that's why I'm asking. I don't know exactly what packet you have in front of you, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd have to ask staff. I know that there was some changes needed to the legal, the way it was legally -- Fred? I know there were some changes made to the way it was legally described in the document, and those changes have been corrected, but I just want to make sure -- MR. REISCHL: And have not been forwarded to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you're going to have to walk us through, if you don't mind. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't mind. If you don't mind, let me work my way backwards. One of the issues that came since the subsequent review was we had legal descriptions with the Page 3 of 16 February 2, 2017 property that was being added to the -- actually not added to the PUD, but that the new uses were going to be allowed to occur on. There was a change in philosophy on how to deal with that and instead deal with it through the master plan identifying the properties that these new uses could go on. So there was a revision to the master plan to identify -- and you've seen this exhibit before, but there's a small modification to what you previously saw. These are the parcels in either the Section 3 or Section 4 uses that are eligible for the new uses on the property; however, these two pieces right here -- and I think I have those right, but I don't have my glasses on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOVA,NOVICH: We're in a condominium, and a couple of the condominium owners had not signed on as part ofthe application. We had originally intended to have just the unit owners that were participating in the PUD who had consented to it participate; however, it was recommended to us that the condominium in its entirety should be excluded from the eligibility of having new uses. So we have deleted those two parcels from what you had previously seen as being eligible for these uses, which resulted in, now if we work our way back to the forward, we no longer needed an Exhibit B, which was the new legal descriptions. So we have an Exhibit A that identifies the properties that are located on the property. And I don't think you have this changed page, but I'm not 100 percent sure. We don't have another change -- there were some legal descriptions that have been struck through. I only have a clean version with me, but we removed some legal descriptions that were previously added that are no longer in the PUD document. Other than that, I think everything you should have at this point should be the same. Am I right, Fred? MR. REISCHL: That's my understanding. It should be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You already have -- MR. REISCHL: -- except for the legals. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And they're out. So those are what you have not seen and what's in front of you. We had gone through, and I hopefully better defined the types of social service uses that are hopefully acceptable to the Planning Commission, because those -- it was SIC Code 8322 that came up as it has the big long list, and we said we'd come back and we would shorten the list to the types of uses that we hope are acceptable to those on the Planning Commission who had concern about the breadth of that original SIC code. So hopefully we did it okay, and if there are still concerns, please let me know. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm not sure I understand them, because they're not listed the way they are listed under that code. The wording isn't -- you can't even figure out which ones they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that brings back the reason I gave Fred an overhead. Please put it on the overhead, then Karen will be able to -- it will be more easily rectified. And the issue at hand is the language on Page -- and, Karen, I agree with you; there's nothing gained by the language that was presented to us. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was trying to find it, and I couldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just walk through it, because on those lists there, and according to what you submitted, it said, social services, SIC Code 8322, limited to daycare centers dash, adult. Okay. That is one of the items in the left-hand column. You see daycare centers, adult and handicap. Then it says, child development programs. I don't see that on here. Government then, dash, individual/family social services. That's what's the title says, so now you're incorporating the title as a limitation to the whole thing, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Then it says, senior citizen centers or associations. That one is on here. Then it says, general counseling services. That is not on here. So we've gained nothing by this submission. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, actually, if you'd rather we take the word "general" out and leave the word "counseling centers," which is on there, in, we could do that. We thought, frankly, by putting the word "general" in there, it might be more limitation on the types of counseling services. Page 4 of 16 February 2, 2017 I don't have an express definition, but it seemed to me that there were concerns about how broad counseling services may be. I'm happy to delete the word "general" if that makes sense to make it easier to understand that if, for instance, you have -- you know, you want to go to a marriage counselor or if you want to go to a counselor because you can't figure out how to deal with your kids and things like that, that's what we thought general counseling services were. But I'm happy to better describe that if that will help. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, those are listed out. I mean, if you want, there's family counseling services, marriage counseling services. I mean, the list -- it just is hard to understand what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, counseling services as a general category is also listed according to what -- I didn't bring my SIC code book. I'm just looking at what's on the left-hand side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at 7999 on the top. You said, 7999, limited to, and you were very specific about those items that are -- some of them that are listed at 7999. You were supposed to do the same thing with social services, 8322, but instead, that's not what we got here. We don't have items that can specifically be picked out of those bullet points. In fact, the second or third one in says, government, dash, individual, slash, family social services. That's the title. So basically you're saying by that one you want everything in there and circumventing everything we asked you to take a look at. It does no good. I mean, I don't understand what you're trying to do here. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Let's take that one out. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a beginning. MR. YOVANOVICH: The beginning. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, our discussion at that meeting -- at that time was for senior services, day care to be added. That was your concern that you wanted to leave that in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think the regular child daycare was what I said. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's different. You have another code in there for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, but we talked about both of those, because one of the issues that came up was, is child daycare appropriate. And we said, well, would it make sense in this category for adult daycare to also be an allowed use, and I think we took care of that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, they have -- it's listed as adult daycare centers -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- centers for senior citizens, daycare centers, adult and handicapped, old age assistance -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So what we have -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and your senior citizens associations. Those are listings under that code for seniors. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And don't we have those listed? The only ones -- which ones are too broad, if I remember, is the government individual and family, take that out, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: And general counseling services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why can't this be approached just like you did the first one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we were trying to do that. CHAIRMf N STRAIN: No. You were trying to re -generalize it to a point where no one would know what of these were applicable at that site and, in essence, with the language you provided, all of them would be reapplied. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, it really -- it really is not fair to tell me what I intended to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you read this document? MR. YOVANOVICH: I did, and I did read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll see how hard you read it in a few minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did not intend to go back and put back in everything that we were deleted (sic). That's not my style. It has never been my style. CHA>RMAN STRAIN: Then if you read it, then what did you see government, dash, individual, slash, family social services to exclude from that list -- Page 5 of 16 February 2, 2017 MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since it's the title? MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that, Mr. Strain. But I'm saying in Rich Yovanovich's mind, it meant government services that deal with individuals and families, social service related, not the entire group. Now, if that was the unintended consequence, I will accept responsibility for that, but I will not accept someone saying to me that my intent was to try to delete then put it back in. I will tell you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we each have our own opinion on that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. But it was not my intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if it was your intent, but it came out in a manner that could have been interpreted that way. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that, but I did read it, because we got a comment back, and I -- and that's what I thought it meant. I did not get comments back saying, hey, why don't you change the words to this. Maybe that would be better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go back to what we anticipated in the first place. 8322 limited to, and then let's look at -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we okay with daycare centers adult? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Karen's area. I'll let her -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --jump in on most of it, so -- you started it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, I just read the ones that pertained to adult daycare, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Instead of my trying to figure out which ones you don't want and the limited -to list, why don't you tell me which ones you'd like us to take out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to walk through the list, then, one at a time? MR. YOVANOVICH: Quickly looking, looks like there's five. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought you were just going to list the ones that pertained to seniors. That was what we were talking about at the last meeting. And I read the minutes over, so -- the child daycare is listed under another code. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are senior citizen centers or associations acceptable? COMMISSfONER HOMIAK: Yes. Adult daycare centers, senior -- centers for senior citizens, daycare centers, adults and handicapped, old -age assistance. I don't know what that is. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we didn't ask for the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Senior citizens association. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we thought -- and I thought social services, senior citizens centers or association, was from the list of what we wanted. Is that acceptable? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Social services? Where is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you have social service centers. You have senior citizen associations, so we were trying to limit that to seniors. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Both senior citizen centers and then senior citizen associations. Are those -- is that category that we have okay? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just said that on the other one twice already. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I'm trying to go through the list of which ones need to come out. So nobody likes, it sounds like, governmental-individual/family social services. We want that out, correct, because that was believed to mean we were now bringing everything back in; fair? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We're okay -- are we okay with the characterization senior citizens centers or association? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Do you want me to change "and general counseling services" to just Page 6 of 16 February 2, 2017 "and counseling services," or do you want the whole category gone? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we follow what the bullets are that are on the overhead, and it says counseling centers. So let's just leave it as counseling centers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I have on this -- this is my -- hopefully I took the notes correctly for revisions that we need to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are child development programs? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- okay. I missed that one when we went through the list. Does anybody have a problem with child development programs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what it is. Where on the list does it occur? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I move this so I can actually read it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, a small point, but I think the citizens, I think the apostrophe S should be an S apostrophe. Small grammatical point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't see that terminology specifically used. I see the terms "youth centers" and "youth self-help organizations." Would you prefer we use those two references? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You know you have child daycare services in there, 8351? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the NACS code. That isn't SIC. Why don't we stick with the 8322 description in the 1987 NACS code -- or SIC code. Well, that isn't the one that's in front of us. The one that's in front of us is the one we use in Collier County. So you tell me, which one would you like to use? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just saying, Mr. Strain, apparently, when Mr. Duane was working on this list, was looking at a more current version of the SIC code book. So we took a terminology from an SIC book. It was not an -- it was not intended to confuse anybody, so I'm just trying to explain how we got to where we are with the difference in terminology. So what I'm asking is would you prefer us to go to youth centers and youth self -- I can't read it from this far -- youth self-help organizations, since that's in the current SIC code book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why not use the term that's on there, "child guidance agencies"? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can do that as well. I'm okay with -- you know, child development services is what's the more common or the more current SIC code book. So I'm happy to use all three of those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Youth self-help programs, organizations. Youth self-help organizations. I guess I'm waiting for you to tell me what you want so I can -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I almost called you, out of habit, by your first name. Mr. Schmitt -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I'm fine with all three of those; youth centers, youth self-help, youth gui -- is it youth guidance or guidance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, a simpler way to approach this -- most of those aren't problematic. I would think we'd be better off saying -- MR. YOV.NOVICH: Most of which? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The list you have in front of us right here today. The issue started with just a few of these uses that were probably more extreme that might be benefiting an interchange activity center, such as the alcoholism counseling, probation offices, parole offices, outreach programs, offender self-help agencies, offender rehabilitation programs. If we were to take some of those out, the rest, I didn't think, were problematic. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going at it backwards. Instead of saying what should be in, because I think that's a bigger list, we ought to just look at what should be out, then we just cross them out, and we're done. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So just -- let's approach it. Say, instead of "limited to," say Page 7 of 16 February 2, 2017 "excluding." MR. YOVANOVICH: Just help me. Are we referring to the list that's on the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to defer to Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So now what are we doing? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just take the ones that are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just walk through it. If you were to look at that list, the fifth bullet down, alcoholism counseling, drop that. On the next list over, drop the two offender programs. COMMISSiONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the ones down from that, drop parole offices and probation offices. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that gets us there for the most part. Yes, Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: On the left-hand side, second one down, bullet point, meal delivery programs, is that an outreach programs for people in need for meal delivery, or is that a commercial/retail meal delivery -type food service? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be something I don't know without looking at the detail. Ray, would that be a -- would people be going there eating, or would they be just delivering? Do you know from your -- we've probably never had that question asked before. MR. REISCHL: No. I believe that under that category, because it is a social service, it would be like Meals on Wheels rather than Schwan meal delivery, which is a commercial use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get you there, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It does, and I'm all for those type organizations. I'm just wondering -- again, it goes back to the issue -- we talked about issues with childcare services, et cetera. The type of people that might be coming there for these outreach programs, does that potentially cause any problems? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, no. This isn't soup kitchens or anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: I interpret this to mean, nobody's coming there for the meal. It means that we're actually going to deliver them to your house -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- or wherever else. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now we look at those five as being excluded; that pretty much cleans it up, unless somebody else has others that seem problematic. We're taking out the alcoholism, the offenders, and the parole and probation offices, so that's five of them. Does anybody have any more that seem concerning for that location? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we are. Doesn't that solve it a little bit better than what we've got currently on the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm never going to argue with someone giving me more uses than I originally thought I was asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You were originally asking for six -- five more uses than you're now getting. But that's as simple as it needs -- it can be, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I understand that, and I thought the direction was to come back and tell you what we wanted, not what we were excluding. So we had a failure to communicate. I'll take 100 percent responsibility for that, and let's just move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now that we've gotten past that and we understand what six uses are involved, does anybody have any other questions of the applicant at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which six uses are excluded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's five uses are excluded. Yeah, those are excluded. Does anybody have any other issues? , COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have that on the record now, so... Page 8 of 16 February 2, 2017 back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've -- we'll have to -- I have -- this will most likely have to come MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, come on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not done yet, Richard, and after we're done, maybe we can talk about whether it needs to come back or not. Since you read it -- MR. REISCHL: The commission would be comfortable with the SIC code excluding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those five. MR. REISCHL: -- those five. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could turn to Page 1. Mr. Coleman, your partner, probably wouldn't appreciate his name being misspelled. I think that needs to be corrected. On Page 6, property ownership, 1.3 says the subject property is currently owned by and under the unified control of Tollgate Commercial Center. The properties in question we know were not. You have a sky, something or other, involved in this, so I think 1.3 may need to be updated to reflect the other ownerships. On Page 11, under the Table 1, Item A, second sentence -- Ray, do yw� have Internet access to MUNI code? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you go to MUNI code and tell me if there's a Section 10.02.13.6 Capital E. MR. BELLOWS: 10.02.13? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.02.13.6.E. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, what page are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 11 under A, the second paragraph. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll look that up if you've not found it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he won't find it. I just wanted him to acknowledge it wasn't there. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. Yes, I could not find it. I could still be looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's the citation error. Ray, could you go to 10.02.04.2. Tell me if you can find that. I mean, I know the answers, but -- 10.02.04.2. This is on Page 12, second paragraph. MR. BELLOWS: 10.02 -- what was the last part? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.02.04.2. It can't be there because that's not how we lay out our code, but I thought you'd -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I don't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go to 2.5 on the same page, it's that same one you acknowledge is not there, 10.02.13.6.E. That's an incorrect citation as well. If you go to 2.6, it's 10.02.13.6.D. I don't believe you'll find that either. MR. YOV,ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, help me remember. We went through a list of incorrect citations at the last meeting. Are these the same list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to go back and verify it. I don't know if they are or not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I'm just looking at what was in front of you the last time, and the same cites were in front of you the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you -- oh, so it's my fault I didn't check that last time? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm not saying that. I'm just asking -- you know, look -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- if you think that this document leaving here today goes to the Board and then gets recorded with these errors, it's not going to happen, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I'm not asking you to do that, but I would -- could we have a five-minute break; do you mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't mind. We'll break until 9:33. How's that? MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be great. Can I have a moment with you? (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on record. And I had a discussion with Mr. Yovanovich, Page 9 of 16 February 2, 2017 and he's acknowledged that there are some incorrect citations. We don't know today what those citations are correct -- need to be corrected. Staff apparently missed it as well. I will move through the rest of them just to point them out, and at the end we'll have a discussion on how this can be finalized in a manner that may at least save the applicant's ability to come back on consent. There's a bunch of conflicting schedules that would make consent difficult. So I'm more than willing to try to get this fixed without a consent, but we do have to get it fixed. So on Page 12, the 2.8, that citation is in error as well. If we can move down to 3.3. LA -- and this is on Page 15, the suggestion from -- I talked to Ms. Ashton before -- she wasn't able to be here -- and she suggested that the sentence read, in addition to the uses set forth in 3.3.A, the following principal uses are permitted on Tracts 7, 8, and 9 as shown on the master plan, Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They said they were using an updated SIC book. Why are they not using the same one that the county uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think for the most part they are. There were just some generalizations in that version that we saw that weren't the same as we use, and that's been fixed by the exclusions now on 8322. The rest of them are consistent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Tracts 7, 8, and 9? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tract 7, 8, and 9. And the next one we go to, which will be 431 -- if there's a problem with that we'll -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And there's a small portion of 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. There is. That was added back in after the legals were modified. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And a portion of 10. CHAIRM, �N STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: On the PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. On Page 16, No. 8, the new reference to Section 5.06.00 just needs to be underlined. It's new language. Number 9, No. 9 reads the minimum off-street parking and off-street loading requirements, semicolon or colon, as required by Division 4.05.00 of the Land Development Code. It should read, as required by Division 2.3, and then that crossed out as old language because that's how it exists in the PUD, then add the word "Section" before 4.05.00 and underline those two words. Under No. 10, minimum landscape requirement, Ms. Ashton reviewed this and had a couple other comments. Under -- where it says A, landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to CR84 and CR951, colon, CR84, five feet, and CR951, then there's a period. The period needs to be a comma, and it should say 10 feet Type D buffer. But the landscape -- then it goes on with the rest of the sentence. MR. YOVANOVICH: D as in dog? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: D as in dog. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: D as in dog, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the landscape installation requirement set forth in the Land Development Code, and then the 4.06.02.C.I is supposed to be just CA, not C-1.4. Then you can drop the rest of that sentencq because that's redundant. MR. YOVHNOVICH: So CA? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. You don't need the C-1.4. That's another citation that's a problem. Under B, the landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets, colon, five feet Page 10 of 16 February 2, 2017 with a Type A buffer instead of Alternative A. And the citation on that one is 4.06.02.0 dot 1, not dash 1. Then drop the rest of that sentence. MR. STONE: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. STONE: Just one point of clarification. After Type A buffer, it should say Type A buffer pursuant to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's right. Well, it says -- now it says it will be Type A buffer of the Land Development Code, and it will say pursuant to the Land Development Code is what you're suggesting, right? MR. STONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that gets us to Page 17, a small grammatical under Item D. The citation is 4.06.00, landscaping, comma, buffering, comma, and vegetation retention. The comma was missing between landscaping and buffering. Under No. 12, uses set forth in section -- the S should be capitalized, and it says 4.3.1, but that's from the next section. So this one should read 3.3.1. It's on Page 17. That takes u--5 to Page 20, which is Section 4.3.1. The sentence in the beginning needs to be changed to reference the tracts involved, and it should say, in addition to the uses set forth in Section 4.3.A, the following principal uses are permitted on Tracts 16 through 20 and 24 through 25. And it's shown on the PUD master plan, Exhibit A. And in that one we'll also be correcting the exclusions to section -- SIC Code 8322. On Item -- Page 21 towards the bottom, No. 10, the same corrections to A and B that were just talked about on Section 3.3.A, and l0A and B would apply. Same correction to No. 10.1) would apply. That's just a comma between -- in the title. And that page, this is -- now we're on Page 22. On that page the Paragraph 12 is correct because it does reference Section 4.3.1. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want me to capitalize the S? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The S, thank you. When we move into Page 25 a couple pages down, Ms. Ashton noted that the fourth line of A, code of ordinances should read Code of Laws and Ordinances, and that, again, is an incorrect citation to the utilities section involved. I don't know what the right one is, but that will have to be -- MS. STONE: Mr. Chair, I can tell you the correct citation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STONE: It's 134-57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this one is 1.3.5.7, so that needs to change to 134-57. MS. STONE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it should read Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 134-57, and then strike the rest of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would -- is that right -- MR. STONE: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or is that just a section? MS. STONE: You can simply replace this 1.3.5.7 with 134-57. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's Section 134-57, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to Page 26 at the top of the page under B, this one is referenced to a 201-19. First of all, it's not a right-of-way ordinance. It would be a Collier County ordinance. And it -- that's, again, another incorrect citation. I don't know -- I did not take the time to figure out which one it should be. And No. C, Collier County code, and it should be Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22. We move down to 5.7 on the bottom of Page 26, Item 6C, it's referring to the old division of the Land Development Code that used to have the excavation permit. That would need to be corrected consistent with the other reference to excavation. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Strain. I was behind you. Which one? Page 11 of 16 February 2, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.7.C. That an old reference. It needs to be corrected. You had caught it in one of the other parts of the document, but it wasn't caught here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the EER correct on that? Isn't that the old designation of the organization? Isn'Vit DEP now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might be, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then instead of ACOE, it should be -- USACE, U.S. Army Corps or Engineers. ACOE is improper. USACE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we move down to the next page, Item D doesn't exist in the reference it's at. It's at 60.06.01, street system requirements. I asked Mike Sawyer to help clarify this. Mike, did you find a correct reference? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. I think this is actually fairly simple. I think the reference was meant to be LDC Chapter 6.06.01 .H.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six -point -- MR. SAWYER: 06.0l.H.2. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's LDC section -- MR. SAWYER: Correct, with a Capital S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that correction is made, that will take care of that one. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Correct. I can also give you the correct ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, in B, it would be referring to, Richard, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances again, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: I got that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike? MR. SAWYER: Going back on Page 26, top of the page, B, I believe the correct ordinance reference there is 93.64. MR. YOVANOVICH: Dash 64? MS. STONL: If I may, Mr. Chair. Again, I believe the current right-of-way ordinance would be 03-37. If I'm incorrect, please let me know. MR. SAWYER: Oh, I apologize. You're right. Yes. MS. STONE: And if that's the case, it should read 03-37, as amended. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask something? 5.8.1), all traffic control devices, why didn't they just put a period after MUTCD, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices? Sorry. You know -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's a lot of corrections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't they what, now? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just put a period after Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Why do you have to put as required by chapter whatever? We always just used to say, you know, conform to the MUTCD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. SAWYER: Staff would also agree with that and, quite honestly, that whole section could be stricken because we're always held to that same standard and always have. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's redundant. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we'd have to change all the lettering and everything else. So let's just strike -- let's leave it generic, like Stan's suggesting. I think that cleans it up nice. MR. SAWYER: Agree. It's a developed PUD, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So D ends at devices, period? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Like the rest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we get into the last page, which is your mapping or your master plan, you had this language there. It was struck out, part of it was. There's two things I would suggest. Where the Page 12 of 16 February 2, 2017 arrow's pointing, instead of saying see Sections 3.4 and 4.3 for permitted uses of the PUD, really the whole PUD has the permitted uses spelled out. So why don't we change that reference to say additional permitted uses per Sections 3.3 1, and 4.31 for those tracts that we are dealing with in this particular PUDA. Because the whole PUD automatically falls under 3.3 and 4.3, but only those parcels have 3.31 and 4.31. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you probably don't need this at all now that we've gone back and added to the individual sections the actual tract numbers, because this was -- before, we did not have reference to which tracts within those sections. Like, for instance, 7, 8 and 9 and a portion of -- I'm sorry. Previously we didn't -- Heidi hadn't suggested we add Tracts 7, 8, 9 and a portion of 10, so we had to go to the actual PUD master plan. Now that we've called them out by number, I'm not sure you need to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a better idea, and I like it, because the next item I was going to suggest is the yellow's not going to show up on recording because it's only black and white, and we'd have to deal with that by some form of crosshatching. So why don't we just drop the PUD master plan and accept completely, because it's already in the existing PUD. This is no different than the existing PUD, right? MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, that would seem to be acceptable except I believe there was one reference to a portion of one 6i the tracts. MR. YOVANOVICH: A portion of Tract 10. MS. STONE: And I don't know how you would maintain that reference without -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the issue -- obviously, this is not to scale. The portion of Tract 10 really is going to be governed by what the legal description is for the condominium encompassing 15 and the remaining portion of Tract 10, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that piece of Tract 10 part of condominium? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why don't we just say that portion of Tract 10 that's not part of existing condominium on Tract 10. MR. YOVANOVICH: Will that work for you, Scott, to get you to where we now know with specificity? MS. STONE: Well, it may not be a condominium in perpetuity. I think the simplest thing would be to have some form of legal description. But some kind of more definitive reference, I think, would be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what we could do is take the master plan, crosshatch just that small sliver of Portion 10 with just a footnote or just an arrow going to it, say, a portion of Tract 10, then the reference can be tied to the text. Does that -- the text was changed to say a portion of Tract 10, so all we have to do is add an arrow with the text on the master plan saying portion of Tract 10, pointing to that little strip, and that would -- I think it would take care of it, wouldn't it, from your perspective, Scott? MR. STOT T: 1 believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm happy to work with Scott to come up with the appropriate way to do that and subject to your reviewing it and making sure we got it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that takes us through the document and the changes in the citation and the various SIC codes and the master plan, all the items that need to be corrected. Now, there is -- Mr. Yovanovich expressed a desire last month and again today to try to get this resolved today without going to consent for various schedules. And we tried to accommodate that schedule. I'm more than willing to take the responsibility with staff to review these corrections when they come back, since most of them are notes that I have brought up, if the Planning Commission is comfortable with that in lieu of a consent hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm very comfortable with it. I certainly don't want to get this back again and go over what I would call editing errors. And I defer to you to get with staff and make sure it's corrected before it goes to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then as long as you're happy with that, I'd suggest we Page 13 of 16 February 2, 2017 not -- when we get done with this hearing, we won't need a motion to have a consent hearing then. We'll just move it forward like we always do. MR. BELLIJWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only thing we need to do is vote on the language that has changed, not -- the other citation and such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to get staffs report and then public speakers. MR. REISCHL: And if I could just emphasize the speed that this needs to be done with. I'm already late for Level 2. 1 know that means nothing to you. But it's -- for the 2/28 meeting, it should be in the next step of reviewers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When should it be in? When do you need to submit this? MR. REISCHL: Should be in last Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To get to the date that we already tried to establish? MR. REISCHL: I mean, they're working with me, but I'm getting daily emails saying hurry up, you've got to get this done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, this stuff -- if the citations -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have that problem. I'll put it on the agenda. I just want it right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's do this. When I originally said, hey, can we make the 28th, that was already too late for me. So letting it slide another two weeks, hopefully it will stay on summary agenda and we won't be required to do another further continuance. So let's just get it right. Let it slide, assuming I'm just going to stay on summary agenda, unless somebody's going to come and object to this. Let's just get it right and let it slide instead of rushing, because we see what happened when we were rushed; people missed some things, and I don't want to come back up here again and have to deal with that, either here or at the Board. CHAflUVLV.•1 STRAIN: I'd rather not deal with this one again myself. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or any instance. I don't want to be up here because people rushed and missed things. MR. REISCHL: That would be March 14th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's up to the applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll still not do the consent. We'll still make sure it's right, and it will be scheduled for the 14th BCC meeting. Fred, do you have -- anybody have any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred, did you have any staff report? MR. REISCHL: Nothing further; no thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, this is -- this shouldn't have happened, these citations and all this stuff. The applicant had a responsibility, and so did you. I would hope that in the future we check all these references. It's not a good thing for this board to have to get into this kind of detail. MR. REISCHL: Correct. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know how it needs to be done, but this kind of stuff needs to be checked more thoroughly before it gets to this board. MR. REISCHL: I agree. It's last-minute changes that usually do us in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public here to speak? (No response.) CHAIRM,kN STRAIN: Any registered speakers? I think the answer's going to be no. MR. REISCHL: No, no registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve the PUD subject to the noted changes as discussed and that are a matter of record. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. Page 14 of 16 February 2, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business listed. There is no old business listed unless anybody has anything. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to ask for public comment first. Is there any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, there's a motion to adjourn made by Patrick. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. Page 15 of 16 February 2, 2017 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 16 of 16 February 16, 2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 16, 2017 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: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Patrick Dearborn EXCUSED ABSENCE: Joe Schmitt Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 29 February 16, 2017 PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If everybody will please take their seats. Welcome to the February 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Now that you've got your seats, please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt had a conflict today. He let me know about that, so his is an excused absence. he won't be here. That takes us to the addenda to the agenda. We have one item on today's agenda. It's a Comprehensive Plan amendment for transmittal only at this point. There are no other issues, no other changes to the agenda, which takes us to Planning Commission absences. For the first time in the years I've been on this panel, there's nothing scheduled for the month of March. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: For the whole month? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole month, the way it looks. Now, the only -- and I checked CityView and Report Manager this morning. The advertising deadline is, like, today. So if they don't -- I mean, unless something changes at 5 o'clock tonight that staff doesn't know about, we won't be meeting in March. If there's a change to that, staff will contact everybody. Definitely not March 2nd, but maybe the 16th. But I can't see that happening at this point. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a rarity. In the years I've been on this panel, we've never had a whole month that we haven't met. So I'm not sure what that's telling us as far as the local economy goes, but our -- Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, the Planning and Zoning Director. I think that's a statement to the effectiveness in the -- of the Hearing Examiner's Office, because that office has taken a number of petitions that could have been to the CCPC but haven't risen to the elevation of public concern and handled it more on a procedural basis. So I think it's the effectiveness of the decision that the Board of Count Commissioners made to provide for the Hearing Examiner's Office. COMMIS`' ONER HOMIAK: Whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's pretty nice of you, Mike. Thank you. Also, the next meeting, then, we would have would be April 6th. Does anybody know if they can't make the April 6th meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, at least we'll have a quorum. I can't remember if that was -- Mr. Schmitt, I think, was going to be absent also in March for at least one meeting. Well, it's not going to matter now, so as far as I know he'll be here for the 6th as well. That takes us to the approval of the minutes. We've had electronically distributed to us the January Page 2 of 29 February 16, 2017 19th minutes. Does anybody have any corrections, comments? If not, if there's any motion. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Are you prepared for any recap discussion this morning, or is that a Ray thing? MR. BOSI: No. At the February 14th Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board of County Commissioners considered the adoption of a moratorium for specific land uses, car washes, gas stations, self -storage facilities, and pawnshops along U.S. 41 within a specific geographic area. The Board did not adopt that moratorium but rather directed staff to go out and engage the public within a discussion as to what other land uses they would like to see promoted. And based upon the identification of those land uses, we're going to try to provide and identify maybe some incentives that would spur the market to provide those desirable land uses from a public perspective. And also they did adopt a moratorium or directed staff to bring back the advertising, bring back a moratorium for dispensaries for medical marijuana, and that was -- the thinking behind that was as the state sets up the structure from a statute point, the rule-making process allows staff to understand where the state's going and provide the local discretion as to how we feel that it's appropriate for those land uses to integrate within the built environment. So that was �t directive to impose a 12 -month moratorium for medical marijuana dispensary facilities, and those were the two land use items that the Board had taken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the medical marijuana, that one is -- I think there was a recommendation to bring the ordinance back to this board when it's drafted; is that right? MR. BOSI: Yes, and thank you, Chair. They -- the Board directed us to bring back the ordinance that would impose the 12 -month moratorium based upon the concern that a moratorium needs to be adopted in a manner similar to the way that we adopt amendments to our Land Development Code, So USDLPA would need to hear the proposed ordinance. And we're projecting that to be the 6th of April, the day we bring that back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if that ordinance is approved, then, wouldn't it then have to still be articulated in the LDC? So basically the Board would be establishing their policy by the ordinance, and wouldn't we still have to change the LDC, or is this going to -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. The process is going to be first you declare the moratorium, then you change the LDC. The Board was more comfortable if the moratorium process went through the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: So the actual moratorium decision will go through the Planning Commission before it goes to the Board. At that point in time it will come back to staff, staff will draft the appropriate proposals for LDC amendments, then it will go through the regular process for an LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. I just wanted to make sure that the LDC process was intact, because that's where the vetting from the stakeholders and people involved would get a more in-depth vetting that Page 3 of 29 February 16, 2017 way. Okay. Thank you, Mike. Chairman's report; I really don't have any. I've got something for consent, but I guess I'll discuss it under Chairman's report. Last meeting we had a very, let's say, a complicated set of corrections needed to the second reading of the Tollgate PUD. And instead of a consent, because they were all citation related, this panel was satisfied with me reviewing that. The applicant did submit something before it got to me. The County Attorney's Office found a series of problems with that submittal. So as of this date, I have not seen itso I can't report to you if it's been cleaned up yet. I expect that it will be soon. , We have -- Heidi's reviewing stuff as it comes in in that regard, so hopefully by our next meeting, which will now be April, I can tell you it got resolved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We haven't received a second review of the documents. that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll keep the panel informed to make sure everything gets done on ***And that takes us to our only advertised public hearing today, and it's Item PL-20150002167/CP2015-1. It's for the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict just west of 951 on Vanderbilt Beach Road. All those who wish to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and it's not a typical amendment that we see. Normally we see a majority of rezones, PUDs, things like that, so I'm going to ask staff in a minute to walk us through the process for review and what we're actually talking about today so that the other panel members who may experience this for the first time know what to focus on. Before we go there, we'll go with disclosures. We'll start with Stan or, I'm sorry, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Fred, and that's all. Nine hundred eighty-five pages. It's an impressive document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I wish we could do things electronically. We killed a lot of trees on that one. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: We did get it electronically; that's how I know it's 985 pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not all of us did. Diane? This is the tree killer right here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I like to touch the paper. No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had read the staff report and the 985 pages. I talked to staff. I met yesterday with the applicant; we talked about the issues that were raised and what were relevant to this meeting. Surprisingly, with the amount of pages we received in opposition, I've had no contact with any people opposing this other than what was in our packet, and that's something that hadn't occurred before. Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing. CHAIRMr'_ � STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move into the -- we'll start out with the -- I'd like Mike to explain to everybody in the room, as well as the members of this panel who may experience this for the first time what we're actually here to review today in comparison to what we're going to be reviewing the second or third time this comes through. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. Today what you have before you is a full-scale amendment to the Growth Management Plan. Within the regulatory structure of Collier County, the Growth Management Plan sets the goals, objectives, and policies for how any one individual project is to move forward, and then that creates the rational nexus for the Land Development Code regulations that dictate how the developments -- the specifics of how the development moves forward. Page 4 of 29 February 16, 2017 So this is an amendment to that Growth Management Plan. And this is unusual because normally the Growth Management Plans that you'll receive are small-scale amendments, and they only require one cycle of public hearings with the local planning commission or local LPA, which is the Collier Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners. This is a full-scale amendment because it encompasses more than 10 acres. And when you have a full-scale amendment, that requires two sets of hearings with the local planning advisory board, the Planning Commission, as well as the Board of County Commissioners. After this petition is heard by the Planning Commission, a recommendation is made to the Board of County Commission trs. The Board of County Commissioners transmits that recommendation -- their decision to the State Department of Economic Opportunity. The Department of Economic Opportunity will spend 30 to 90 days reviewing the contents of what's being transmitted in this amendment, will provide us an ORC Report, objections, recommendations, and comments, upon what we're suggesting. In the change of the legislation in 2011, they only comment upon state -significant resources. So an issue like this probably won't rise to that level. Once we get that ORC Report back, we will schedule adoption hearings with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. When you have a Growth Management Plan amendment like this that deals with a specific piece of property that is also encumbered by a PUD, it's at the adoption stage that the changes to the PUD that are reflected within what's being proposed at the Growth Management Plan amendment stage will be incorporated, and it's that PUD that provides for the opportunity for the compatibility review, the detail review that the Planning Commission is associated with and familiar with as to buffer, type of uses, distances, the heights, those type of things that are normally part of our discussion and deliberations. So it will be at the adoption stage that we're going to bring the companion PUD amendment forward. Now, we have spoke with the representatives from the Black Bear Ridge community, which a number of people are here. I think that we've explained a little bit of the separation of the process. They're aware of it, but today the evaluation from the Planning Commission's standpoint is, is there justification for the additional 50,000 square feet to be added to the subdistrict that governs the commercial allocation for this piece of property? That's the question that is the sole determination for this Growth Management Plan amendment. And you're provideddirection by Florida Statute 163 as to what those criterias are to make that evaluation. It's based upon the,%�Iisting square footage that's currently constructed but also square footage that's entitled "not yet constructed" within the market area for the proposed development. So that's the question that's going to be evaluated today, and at the adoption stage the specifics of compatibility in any one users will be the -- will be the expanded questions that will be for the PUD amendment. And that's a general overview of today's purpose and where we're going to be going in the future. And Corby mentioned, it's probably July/August when we'll be back to the Planning Commission at the adoption stage with that PUD amendment as a companion item to the GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for clarification, too, the NIM that was held, it looks like, based on -- I listened to the audio, and I also read the summary statements. The applicant combined the NIM for the PUD with the NIM for the GMP, which is allowed as long as they're within one year. And so a lot of issues in the NIM -- I saw the questions raised by the public -- those are going to be addressed really in the Planned Unit Development stage of this review; is that a fair statement? MR. BOSI: Correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what we'll do is move into, as we typically do -- did you have something you wanted to add, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's just that once you establish uses through the Growth Management Plan, it's kind of difficult at the PUD sense to say, well, no, you can't have them. So, I mean, to me, I understand the bifurcation we're doing here but understand that you're creating a box here that you're letting the developer play in, and it's going to be hard to squish that box down the road once you get the GMP done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's part of the reason there are some comments to today's application Page 5 of 29 February 16, 2017 that I'm going to suggest staff may want to clean up to avoid creating something in the GMP that normally isn't there. So we'll be talking about that. Thank you. Okay. With that I'll turn to the applicant for -- and, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't been to one of these meetings before, the applicant makes a presentation, then we ask for staff members to make a presentation, and based on the input that you have already provided on the record by your letters and by the NIM, some of the staff members are here just to address those issues just so you'll know where they're coming from. I heard statements on the NIM that may be better clarified by staff, so they're here today to help with that. After staff gets done, we then turn to public speakers. If you haven't registered to speak, that's the first group of speakers I'll ask for. But anybody that's here that wants to speak that was sworn in will be allowed -- well, certainly, we're here to listen to the public, so definitely you could be able to speak today. After you get done speaking, then the applicant will have a rebuttal period, short rebuttal period, then we'll go into a discussion on this panel and recommend something to the Board of County Commissioners. Bruce, it's your turn. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson. I'm with the Cheffy Passidomo law firm, and I'm here representing the applicant. With me today is George Vukobratovich from Welsh Companies; one of the applicants, Josh Fruth; Fred Hood from Dv--, idson Engineering; and our transportation engineer, Norm Trebilcock. The purpose of this Growth Management Plan amendment is twofold. One is to correct a scrivener's error in the original Growth Management Plan amendment for this property that occurred in 2003. When the acreage of this property was added, 150,000 square feet of commercial uses was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. But during the paperwork process, the county inadvertently left that out, the commercial square footage total, and everyone agreed that was an error, and the PUD was later approved including the 150,000 square feet. The second purpose of this Growth Management Plan amendment is to authorize an additional 50,000 square feet of commercial uses. I want to stress that no new land uses are being added to what was already approved. Now, there may be some confusion on that part because the amendment language as submitted adds a reference to just over 95,000 square feet of air-conditioned mini self -storage being allowed. That self -storage facility is already built. The staff made an interpretation which was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner at a duly advertised public hearing that self -storage use is a comparable use to other specifically listed uses in the PUD. The basis for this determination was that a self -storage use is a significantly less intensive use with lower traffic and utility impacts than other uses that are listed in the PUD for this property. Because this reference to the self -storage is not necessary, we are proposing to remove the sentence that refers to that in the amendment language. As staff told you, this is the first of two hearings that are required for this amendment. You will hear the other one -- you will hear it again in a few months. We do have some neighbors here this morning from Black Bear Ridge. This is the Black Bear Ridge community here (indicating) on the other side of this landscape buffer. We have met -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That buffer, that's a preserve, I thought. MR. ANDERSON: Preserve, yes. We have met with them three times. And while we have made some progress, there do remain some issues that we don't see eye to eye on. We are willing to continue our dialogue with them and hope to reach an agreement before you hear this again. Most of the things that we could agree on are the type of details that are normally in the PUD document rather than the Growth Management Plan. And you will hear the PUD when you hear this Growth Management Plan amendment again. They'll be heard at the same time. And you will note that the staff finds that there is a need for the additional commercial square footage in this area, and they are recommending approval. Just a sidenote, those of you who've been on the Planning Commission for a while might recognize that it's not often that the Comprehensive Planning staff finds that there is a need for additional commercial, Page 6 of 29 February 16, 2017 and we're pleased that they agree with our analysis. We respectfully request your concurrence and recommendation for approval. Thank you. That concludes my opening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are any members of your group going to speak at this time? MR. ANDERSON: With regard, if there are questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDI`RSON: They're all available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only things I want to caution you on, during the NIM meeting -- I did go through it in detail, and I did listen to the audio. There were things said at the NIM that are relevant to the Planned Unit Development application. You will need to make sure those are incorporated, because I pulled the draft PUD, and they're currently not incorporated as clearly as they were explained at the NIM; the connections between creating a road along the north, that wouldn't happen; the uses on the north versus uses to the south, the lighting on the building, sconces and shielded, and the issues about the deviations, the 20 -foot versus the 10 or 15. You already platted the property. They're platted with buffers already meeting the current LDC -- or PUD. So I would suggest you make sure your PUD has all that in it, and we can save a lot of, probably, concerns at the PUD level just to address at least what you told the public at the NIM. That would be the first thing. I did go through -- my questions on the GMP language, I know there's an issue that I believe I was talking to Corby about in regards to fast food versus coffee shops. For example, if they do a Starbucks or something else there, how is that differentiated? And some language has been -- I think Corby asked your people to get with him because of that issue and then clean it up, and they did produce some draft language today. I don't know if you've seen it yet. It's going to be put on the overhead during Corby's presentation. So that will be something I'd certainly look forward to the public weighing in on. Also, I know there's an issue with a cost-sharing agreement, and that is more of an LDC issue involving the roadsp lout I do have the transportation people here, so they're going to provide a discussion on that today relevant to the GMP, but also in that document there was a -- now, I know it's a document between -- it's not -- the county's not part of that document, but in that document there was a stipulation in there about a distance in which some uses weren't allowed from the west side of that property. So that would be something to take into consideration when you lay out your PUD and you define where your uses are going. I'm saying all this ahead of time. Normally we don't even talk about this at a GMP level, but I want the residents here to know that those items that you brought up are not ignored. They will be addressed, but they have to be addressed with the proper document. And I'm just making the record as clear as possible to the applicant that we fully intend -- and this board will uphold them to everything that's on the record. So with that, I'll make sure I don't have any other issues right now from the document reading that I did. And -- no, I'm fine. I understand. I've got -- we'll hear the rest of it through the staff presentation and the public. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby -- MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you're up. Thank you, Bruce. It's your turn, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. For the record, Corby Schmidt, Principal_ Planner with the Comprehensive Planning section. And you're in your description, Mr. Chairman, that a number of the issues that were talked about at the neighborhood information meeting are more specific to compatibility or consistency with LDC Page 7 of 29 February 16, 2017 regulations and would be addressed or will be addressed in the PUD document at that time. Some of those issues or concerns that came up during the neighborhood information meeting regarding traffic, lighting, screening, the wall along the north edge of the property, issues that neighbors had with noise produced by the businesses and the traffic, those are issues for the PUD. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, looking at the language that was proposed by the applicant and the rewrite or the recommendation from staff, the order of the subdistrict provisions has changed, and only a few other changes take place: There's clarification over the acreage of the property; the configuration or the size of the property has changed in the recent past; and the property itself and the uses were, at the NIM, proposed for significant change. But since that NIM was held, almost the entire application, or the substance of it, was revised. And so the prohibited uses that are not allowed on the property that, at the NIM, the applicant wanted to add back in and allow on the property aren't there, and a number of other things like that that have changed to whittle down to what's before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that all that you have, Corby? Could you put the -- could you walk us through the changes that you handed out this morning? MR. SCHMIDT: I can. CHAH04'1N STRAIN: Put them on the overhead so everybody in the audience can see them. MR. SCHMIDT: This is one of those petitions that has been going on for quite some time. And the NIM was held, and since that NIM there was a reapplication. There were meetings with the Black Bear Ridge people that were not formal NfMs. There were staff and applicant -- or at least one meeting with the applicants to clarify what that second or that follow-up application would be like. And at that time those prohibited uses that might have been added back in to be allowed in the development were discussed, and those uses included tire stores, convenience stores. And our key use here today to focus on is fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes. It's not a common phrase we see, but regarding this specific Planned Unit Development and this subdistrict language, that's the phrasing or the terminology we have been presented with. And for the LDC to be used with its use of SIC codes, that phrase or that terminology used doesn't fit exactly. So an interpretation needed to be made, and that was recommended to the agent at one of those meetings with staff. And the key concern was at the time, if you have some uses in mind for the property be sure they're not considered to be fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes. And you can talk about fast food restaurants, and I think if I polled the planning commissioners, you each might have a different answer as to what you'd consider them to be. And as generally as we could speak, we thought, well, any restaurant that has a drive-through might be considered fast food. It could be that generalized when you just think of the ones you know. But that didn't turn out to be the case. Staff discussed this further, and with one of the specific uses that is proposed for this property, being a coffee shop, the way the SIC codes work and the LDC is structured, even a coffee shop might be considered a fast food restaurant. So what yq.0 see on the overhead today, if there is to be a coffee shop on this property, the parenthetical wording you see highlighted on the screen in front of you would be added to the Comp Plan or to the provisions of the subdistrict to allow that to take place in the PUD document and then to be developed on the property. MS. ASHTON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not working, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you need to clarify for the Planning Commission that the language in yellow is existing text except for the parenthetical that Corby added which states "except coffee shops only." And I think that even that language "except coffee shops only" lacks clarity as to what could go in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the double underline portion of the yellow text is what's being suggested for adding. And if it needs further clarity, then we'll have to either see if we've got to do at this stage, or we can leave that for discussion at the PUD stage. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. This was simply put together quickly so you got an idea what needs to take Page 8 of 29 February 16, 2017 place. And you're correct in your clarification. Just the parenthetical was added since you received your packets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as the language that's here, there's two, I guess, significant issues. One is an increase in square footage, and the other is possibly this added parenthetical. The fact that they're in the GMP, does that mean that if they're requested in the PUD, the applicant automatically gets them? MR. SCHIVIIDT: Not as I understand the way we work -- MR. KLATZKOW: Therein lies the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. MR. KLATZKOW: Therein lies the problem with these small-scale amendments, all right, because once you're authorizing all these uses, it gets much harder during the PUD process to say, well, we know we authorized you for this, but now you can't have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the basis for the denial at a PUD level can be issues for incompatibility or inconsistency with the LDC. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. What I'm telling you is that you're creating, again, a box for the developer to develop his property in. It's much harder after you've created that box to say, okay, but we're going to take this out, and we're going to take that out rather than when you do it holistically doing the PUD at the same time as your final GMP amendment. They should be -- the two should be consistent with each other. You're giving somebody the right in the GMP to do something, and then you're saying, well, we're going to take it away from you in the PUD process. There's no need to have that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're starting out, though, with language already in the GMP that is probably more detailed than could have been handled in the PUD, which is the prohibitions. Those prohibitions could have been just simply not allowed in the PUD and dealt with at that level. The fact that it's here and it could be interpreted broader than may need to be, I think, is the issue. Is that -- that sounds like what you're saying is that these can -- but it works a box both ways. It can work as a box to be ,Ilowed or as a box to be prohibited. And I think we're trying to -- MR. KLA'i ZKOW: I'm just saying I would prefer an approach where the PUD and the GMP -- since this is a small-scale amendment type of thing -- I know the acreage is more than that, but it's really a small-scale amendment, you know, and this amendment's for the purpose of developing a single piece of property -- that the two are completely tied together at the same time so that there's no discrepancy between one and the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• I know what Jeffs saying, but just because a use is allowed in a GMP doesn't mean that you get it in a PUD, right? But in this case -- MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that in the normal process, yes. In the normal process you have a GMP for the whole county, all right, and then somebody's rezoning property, and you're going through the PUD. This type of Comprehensive Plan amendment is really more akin to a PUD than anything else. It's just required that they go through this, all right, so that what I'm saying is that -- do them both together so there's no discrepancy between the two. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what happens with the adoption and the rezone at the next stage. This is transmittal. The problem we've got is the cat's been almost let out of the bag by the existing language that does have specific uses prohibited. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Well, they're coming in here for an amendment, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're coming in for a PUD amendment, and they're coming in for adoption at the same time. That would bring them to -- both of them together simultaneously, and that was the review that I think we'd be looking at to solve as many issues of this kind as we possibly can. This transri*ttal just is required to get us there. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I understand what you're saying. I understand. At the end of the day, the two should be substantially identical. Page 9 of 29 February 16, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that will be addressed when they come in as companion items. I reviewed the PUD. The draft language so far doesn't match up to the NIM nor to everything here, but the -- I would assume that alter this meeting -- or not assume. It would have to be, because everything's on record. By the time we get to the last two items, which would be the combination of a rezone and the adoption, all these things will be worked out and meshed up together like Jeffs asking for. MR. SCHMIDT: And that's correct, Mr. Chairman. It is the reason that statute allows us to talk about both processes today and then prepare for those formal changes in the PUD document when we're back in front of you for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan change. They will mesh together, and they will be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll do our best to get there. Does anybody else have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I have two more. And I looked and tracked the history of this scrivener's error. And the sentence that had the 200,000 in it originally was never struck through as being omitted; it just was never included when we retyped it up, apparently, and got into the GMP. And when it got added, the strikethroiigh to increase the 200- to 350- wasn't included in the re -ad. So I don't know how all that occurred. It looked like it was 2007/2008 that some of that may have transpired. But now that we've rewrote it more clearly, I'd like to make sure the second sentence addressing the square footage is clear. It says, development intensity for the existing area of this -- it says, the existing area of this subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. You really mean that applies to the Mission Hills PUD, right? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we -- so that the existing area of this subdistrict doesn't get confused between the Vanderbilt Commons PUD and the Mission Hills PUD, that after the word "subdistrict" we can put a parenthetical of Mission Hills PUD so we know that 200,000 is allocated to that PUD, and this new 50,000 is going to be or could be added to the Vanderbilt Commons PUD. MR. SCHMIDT: That would add some additional clarity, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the second sentence in the following paragraph, which refers to the self -storage facilities, there's no need to have that in the GMP; in fact, we try to avoid that specificity. It's better dealt with in the rezoning document. If it needs to be added at all, that's where it should go. Do you have any objection to dropping that sentence? MR. SCHMIDT: No. In fact, in my handwritten version over at the desk, I've already struck through it based on what the attorney has spoken about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us through my questions of you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question, Mark, and I believe it's -- maybe when you spoke I might have misun;erstood. The 150,000 feet (sic) was in here for this particular piece of property. I think you mentioned 200,000 that was supposed to be in here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The original GMP amendments -- Heidi? She wants to explain. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We did some research on this, and when this was adopted in the beginning, it authorized 200,000 square feet for the Mission Hills property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And then it was expanded to include the subject parcel. And in the process of amendments, the original text of the 200,000 for Mission Hills was dropped out. And when it was added back in, it added 200,000 square feet, although the applicant at the time had requested an additional 150,000 square feet, bringing the total to 350,000 square feet. It gets complicated because we could not confirm that the Board understood when the GMP amendment went through that they were approving 350-. It was unclear, although that's what the applicant had requested. Page 10 of 29 February 16, 2017 So that's why -- but I don't know how you want to do this because the PUD was approved with 150,000 square feet. So this amendment here will reconcile that and then ask for an additional 50,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISJIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Was this all in that 2007/2008 time frame when everything was kind of coming to a hault and all that -- projects up there were kind of -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that the changes occurred between 2004 and 2008 where the 200,000 was dropped off. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went and looked at the 2008 GMP and the 200,000 reappeared, and there were five ordinances prior to that date that it reappeared. And I can't tell by reading those which -- how they -- how that reappeared. So it looks like someone caught it during a rewrite, maybe cleaned it up through an EAR application, something -- some process, and it reappeared. It wasn't ever struck, so it just didn't get included back in. So that's what happened. And when it did get included back in, it was never reconciled to the application for the 150- that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So, anyway, that's the history as I understand it. Anybody else have any questions of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Corby. And while we're on staff report, I have asked transportation staff to be here in their collective group as a -- to discuss the roads, because I know in the NIM -- and I know a lot of you have been concerned about the road system, and there's that cost-sharing agreement. All that's kind of unique. I've not seen it done that way necessarily in the county. Usually it's with the developers. So it looks like you may have inherited it. I'm not sure all the terms of the agreement. But I've as'.<pd the transportation staff to take a look at it and at least explain the road routing, the system, what's going to happen to the median at the most eastern roadway and the Pristine Drive light. So if someone from Transportation could come up and attempt to explain that multi road area... MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning Principal Planner. I'm going to try and explain, at least on our review of the GMP amendment that's before us today, how we went about that and the criteria that we actually used to do that based on the TIS that was actually provided for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's relevant to the part here today. But just so --the public is here who -- and the NIM was very clear. They have a lot of concerns about the road, the cost-sharing agreement, all of that. Well, the county required the cost-sharing agreement by language in the PUD or required the traffic to be addressed. So I would like to hear your -- how that road system is to eventually change in the future. For example, I believe it's a directional left -in off of Vanderbilt onto, I think it's Buckstone to the east. Pristine's going to have a light, and I'm not sure what the other roads are going to have, Wolfe Road and the rest of it. But if you could just tell us so the community understands how that road system's supposed to come together. I mean, since it was such a highlighted part of the NIM and the letters that we received, I'd appreciate it if you can. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. And we've got other staff members here that will talk both -- about both of those subjects as well as what I'm going to do, just to let you know. So we've got additional staff members here that will go through those issues. Basically what I wanted to do first was just basically just talk about the GMP amendment itself principally at this pint. Basically, this is our presentation on the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard subdistrict GMP amendment. Okay. Basically, what we do when we're looking at both a GMP amendment as well as a PUD Page 11 of 29 February 16, 2017 amendment is we're looking for consistency with the GMP itself, which means that we're looking to see if the surrounding road segments have capacity to accommodate what is being proposed within the next five-year window. We also certainly -- when we get down to the actual SDP or platting stage, that's when we actually look at concurrency. That's when we actually start putting trips on the system. Right now what we're talking about is just consistency. In other words, is there capacity in the next five years? The TIS that we reviewed indicates, you know, the uses that are being proposed, and in this case, because of the uses that are being proposed and the square footages associated with that, we actually are finding that there is actually a 20 -trip reduction in the p.m. peak. That's what we look at. P.M. peak is the real key that we look for when we're evaluating traffic. These are the surrounding road segments. We've got Vanderbilt Beach basically from Logan to Collier Boulevard, we've got Collier Boulevard itself from Vanderbilt Beach to Immokalee, then Collier Boulevard, Vanderbilt Beach to Golden Gate. As you can see, basically we've got either a C or a B level of service on those three segments. Capacities are at 3,000 as far as the 2016 AUIR numbers -- you can see what those numbers are -- and then the remaining capacity onto each of those three segments. As has been.pointed out, the PUD amendment itself is also something that currently staff' is reviewing. The applicant has comments. They will be responding to those comments, and we'll be putting in additional developer commitments with those. The SDP or the PPL, as I've already stated, is when we actually look at concurrency. That's when the actual trips being proposed are going to be put actually on the system. In other words, that's when we actually do the concurrency portion of it. That's basically how we looked at this. We did find that the petition is consistent. We do have capacity on the road segment. I think Trinity has additional information that she can provide you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question about your TIS. This is actually requesting an increase in square footage. What of the square footage caused the reduction in the trips? Because they're not -- they're adding -- they're not changing uses. The uses are remaining the same. MR. SAWYER: Correct. Principally where that came from was the 95,000 square feet of storage, personal storage that they're proposing. That, in and of itself, has a very low trip generator. They are actually taking out both retail and office space, which are higher generators. So when you look at that whole mix, yes, they're adding additional square footage, but the square footage that's actually going towards the storage use actually brings the number down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that probably coincides with the required parking for that storage facility was six spaces; whereas, if it had been office, it would have been 318 spaces, a large parking lot with -- parking with lights. So from that perspective, I think your intensity reduction makes sense, so... MR. SAWYER: That's a very good way of looking at it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else of Mike? (No responaz.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity? MS. SCOTT: Thank you. For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager. Many years ago, before any of the PUDs in this area were built, several of the developers came in in a very short time frame. And the folks who were in these positions prior to me, Mr. Nick Casalanguida, Mr. Don Scott -- and I know Mr. Klatzkow was very involved with the PUDs, involved in this area to establish a roadway network that would allow the residential to have direct access to the commercial without having to get to the arterial roadway network. So what you have on your screen here is, in red, this is Wolfe Road. Can you see my cursor there? And then it turns around and it becomes Pristine. The area in the bold red has been turned over to the county for maintenance. The section of Pristine from Cubs Way down to Vanderbilt Beach Road has not to date but is anticipated to -- in the near future to be turned over as county maintenance. There is an existing traffic signal on Wolfe Road which -- I have had Chad Sweet in the back from Traffic Operations. He'll give me the hook if I say something wrong -- I do not believe is fully operational at Page 12 of 29 February 16, 2017 this point. I believe it is utilized by the fire station for emergency access. And when this was planned, all of the PUDs have some language, not all of it is consistent, but the PUDs have language that states that their fair share for this traffic signal would be required when it met warrants. It is anticipated that it will meet warrants at some point. This is the Carolina Village area. This is anticipated to have a roadway connection from Pristine over to Buckstone. This area in here is an undeveloped Planned Unit Development which is Sonoma Oaks. In their existing Planned Unit Development, it also calls for a right-of-way reservation to have a roadway that would connect in this area over to Mission Hills Drive. The county is currently looking at all full median openings on six -lane roadways. Our major concern is a safety concern of the left -out situation. So in this particular area at Buckstone right now, someone can come to this area, and they can make a left out. And what we find on these arterial roadways is they make the left out and they sit in the median, and they have several folks who will stack up in the median which impedes the sight distance and also impedes the folks from Vanderbilt Beach Road who are trying to make the left into the development as well. So we are assessing all of these countywide. I believe we have 22 or 23 countywide, and so we're looking at them on a case-by-case basis. So the county would like to, in the future, in coordination with perhaps some U-turn opportunity and perhaps with a traffic signal at this location, would be to eliminate the left -out from Buckstone. They would still continue to have a right -in, a right -out, and most likely a left -in as well. So we would just like to look at eliminating that. So the folks who would typically make a left coming out of Buckstone would be able to take this connector road to get out of this signal or, if they were continuing south on Collier Boulevard, could go within the Mission Hills shopping center at any of the existing openings and be able to go south on Collier Boulevard with a right. CHAIR4t � STRAIN: Okay. That helps. I know that Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard intersection is a nightmare around 5 o'clock in the afternoon. MS. SCOTT: As are most in the county, particularly right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your comment about the left turns out are a problem. The people are stacked up there waiting to get a break in the stacking of the left lane onto Vanderbilt, so hopefully that will help things. Anybody have any questions of Trinity? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. I love transportation. I want to thank Mark, first of all, for putting in the self -storage, for reducing the traffic there, because you are right, this is not going to get better. I'm a Logan person, live on Logan, and where -- when this Vanderbilt Beach Road will go past Collier Boulevard is going to be very heavily used because at this point a lot of the people turn north on Logan to get on Immokalee Road and then turn eastbound to go that way. Traffic -- I can tell you it's Livingston Road. If you go Livingston Road just to get on Vanderbilt Beach Road, they're backed up as far as First Baptist Church on Livingston. And I'm going -- I mean, so I know what this is going to be like, so -- and there is so much commercial within this area already, and you are so close also to the activity center on Immokalee and 951. So, yes, transportation is very important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, thank you. MS. SCOTT: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that will rest for now. And with tout, Mike, what we are going to do is go into public speakers. We do take a break at 10:30 so the young lady here typing away trying to type as fast as everybody talks can give her fingers a break. So we'll proceed with public speakers until then, and we'll start with the registered public speakers. If you had not stood and had been sworn in when we asked earlier, please let us know when you come up to the podium. Mike, call the first -- and either podium can be used by the speakers. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Page 13 of 29 February 16, 2017 The first public speaker is Terrie Abrams, followed by Beverly Smith. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you register to speak? MR. BRACCI: I did, Mr. Strain. I'm Steve Bracci. I'm the attorney on behalf of Terrie and the association, so I think it's appropriate for me to kind of tee it up and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. We'll decide what's appropriate. I just need to understand what the relationship is. And, Steve, you know me. I try to make sure everything -- all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted. I notice the lady that deferred to you -- and does she still intend to speak? MR. BRACCI: She does still intend to speak. I did try to speak with Mr. Klatzkow before the meeting about the order of speaking and was -- and I said I'd like to speak as their attorney beforehand. They said that's fine. Just submit your card, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you should check with myself. I mean, Mr. Klatzkow is our attorney, but we decide the order of speakers. We have no problem with you speaking first. I just would have like to have known it ahem?+of time. We would have accommodated it right from the get -go. So go ahead and we'll go to the speaker that was announced second after. MR. BOSI: And just, Chair, I have not received -- and maybe Mr. Bracci submitted it to a different individual. I don't have a speaker slip for Steve. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: That's okay. We'll -- I know who he is, so... Steve, go ahead, and we'll be glad to hear you. MR. BRACCI: I believe I did submit one, so I'm not sure what happened there. Thank you. For the record, my name is Steve Bracci, and I represent Black Bear Ridge Property Owners Association, which is the 100 -unit residential subdivision situated immediately north of the subject property sharing a boundary along the entire common east/west property line. It was pointed out earlier. You can see it on the overhead. It's the community just north of the property. While today's meeting is technically framed in terms of the need for an additional 50,000 square feet of additional commercial intensity within the region of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, the genesis of this meeting is really the decision by the developer a couple years ago to allocate 96,000 square feet of its allowed 150,000 square feet of commercial intensity to a single miniwarehouse facility at the northwest corner of the subject property which is currently under construction. While I believe Black Bear Ridge is willing to ultimately support the additional 50,000 square feet, it is Black Bear's contention that the developer, by its own volition, decided to allocate such a large amount of their intensity to a small amount of their property area, and it actually did so in contravention of the letter and the spirit of the 2004 cost-sharing agreement to which Black Bear and the developer, Vanderbilt Commons, are both parties. This cost-sharing agreement has been brought up a couple times already this morning. That cost-sharing agreement specifically provided that the subject property may be rezoned and developed for, quote, specialty retail and office land uses. We understand that there was a hearing and that there was an ultimate determination by the county a couple years back that there was a comparable/compatible analysis which allowed for the construction of that facility. But I think, by any stretch, I don't think anyone would argue that it is specialty retail and office land uses. In fact, earlier I believe it was either Mr. Strain or one of staff members that actually said that it took out -- the miniwarehouse took out the retail and office components. So there was an acknowledgment this morning already that miniwarehouse is not specialty retail or office. So what are we left with? We are here today with a private cost-sharing agreement which was acknowledged this morning as having been initially a requirement of the county which didn't allow for such use. And so we are now here today with a developer coming in and saying essentially we have, you know, most of our acreage left, and we need more intensity. And this area is talking now -- the framing, again, of this issue here today is whether the county also needs that intensity. But as has been acknowledged by Mr. Klatzkow and others, you know, there's an inherent link between this discussion today and whether there's going to be an ultimate transmittal to the state leading the developer down the garden path of cost and everything else and whether or not they're ultimately going to get their 50,000 square feet, and also, then, what the connection is with the PUD uses that would be allowed at a future date. It's encouraging to hear Mr. Strain reference the NIM meeting and those concerns that the residents Page 14 of 29 February 16, 2017 had, and hopefully that will continue forward as part of the PUD process at a later date. But my clients are here basically today to try to salvage the spirit and intent of the cost-sharing agreement and to propose forward that certain uses be addressed either now or at the PUD process, and they would like for those to be heard by the Planning Commission and to give extra attention to those in light of the fact that there is a private agreement between these folks which has not been honored to date. It seems that the county may be selectively choosing to honor the cost-sharing agreement where on one hand they're talking about necessity of it with respect to cost sharing on traffic improvements at Vanderbilt Beach -- or at Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road, and yet there was no honoring of it with respect to the miniwarehouse usage in the past. So my clients have legitimate concerns about the cost-sharing agreement. There's concerns about the warrant issue on the cost sharing and whether -- whether the warrant should really have been closed out by now because, as acknowledged by Ms. Ebert, the traffic here is really resulting from the expansion of the county, not by virtue of this particular area, this subset of the county, which is essentially -- which was essentially done back in 2004, and now we sit in 2017 and we're saying, hey, you've got to now pay for this traffic signal. I mean, what's driving the need for a traffic signal there is the eastern expansion of Collier County and the failure of Immokalee Road, the recirculation of traffic from Immokalee cutting south down Collier Boulevard to get west on Vanderbilt Beach Road because Immokalee Road has failed. It does not seem appropriate that these folks should bear the inordinate burden; that should really be shared by the county in its entirety. So I do think that, Mr. Strain, we should, as a county and as a Planning Commission -- and this is a difficult issue, and it's not one that everyone really fully understands, and I would admit that 1, myself, don't fully understand it. But what triggers the warrant? You know, is the warrant triggered by these folks themselves, or is th' warrant triggered by the expansion of the county themselves? And what is the appropriate allocation in that instance? So my folks, the Black Bear Ridge folks, want to speak to that today. And, again, my clients do want to ultimately get behind this project. They want to see a good quality project be developed there. But one issue that has really become a hot button is this issue of the coffee shop, and I'm not really sure why staff has chosen this morning to hand to us a change -- a proposed change in the GMP language to except out the coffee shop. Because the discussions that have been had between the parties, the developer and Black Bear, and also between Black Bear and staff this week, has been whether or not a coffee shop fits within the definition of a fast food drive through under the Land Development Code, and there was sort of an acknowledgment that, well, the code speaks for itself. So I'm not really sure why staff has taken it upon itself to essentially advocate this position on behalf of the developer to insert this language into the GMP when the applicant's attorney, Mr. Anderson, this morning basically said, look, we're willing to take that out and deal with it at the PUD point in time. I don't know why staff has taken it upon itself to add this into the GMP when it seems that everyone's in acknowledgment that it shouldn't be in there at all. So I think that it's -- I'm hearing, I think, the direction would be that that GMP language with respect to those uses should come out all together and be addressed at a later point in time, but I just would like to get some clarification; my client would like some clarification on that point as well. And then just a final point would be that, as Mr. Anderson has acknowledged earlier, there have been discussions between the Black Bear Ridge folks and the developer. We do hope to continue those discussions and hopefully at some point in time throughout this process we can reach some consensus above and beyond what might be discussed here today and at the subsequent County Commission meeting. Thank yore CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, before you walk away, a couple of things I want to make sure either I understand or I can help explain. The county wasn't part of the cost-sharing agreement from what I can tell. Was that your understanding as well? We didn't sign on that. MR. BRACCI: No, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The cost-sharing agreement seems to be based on acreage. Page 15 of 29 February 16, 2017 MR. BRACCI: That is correct as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the crux of the error, and we didn't participate in that. Had a document like that come forward, most of the county planners and us, if we had gotten to review it before it was finalized, I can't imagine we wouldn't have looked at intensity or density as a basis for cost sharing far above acreage, because the zoning for Black Bear Ridge has more units available to it. If they don't build out to that, it seems questionable on how you apply a cost share based on a lower density when it's configured on a per -acre basis. And the same goes for a commercial parcel that does increase its intensity, like could happen here. And, actually, your argument for increasing intensity on this by 50,000 square feet is -- might be a little difficult to address because they're actually reducing the intensity by the square footage that they used. But regardless, your cost-sharing agreement, not having a part of the county, not having the county participating in it, I think, has inherent problems with it, and I'm not sure the best resolution of that. I certainly will look to Mr. Klatzkow if you could opine on what bearing that agreement should be on the zoning efforts coming through for this board either at the GMP or LDC level. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I walked over earlier in this meeting to Trinity and said, you need to wrap this up before this concludes. I know where this is heading, and it's going to be a train wreck. We need to get this entire issue as far as who's going to pay for the light resolved as part of this process, in my opinion. I don't think it's fair that ultimately the homeowners have to kick in on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in the PUD -- we have a detailed transportation section of the PUD, and the applicant is coming forward proposing to strike quite a bit of that and rewrite it. And I would turn to Mike or -- because Mike is the overall zoning. I know Corby's strictly Comprehensive Planning. But, Mike, the arrangements for how these roads are to be taken -- handled in regards to payment and responsibility, is that something that can be addressed in that transportation section of the PUD, assuming that either the applicant and the opposition parties get together and work it out on their own, or can that be something that can be dictated to be included in the PUD? MR. BOSI: Well, the legality of that, I may turn to a little advice from the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out how to find a solution, Jeff, outside of a document we don't have any power -- authority over. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The current PUD does make reference to a shared agreement, but when this comes through as the PUD amendment, we can strike that language and it can be addressed through a prop share arrangement like we typically do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in order for this to come through at the PUD level when the applicant wants to actually come in and get the uses squared away and the additional square footage added, we will have an opportunity to address the issue and hopefully clean up the sharing agreement you currently have that's not part of our basis? MR. BRACCI: One complication there is that the -- Black Bear is in the Wolf Creek PUD. This is in a separate PUD, I believe. So somehow we'd have to link these PUDs in some kind of process before the County Commission in order to accomplish that. I think that there may be -- you know, if everyone's willing, we could accomplish that, but I don't think it's as easy here as just addressing it in this one, because it -- the cost-sharing agreement spreads over multiple PUDs. MR. KLATZKOW: When this first started years ago -- my memory is a little dim, because this is years ago that we started developing this area; Mission Hills, Black Bear. The representations the developers were making as to who was going to do what and what was going to develop isn't quite the way it's developing. I'm not saying -- there weren't any misrepresentations made. It's just that, you know, as time goes on needs change, market changes, whatever, so that I think it's appropriate that we take a look at what we did and why and now how we're going to fix it, all right, because what's going on here is not the way it was supposed to develop entirely. It's changed a bit. That's fine. The county's changed a lot, too. But as long as we're changing it, okay, then there's no reason why we can't go back to the beginning and say okay, this was predicated on that, that's not happening, we're going to change this. And it may be for Page 16 of 29 February 16, 2017 several items that we look into this and say, you know what? We need to fix this now before this is completed, this thing. Because there was a reason we had this loop here with Wolfe Road going straight down to VBR, all right. We put that in as a bypass years ago, all right, because we new Immokalee Road was going to get heavily trafficked, and at the end of the day, we knew people were going to take a left on Immokalee down here, get down to VBR, and then get into town. This is not by accident, this entire loop. We also knew that VBR eventually was going to get expanded to the east, and the shopping center here is going to get more and more dense. But this little shopping center in front of Black Bear, this was supposed to be just, like, personal uses for the residential use, some restaurants, hair cutting place, that sort of thing. That's what was explained to us with the way this was going to develop. It was going to be a neighborhood little place. It's not quite developing like that, because the county's not quite developing like that. All right. So it's appropriate that staff goes back to the beginning as to why we're doing it this way, what representations were made, okay, and then, perhaps, in this process try to clean up what we can so that the area can develop hopefully in a better way rather than a piecemeal process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think -- go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Jeff, may I ask you a question. Originally, how many developers -- or, I mean, how many people are supposed to be in on this cost-sharing agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: It was an odd arrangement at the time because it was multiple developers who came in on this. Usually you just get the one developer with the cost share. Here there are multiple developers. MR. BRACCI: I do have some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I want a -- I think I know a path to get this resolved. Corby or Mike, a transmittal goes to the state after the Board gets an ORC report and comes back; we do adoption. Even if there's no objections from the state, even if the Board on a three -- I think it's a simple majority vote -- approve it for a transmittal, we have the absolute right to deny it at adoption; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The whole process that you're here for today and the idea for getting this PUD changed, or a PUDA, affords the community an opportunity they would not have had if the developer didn't come forward and do this. So by letting this transmittal move forward we can get three or four more months of item in which you and the developer can hopefully get together, the transportation staff could come up with a better solution to the road system out there, and that the next time when it comes back for adoption, we can make sure these things are resolved as they should have been probably from the time it started. Now, this is an opportunity that arose because of this request. Had the request not come up, it would have been a civil matter probably for you guys to have to handle on your own. So I think, regardless of any issues of compatibility, to get this past transmittal to get to the next phase would give us the opportunity to really get into this and maybe find a resolution, Steve, and I ask for your conversation of that as far as -- MR. BRACCI: Obviously, I have to defer to my clients, who I haven't spoken to. But just in terms of the concept, I mean, the transmittal itself, I don't think there would be an issue other than, as we all know, typically the transmittal is the precursor to what happens at zoning, you know. And, again, the 50,000 square feet in and of itself isn't as much as the issue as how it's going to operate, you know. And it gets back to Mr. Klatzkow's point a moment ago about how -- what the original intent of this was was sort of a blend. It was going to be residential over retail. You know, it was going to be a little bit of a streetscape type of thing. And as Mr. Klatzkow mentioned, the character of this particular project's changed; the character of the county has changed. And if we're going to revisit these -- you know, a lot of the -- you know, if we're going to acknowledge the transmittal going forward, it's with the understanding that these things should be revisited like we're talking about, maybe with more particularity than what might otherwise be at a PUD hearing that follows the transmittal on the GMP to the state. Page 17 of 29 February 16, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the discussion we just had, it's not going to go forward without further discussion and clarification. So, I mean, that's going to happen at the next time around, and the best way for it to happen is for all the parties to get together, including our Transportation Department, and come up with a better solution. If they can't, this board will take a look at it, provide the best recommendation we can to the Board of County Commissioners, then they would have the ultimate authority on it. MR. BRACCI: Then the only other two things I'd like to add -- then the corollary to that, I think, would be that, as has been suggested here today, that that language on uses does come out of the GMP transmittal language. It seems to me that there's sort of a direction in the room that that might be happening. But the other thing, too, is -- what was the other thing? My mind is escaping me on that. Oh, that I guess we would have to work with staff and the County Attorney and I guess ourselves to come up with a process whereby if there's some link between multiple PUDs as it relates to that cost-sharing agreement, we somehow get that -- everyone before the Board at the same time so that we can address it globally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll let Transportation initiate the parties that should be involved in this based on the agreements that are out there. I haven't had time to look at all the surrounding PUDs that might be affected by this, but that's something that can be clarified as we get more time to deal with this. Your comment about removing the references to the specific uses, honestly, we don't normally put uses in the GMP. That's a zoning matter. We look at ranges of uses like office and retail or whatever. The reference to the self -storage facility shouldn't be in the GMP. That's typically what we don't do. That was a request of the applicant that has now been -- or the applicant's not necessarily caring about it at this point. The other uses that are there really are to the benefit of your neighborhood. I think you'd want to keep those. Those other ones are prohibitions. Now, that strengthens your argument you can't have these; however, because they're there, I don't mind deferring those -- taking those out and deferring those all to a discussion of the PUD if that's what you're -- if that's what you're leaning towards. But, you know, you're having it one way and not the other. I don't want to -- I kind of want to keep it fair. MR. BRACCI: Well, to your point, that's fine, other than -- well, I mean -- and we can talk about that, too. But the -- one of them's a double negative. So the prohibition -- the exception to a prohibition is an affirmation, right? So on the coffee shop issue, which is a hot -button issue -- because it's saying -- I don't have -- it's not on the board anymOT-1, but it essentially says, these uses are not -- you know, the fast food, except for a coffee shop, which essentially becomes an affirmation of a coffee shop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's saying it's not prohibited. It doesn't say it's allowed. It just says it's not prohibited. You're only listing prohibited uses there, which is a rarity in itself. And your idea of striking all of them, that's fine, but then it just provides more of -- we are going to have to look at it harder at the PUD level to make sure it's covered appropriately. MR. BRACCI: I think we'd be okay with a global strike of all of that language, including the prohibitions as well because, like you say, we could take it up at the PUD level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a better way to approach it. I'll ask the applicant's opinion when we get up to rebuttal. Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BRACCL• Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we'll ask for speakers. As registered speakers are called, we'll come up to the podium. We're going to take a break at 10:30 for 15 minutes. So go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Terrie Abrams, followed by Beverly Smith. MS. ABRAMS: Hello. I'm Terrie Abrams, 7213 Acorn Way. I don't understand all of this, and I will be the first one to admit it, but what I will tell you is I bought into this community knowing what this gentleman said, that the intent was for that area at Vanderbilt to be Page 18 of 29 February 16, 2017 something that would support our community that would be compatible with our community, and we have no issue with that. We have no issue with the development of it as long as it supports and enhances our lifestyle. It appears to be going the other way, and so we can take that up at a later date. I think -- I will say something about the coffee shop. I think we all know that we have an intense traffic issue. It is a fast food restaurant that does service food, and by the Collier County code, it is clearly defined as a fast food drive-through. It will only intensify traffic issues. It will only make it more dangerous. And if that area's supposed to be compatible with the community and be pedestrian friendly, it will not. So thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSL• I'm sorry. Beverly Smith, followed by Mark Allen. MS. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Beverly Smith. I'm a resident at 7278 Acorn Way. I've been a resident there for three years; however, I've been frequenting Florida and Naples, Florida, since the early'70s, so I'm fully aware of the transition that's gone on in Collier County. First I want it known that myself and my fellow residents are not objecting to what the developer is planning with this community. We do not object to the development. We want it. We don't want to look at dirt anymore or weeds when we drive into our community. Our main concerns are the fact that with this extended use of square footage, that -- what is going to happen and the usage involved here, and that is our concern. We have a lot of traffic issues that I don't think are being addressed by the county. We see it every day. We have seen this traffic increase over the last three years unbelievably. The loop roads being used as a bypass for the 95 1 Nanderbilt traffic signal has increased dramatically. We have Vanderbilt Way now that is going to be opposite Buckstone Way, which is an entrance and an exit to Mission Hills shopping center; heavily used, an area right now that there have been major accidents, minor accidents, and a lot of near misses in that one T square, which will now be a complete intersection. We are also concerned, or I am presently concerned, with there is a property on the northeast corner, two parcels that are being quoted as future development. Are these future developed parcels going to be included in this amendment, be a part of this amendment, or are we going to be here 18 months from now with the same issue of wanting additional square footage or additional changes to the amendment to accommodate this future development? Originally the vision for this property was to be a pedestrian -friendly development where you could walk to, you could have a restaurant, you could have office facilities, whatever. It's become a strip mall. We are having two strip malls and a warehouse. It is no longer pedestrian friendly. Another concern now is that you have markings on Vanderbilt Way for what appears to be parallel parking on both sides of the street. Now you've got parallel parking, you've got cross traffic coming across Vanderbilt Way, you've got the loop roads being used to avoid 951 and Vanderbilt, you have traffic coming in Pristine, out Pristine, and you've got traffic coming in and out of Buckstone. It's going to be an absolute nightmare and a safety problem for people, especially those that would like to walk or be -- have it pedestrian friendly. I know a lot, has been said this morning about the fast food or the cafe type of restaurant. In speaking with the developer, and we have on several occasions, a particular establishment has been mentioned as to be the potential user of this property, and it is a fast food restaurant. There's no way of getting around it. You can call it cafe. You can call it drive -up, drive-through. It is a fast food restaurant by statute of Collier County in their description of a fast food, and that is what our objection is. A cafe restaurant, no problem. Drive -up cafe restaurant, that is a problem to us. I think also that the traffic being, I know, a major consideration for most of us -- and we have seen it. And I don't (sic) think that the county looks at not only what is happening now, but I know you look out five years from now. But what about the development -- we have Raffia Preserve that hasn't even built out yet, and that will be built out in the next 24 months with a total of almost 500 homes. We have two parcels on Pristine that already a townhome community has been or is being presented Page 19 of 29 February 16, 2017 as a new development. That could potentially have 200 townhomes right on Pristine. This is going to increase the traffic on that loop road dramatically. And we don't really think that it's being looked at in that picture. And it's easy to say that a warehouse does not produce as much traffic as maybe 10 retail stores, but those retail stores and what they're going to be determines the traffic. You can have five retail stores with very little traffic, or you could have five retail stores with major traffic. So usage is of most importance to us on how that 50,000 extra square footage will be used. And, again, we are down to two strip malls and a warehouse and an unknown for those back two parcels, and that's a little concerning to us. As property owners, we've invested in this community. We've invested based on your vision of what our community should be and, you know, we have put our faith in the Collier County Commissions, that you have our best interest at heart. We're not opposed to development. We don't want to prohibit a developer from having a profitable business. We want to see that. That is an encouragement to us; it encourages our whole development and our whole community. But we want it to be compatible and friendly to our community. As neighbors, we want to be respectful, but we would like the developer to be respectful of us and our thoughts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. And just so you know, almost -- well, I can't think of anything you just said that didn't --couldn't be addressed more appropriately at the PUD. Had they not come in for this, those two -- that property had no restrictions on where uses could go. Part of what could come out of that is those intense uses that are more concerning to you all can be along Vanderbilt, and the more passive uses can be on the north side. That's the possibility that this provides. Had it not opened it up, you'd have no -- there would be no recourse, really, to get this accomplished. So, anyway, we understand your position, and certainly appreciate you -- MS. SMITH: I think the original PUD, as it was presented by the county of 150,000 square feet, was more than adequate and more adequate to the development in the area. That being changed now, you know, going to the 200-, I think the whole concept, the whole visual concept, what is being presented, has changed. Like I say, we're not in objection to the developer. We want to work with him, but we want to be heard, and we want the developer to understand our opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next? COMMIS§IONER DEARBORN: Mark, can I ask a question -- CHAIRN .N STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: -- for clarification. Thank you, by the way, for your statement. You reference Raffia Preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a project to the north. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yep. Just out of curiosity, in Black Bear, which I think a lot of you -all are here today for, what was disclosed to you guys by the developer of that when you bought your houses there? Was there anything in writing given to you -all as far as what was going to be used for that thing? Was there any description or talk of that at all, just -- MS. SMITH: At Raffia? At Raffia? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No, no, no, at Black Bear where you guys are, I'm assuming, homeowners. Was that Stock or whoever the developer was -- MS. SMITH: It was Stock. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: -- did they disclose to you -all in their contract that there was going to be -- MS. ABRAMS: And it was defined -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you can't speak from the audience because you have to be on record, so I'm sorry. MS. SMITH: We were notified. We knew that the development, it would be residential development to the north of us, which -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yep. MS. SMITH: -- at the time WCI did not own, so that was not -- it was just -- I'm not sure who the aT Page 20 of 29 February 16, 2017 owner was at that time. We knew there were two parcels on Pristine that at one point were considered -- one - parcel was considered agricultural, which now has been -- been now transferred over to a developer who's going to put residential in there. We knew that. We knew there was going to be development below us to the south. To the extent that it was discussed when we purchased our lands, other than what we knew that it was going to be a, you know, pedestrian -friendly type of development, that's all we were told. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: That's all you were told, okay. Just curious. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, we have time for one more. MR. BOSI: The final speaker is Mark Allen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Allen. There was a surveyor who I used to work with in Bonita Springs who had been in this community since he was born named the same name. I wasn't sure when he said we had a speaker named Mark Allen -- you're not him, but welcome. MR. ALLEN: I'm not he. Hi. My name's Mark Allen. I'm a homeowner and full-time resident in Black Bear Ridge. I live at 7347 Acorn Way, and we've been there for three years. Our house backs up to the preserve that borders Vanderbilt Commons or Carolina Commons, so we're separated by about 200 feet. I'd like to first state that I'm not opposing the development of the region or any rezoning of Carolina Commons MPUD but have concerns related to the effects of increased traffic, and I'm relying upon you and your sound judgmeni to make decisions regarding this and am thankful for some of the comments I've heard and have a much better understanding of some of this this morning. With respect to traffic, traffic on Vanderbilt Beach has significantly increased in the last couple of years, particularly during peak rush hour times. With an increase and influx of traffic from the east, what used to be an easy entrance onto Vanderbilt from either Buckstone or Pristine Drive can now require a considerable wait for an opening in traffic during morning rush hour, and the traffic on Vanderbilt is such that there are frequently three lanes backed up to Vanderbilt and Vineyards and Vanderbilt and Oaks intersections such that several light changes are required to pass through. Likewise, during afternoon rush hour, the left turn lane from Vanderbilt to Collier may be backed up westward of the left turn lane onto Buckstone, and it's not unusual to have eight cars stacked up in that stacking lane turning into Buckstone from Vanderbilt. In our neighborhood, the traffic flow is complex. Given the design of the area, with interconnections between Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road via the Wolfe Road and Pristine Drive and Mission Hills and Buckstone loop roads, there's a shunning of traffic through the residential areas to bypass the CollierNanderbilt intersection. Most of us that live in the area can attest to near misses due to rolling stops and outright failures to even slow down by people in a hurry, particularly exiting the Mission Hills commercial district or cutting through from Collier to Vanderbilt via the Mission Hills to Buckstone loop road. All of this is occurring without Mission Hills being fully built out, Vanderbilt Commons open, Sonoma Hills PUD developed, Raffia Preserve with its tacked -on Palermo Cove PUD finished, Vanderbilt Reserved developed, and Falls at Portofino finished. The conne;ilms and loop roads may be good for shunting traffic away from CollierNanderbilt intersection, but they are not good for quality of life in the residential areas. The design of the Vanderbilt Commons connector road as a shunt exacerbates the problem. It does not foster a pedestrian -friendly environment, which was the original intent. Business types that disproportionately add to increased traffic and congestion also are not conducive to maintaining quality of life and fostering a pedestrian -friendly environment. So traffic is a big concern for us; an effect on our quality of life, noise pollution, all those things that occur. Just a couple other comments regarding the cost-sharing agreement. You know, we kind of looked back on the history of some of that, and it seems like that agreement was put together and signed in 2004. And reading the agreement, the agreement states that it was to be for construction and design of a two-lane road to serve three moderately upscale residential communities. At the time in 2004 when that was signed, Carolina Commons didn't even exist because that was still zoned as agricultural, and it wasn't until, I think it was, 2005 or so that that MPUD was approved. Page 21 of 29 February 16, 2017 So the road in that agreement was to construct a road to service three residential communities. Nothing in there about servicing of MPUD commercial district, nothing in there about serving a tacked -on Palermo Cove property that would drain down in through the Wolf Creek PUD. So our concerns there are, you know, are liabilities associated with that? And some of the verbiage in the upcoming amendment seems to incorporate -- at least the proposed verbiage incorporate that agreement into it such that we would be held responsible for those costs. Okay. So I -sand then one other comment if I could make about the fast food drive -up and coffee. Coffee and beverages, I mean, a lot of this seems to be trying to change definitions in order to fit a certain establishment in. Coffee and beverages are classified as food by the FDA, the federal government. They're regulated. Coffee is food. Beverages are food. If you can drive up and you can pick it up quick, that's fast food with a drive-through. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And with that, we're going to take a break and come back at 10:45 and resume with any remaining speakers, and then we'll go to the applicant. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody could please resume their seats. Let the record show that Mr. Bosi did not come back in to push the button on time. MR. BOSI: I delegated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your delegation missed it too, Mike. Okay. Now we're reseated, and we're done with our break. Mike, had you asked -- you called all the registered public speakers? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there are any speakers who have not already spoken and who would like to speak, not necessarily to repeat what we already heard -- I think we got a good synopsis of what the people who spoke had concerns about, but any new speakers who would like to speak who haven't spoke yet. You spoke. MS. ABRkMS: Can't speak twice? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. FUCHS: Then I'll speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think -- if I can ask the lady in the green to come up, and could you tell me that you'd like to cede your time, from the microphone, to Mr. Bracci, then that would be fine. But you've got to do it on the microphone. MS. FUCHS: I have to say what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Never mind. It's your turn. Please state your name for the record. Did you stand up and get sworn in when we did that? MS. FUCHS: I did, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FUCHS: Wendy Fuchs, and I'm a full-time resident in Black Bear Ridge, 7351 Acorn Way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FUCHS: Just one thing that I would like to add. And as we were talking with Corby, he said that maybe there was a misunderstanding that our community, from what was presented today, we are opposed to a coffee shop with a drive -up, drive-through, pull-up, any type of window, and we believe that that's what some of this language said today. The corner they're proposing to do it on would be right at the entrance of the property on Buckstone Way. We've seen rendered drawings of this. And I think that when you take a look -- this developer developed Pebblebrooke, and Pebblebrooke, at the corner of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard where it has a McDonald's drive-through, is an absolutely nightmare. You cannot even pull into the shopping center. You're in traffic jarpr where traffic cannot even move. And we know that with this tiny little configuration in the corner, this is what we will be looking at if we have any type of drive -up, drive-through, pull-up that serves any type of food, coffee, or anything. So as a community, that's what we are opposed to. Page 22 of 29 February 16, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, miss. Are there any other speakers who have not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move to a couple of things. I want confirmation from staff that the issues involving the road -sharing agreement, the uses and all that, are not matters necessarily for discussion today versus the PUD, but I also would like you to address the suggestion that we would drop the -- actually, the remainders of -- the remainder of the references in the GMP to the uses. I know David came up and talked to you about that. I don't know if there was a problem there or not, but I'd certainly like you to jump in and talk to us about it. And what I'd -- what I think we're looking at Corby, is not only what you've got out in red, but drop where the -- all the yellow sentence, too. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. If your recommendation would be to drop from the subdistrict language in the Comprehensive Plan those prohibited uses and then allow yourselves to deal with them in the PUD only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: -- then after that first sentence -- and I can't read it from this distance -- but strike that entire remainder of that paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the paragraph. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with that from your perspective? MR. SCHMIDT: I think David would like to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. I'm not sure if Mike and I agree with this -- it might be putting me in an awkward position. The concern I have about striking the prohibitions is, obviously, that means those uses are now allowed by the subdistrict. The PUD, of course, could address it later and retain those prohibitions. But by allowing the uses, that begs the question, where's the data and analysis to demonstrate that there is a need for those uses? There was data and analysis submitted that demonstrated a need for the additional 50,000 square feet that is being requested for the types of uses that are already allowed on the subdistrict. Now we're adding additional uses. Where's the data and analysis to support the additional uses? That's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I appreciate that, David. Thank you. I had more of a practical concern. When we did the Golden Gate Master Plan, we specifically put uses in there that we felt would be detrimental to our community, and we did that because the GMP is a higher level. If you have to undo something and you've got to not only deal with it through a PUD, but you've got to undo it through the GMP, those prohibited uses are a lot harder to undo then. I would hate to see this location have gas stations, as an example. I think that would be highly detrimental to the community. Not necessarily all these -- well, fast food restaurants, for that matter, and drive-through, those are the same things we prohibited in Golden Gate Estates. I think the discrepancy comes in is because we're trying to define fast food to possibly allow something that I hear -- I didn't even know we're going to hear -- may be on the books. Mike, you look like you're trying to say something. MR. BOSI: And I'm just -- I think I'm in alignment with yourself, is I think remove the parens to that last sentence that exempts out coffee shops from the prohibition in -- and that language that currently exists in the subdistrict could remain. And from the consistency standpoint from the application, I don't think that would create any of the concerns that David had expressed about -- if we would remove those prohibitions from the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was going to suggest is that we leave the language in that was there because it protects the neighborhood better. I don't think you guys really want to have all that removed. And then don't add any new language in regards to that sentence. Take out the parenthetical, but the next time when they come in for adoption, if there's somehow an agreement reached with the neighborhood and everybody's on a similar page, we can consider it at that time. We don't necessarily need to consider it Page 23 of 29 February 16, 2017 now, and they could also provide the data and analysis that David's looking for for any changes in that language if it's necessary. But that would give us the breathing room. The community's still protected like they were. The last thing I'd want to see on that property is a gas station, and I don't want them to have to go through that, only because it's so proU.matic. Everywhere it goes right now, we just need to leave it alone, so... MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chainnan, I would agree that that's the right approach today, to leave those prohibitions and, if it's the desire of the Commission, to remove the parenthetical so that the language in the recommendation that you had in your packets for that paragraph would still stand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that I would rather see that and leave the opportunity for the developer to try to work through the problems with the community and negotiate that with the community to a point where they are more comfortable with it, and the opposition to that language isn't as concerning as it is right now. Maybe there's ways to solve it. That's something the developer can work out in the added time we could have between this transmittal and the PUD and the adoption. MR. SCHMIDT: And that brings us to, really, what that language would be like, perhaps, the added parenthetical and the paragraph above to identify Mission Hills. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: The red struck -through language would be struck through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. SCHMIDT: And that last sentence that's highlighted on the screen in yellow would remain but remove the parenthetical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was added. I think that's the direction we're heading. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to a rebuttal by the applicant, is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I'm going to ask Corby a question. You could,bave sat down, Corby. I tried to find out from Transportation how many -- how many parties were involved in this cost -share agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Corby's not going to know. That's a zoning issue. And Transportation won't know, to be honest with you, until we look at, like, six or seven different PUDs in the area, because to guess at it today would be problematic. No one was prepared for that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, that's what she said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the next time this comes back, all that -- we'd have three or four months to get all that worked out. That's what Transportation will probably attempt to do between now and then. MR. SCHMIDT: More than two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. There's more than two, for sure. Okay. With that, if the applicant has an opportunity and wants -- you have an opportunity now for some rebuttal. Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I want to clarify is that removal of the "except coffee shop" language will not prohibit us from requesting that in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you'd have to request it in the adoption phase of the GMP and the PUD. That's what I was getting at. At this time, with what we've heard from the data and analysis, that may or may not be needed. The concerns from the community that haven't necessarily been vetted as fully as they could be if you had two or three more months in order to do it, by the time it comes back on adoption, if some of those issues and hurtles are resolved, then we could always put it back in at that time. And, Mike, if I'm out of school on that, tell me. But that's my understanding of what we're doing here today. MR. BOSI: No, I think the question was that Bruce was -- and you're right, we can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know where he's going. He's saying if it's not here, he still wants to put it in the PUD. He'd have to put it in the adoption form of the GMP as well as the PUD. MR. BOSI: And I don't necessarily think that he would have to do that. I think he would say at the Page 24 of 29 February 16, 2017 PUD language they would suggest coffee shops were exempt from that language, and we would be in discussion about that specific activity. But there's nothing here that would prevent them from working that out and making the modifications as whatever agreement would be between the -- his client and Black Bear Ridge. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I'd rather that the language be addressed in the GMPA, because I think there is some subjective determination as to what -- the fast food restaurant with drive-through. So if at adoption they did want to add something, I'd prefer not to have the double negative but to maybe add at the end of the sentence, "however, restaurants with drive-through lanes that primarily serve coffee are allowed." Something to that effect I would put in the GMP if that's what you request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think we can still do that at adoption to the GMPA; is that not correct? MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. So, Bruce, when -- between now and the next few months, you've got a lot of discussions that apparently you're going to have to have, especially as a result of that cost-sharing agreement. If you get through all those and this coffee shop issue, we can address it at that time when we've got the PUD and all the issues resolved, because it will probably come in the same discussions with those issues. That's my suggestion at least. MR. ANDERSON: And, staff, correct me if I'm wrong, there is some confusion or doubt whether a fast food restaurant with a drive-through includes a coffee shop in the first place. MR. KLATZKOW: Is the issue the traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think the issue -- well, the issue is the traffic and the intensity that the residents believe is going to be there if a drive-through is involved. MR. KLATZKOW: They don't want a McDonald's, for example, because that generates a certain level of traffic. A different type of drive-through would be less intense. I don't know, maybe like a Starbucks would have a less intense drive-through business than a McDonald's would. So rather than trying to figure out coffee shops or bagel shops, whatever else, base it on traffic. If the concern of the drive-through is to generate the traffic, your limiter could be the traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the TIS was done on the shopping center criteria for the retail component, and I'm not sure that differentiates out coffee shops, but I think they're included necessarily in that retail component calculation for a shopping center. But we can -- that's another opportunity the applicant can come back with when they come back in a couple of months or so. And I -- one of my favorite places is Starbucks. But I can tell you they have more -- they have as much, if not more, traffic than a McDonald's. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: More. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They back them up. And the ones I've attended in Ohio, they go around the building out in the road sometimes. So I can understand the concern, but I think it needs to be addressed, and I think that's comet'- 'ng you can do over the next two to three months. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else you wanted to say in rebuttal? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, anybody on the Planning Commission have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll close the public hearing and entertain discussion and then motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something you wanted to say, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Discussion. I am not going to vote for this amendment to add this 50,000 square feet. I think this developer came in, he knew it was 150,000 square feet, he decided -- which is fine, his prerogative, to put in a mini -storage. And I think he should -- he has, I believe, 70 -some thousand feet or whatever to work with, and I feel that he should live within his 150,000 square feet. I don't think we need this amendment. Page 25 of 29 February 16, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, nobody really needs an amendment. But the neighborhood could use the amendment to fix what wasn't fixed before. Right now they could have a restaurant with a -- like Stevie Tomatoes right up against that preserve area right near the ',eisidential. On the PUD level, when this comes back, the neighborhood will have the opportunity to take a look at all those and request certain limitations where they're placed. For example, I heard in the NIM audio and I read in the minutes that the neighborhood -- that the argument put forth by the applicant was that there would be less intense uses along that north side. Well, guess what? We need to spell that out. Here are the uses along the north side. That's going to protect you. Keeping those uses along -- the more intense uses along Vanderbilt Road will help you. Those are the things that aren't in there right now. And if they don't go in there and we just walk away and say, okay, you live with the 95-, you get 50,000, 55,000 more square feet, you could put a -- you can put that kind of use, the intense uses, anywhere on that property because that's the way -- and I have read the PUD carefully. That's the way the current PUD says. So, honestly, to your best benefit, these kind of discussions at the next level -- and it doesn't mean anything today that we do is locked in stone. All it means, it's allowing it to get to the next level to be discussed. That's your best opportunity to fix all this, including the cost sharing, which wouldn't be opened up for a public discussion without this happening. So to stop it today, I think, would be a detriment to the neighborhood. To look at it again in two or three months, and then if some of these things aren't worked out, it can be stopped then. But right now it's too premature to do that, and I would highly recommend that this board consider the changes on the screen in red and the additional cross out of the "except coffee shops only," and we proceed to allow transmittal to take effect that way to the Board as a recommendation and then deal with the rest of these issues when it comes back on adoption and PUD, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is that a motion, Patrick? Or, first of all, does anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then is that a motion, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think Stan wants to make the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. Somebody needs to. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll approve -- make a motion to approve the transmittal with all the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The clarifications we just made? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen; seconded by Stan. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAfRNL.%,-q STRAIN: Motion carries 4-1 with Ms. Ebert dissenting. Okay. Thank you -all very much. This is going to go to the Board of County Commissioners next, and it will come back for adoption in the PUD rezoning down the road. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, something to mention. Because the staff report, I believe, and Page 26 of 29 February 16, 2017 hearing notices, maybe even the signage posted on the property, indicates a county board meeting date for this, I wanted to put on the record that that date has been moved. I believe it was March 28th. It's been moved to the April board date, their first meeting in April, not something in March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that will -- the sign will be changed for the correct dates? Yes, Mike's saying. Okay. With that, ladies and gentlemen, thank you -all for your input today. We'll look forward to hopefully seeing this work out a little bit better by the time we come back in two or three months. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that gets us to the -- back to our agenda, which we have new business, there's none listed, and there's no old business. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wait, wait, wait. Can I add a new business item? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, as long it's not one that requires a motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, a comment. When I get my electronic submittal, 985 pages, okay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I get mine electronically, thank God. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- a lot of those pages, I mean, the last 500 could have probably been put down to a couple dozen, but this -- usually they're in folders and I can look and see, hey, you know, this is starting to get repetitious, but this time they were all consecutively numbered. So I had no choice but to go looking through, you know, to see, God, when does this end? And, you know, at a certain point you drop to the very back and start working backward, and everything kind of looks the same. They didn't put it into folders this time. They usually do. This is the first time I've ever gotten this just all thumbnails. And even then it seems like rather than seven of us going through and pulling out redundant pages and saying, hey, you know, I've seen this before, I've seen this before, rather than seven people doing that separately, it seems like maybe a staff member... I'm used to a certain amount of redundancy. I'll see the same page in there four and five times, you know; no big deal, but this time was just a little much. And, you know, practically a thousand pages. You know, I'm glad I don't have paper copies. There's a lot of dead trees in there that just didn't need to die this time, and the poor bastards got sacrificed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Did you get that? CHAHZMAN STRAIN: Bleep some of that wording out, will you? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Asterisks. MR. BOSI: Stan, I spoke with the Chair as we were doing the packets, and the Chair had indicted to me basically to provide a memo that there was X number of objection letters, that there are form letters, that they basically were signed by the individuals, and that I was going to maintain the hard copies on file but to just give you a memo and an example of what the objection letter was. The printed material had already been -- as I was engaged in this conversation, the printed material had already been done by our efficient administrator over within Comprehensive Planning. The next time you will have that where we won't provide 593 copies of the same objection letter that are signed by different individuals. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. MR. BOSI: We'll convey the number, but we won't provide all -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The same picture of Einstein Bagels over and over, you know. But even then, at the start, the first 400 pages have a lot of redundancy in them on every project. And, you know, if somebody could just -- you know, I don't mind seeing something a couple times, but three, four, five times the same page takes a lot of, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to add to Stan's comment, though, is that if you're going to do that, that's fine, but I'd like to be able to say I've got the letters from all these people. If you give me a sample letter, I don't know how many people I really got a letter from. At least leave it available electronically. MR. BOSI: Yes. Page 27 of 29 February 16, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we want to connect up, it's at the Planning Commission's site; we can look at them all. I'd ° ather stand here and tell these people I saw and read their letters. Even though they're redundant, I know there's a whole pile of signatures there, so that would be nice. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If it's in a folder, separate electronic folder, but this time they were all consecutively thumbnailed, you know, so you just had to look at every one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that segues into a nice old business thing. I had asked years ago to please consider, Planning Commission members, converting to electronic, and I got nowhere with that at the time. I certainly wish you would consider it again. Some of the boards in Collier County are already turning to all electronic processing, and it saves all this. No one -- this is such a government waste to prepare these, compile them, copy them, and, you know, they're not getting any smaller. So there's a few of you that, if you -- if there's some way you could take a flash drive like Stan's suggesting, please call Judy Puig and let her know, then we're killing less trees, and we're doing a lot of things that are saving the taxpayers money, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: We could flip the approach. Everyone gets the electronic versions. If you want to put your hands on a paper copy, we'll make one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's probably something -- yeah, that's even a better way. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: New -guy question. So the flash drive, instead of getting this delivered, you get a flash drive delivered in the same kind of time frame and you just download it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, 1, and Joe, do that, and we use our computers, and it works just great. And if more of you could convert to that, that would really save us a lot of effort, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. I'm happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe Judy can poll everybody again one more time, and that way you haven't got to find her number. She can just -- I know Judy watches these. So, Judy, please email the commissioners who get hard copies and ask them if they would consider electronic. And if they don't, please tell us at the next meeting so we can harass them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, Mark; I will stay with paper copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There we go. I'm just kidding, Diane. You know that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know how you are. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, he's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us through old and new. There's no members of the public left, so I doubt if we could have public comment. And is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick, seconded by Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRM, 11v STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. Page 28 of 29 February 16, 2017 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 29 of 29 Agenda Item #9.A COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 2016 CYCLE 2 GMP AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Project/Petition #PL20160001100/Petition: CP -2016-2 — Companion Project #PUDZ-PL20160001089 CCPC: April 06, 2017 BCC: May 09, 2017 Clerk's Office PROJECT ILCCATION 1. 5 lrranuale� RD N 0! rr 2016 CYCLE 2 GMP AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Project/Petition #PL20160001100/Petition: CP -2016-2 — Companion Project #PUDZ-PL20160001089 CCPC: April 06, 2017 BCC: May 09, 2017 Clerk's Office AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., APRIL 6, 2017, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —January 30, 2017 "Special LDC meeting", February 2, 2017 and February 16, 2017 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA n 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PL20160001100 / CP -2016-2: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida proposing amendment to Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series by changing the designation of property from Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, to Urban, Commercial District, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area for uses allowed by right and by conditional use in the C-4, General Commercial, zoning district, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18.6± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] B. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, establishing a temporary moratorium on cannabis dispensing businesses as further defined herein; providing for penalties, providing for non-inclusion in the code of laws and ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp n TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 Cycle 2 GMP Amendment TRANSMITTAL HEARING Project PL20160001100/Staff Petition CP -2016-2 CCPC April 06, 2017 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report 2) TAB: Transmittal Resolution 3) TAB. Legal Advertisements 4) TAB: Petition DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report, w/NIM Mtg. Notes PL20160001100/CP-2016-2 DOCUMENTS: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A" Text and/or Maps: PL20160001100/CP-2016-2 DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement: PL20160001100/CP-2016-2 DOCUMENT: GMP Amendment Petition PL20160001100/CP-2016-2 Agenda Item 9.A Coi[ier Co-r.�.-nty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: April 6, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION CP -2016-2 / PL20160001100, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT APPLICANTS/OWNERS/AGENTS: Immokalee Road Associates, LLC 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400 Sunrise, Florida 33323 Tim Hancock, AICP Bruce Anderson, Esq. Stantec Cheffy Passidomo, PA 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300 821 5th Avenue South -- Naples, Florida 34108 Naples, Florida 34102 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises approximately 18.64 acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the Immokalee Road (CR 846) — Logan Boulevard intersection. The property has approximately 606 feet of frontage on Immokalee Road and 875 feet of frontage on Logan Boulevard. The property lies within the Urban Estates Planning Community, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to establish a new Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text, and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) by: 1) Amending Policy 1.1 Urban — Commercial District to add the Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict name where District and Subdistrict designations are identified, —1— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A 2) Amending Urban Designation provisions to add the new Subdistrict name where various Subdistricts that allow non-residential uses are listed, 3) Amending the Urban — Commercial District to add the new Subdistrict provisions, 4) Adding the title of the new Subdistrict map to the itemized Future Land Use Map Series listing, and 5) Amending the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict, adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Resolution Exhibit "A". PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petition is proposed to allow for new commercial development, up to a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. If approved for Transmittal, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone will become a companion item for consideration along with the adoption of this amendment at a later date. STAFF ANALYSIS: SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: Subject Property: The 18.64 -acre subject property is currently undeveloped and zoned A, Rural Agricultural district. The current Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and allows single-family residential development; recreation and open space uses; institutional uses, e.g., child care facilities, churches and places of worship, assisted living facilities, adult care facilities, nursing homes, social and fraternal organizations, public and private schools; a variety of agricultural uses; and essential services. Surrounding Lands: North: Land to the north of the subject property, across Immokalee Road (a 6 -lane divided arterial roadway) and an east -west drainage canal, is zoned Olde Cypress PUD and H.D. Development PUD, and both approved for and containing residential development. Further to the northwest lies the Longshore Lake PUD — developed residentially. The Future Land Use designation for these land areas to the north is the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. East: Land immediately east of the subject property is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and partially developed with a single-family residence. Further east (and adjacently southeast), land is zoned Rigas PUD (Saturnia Lakes subdivision) — developed with a residential community. Still further east, land is zoned Heritage Greens PUD — developed with a residential community; then Laurel Oak Elementary School and Gulf Coast High School on land zoned RSF-3, Residential Single Family district. The Future Land Use designation for these land areas to the east is the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. South: Land immediately south of the subject property is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and partially developed with a commercial plant nursery. Further south, land is zoned Rigas PUD (Saturnia Lakes subdivision) — developed with a residential community. The Future Land Use designation for these land areas to the south is the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. —2— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A West: Land to the west of the subject property, across Logan Boulevard (a 2 -lane undivided A*�N collector roadway) is (a thin strip) zoned A, Rural Agricultural and undeveloped. Then further west, land is zoned E, Estates, and contains an undeveloped parcel, two churches and a fire station — all fronting on Immokalee Road; south of those parcels is land characterized by single-family residences and residential lots. These E -zoned parcels are within the Golden Gate Estates subdivision. The Future Land Use designation for these land areas to the west and southwest is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict for the thin strip, then the Estates Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. [The Golden Gate Estates parcels fall under the jurisdiction of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP)]. In summary, the current zoning, and existing and planned land uses, in the area immediately surrounding the Subdistrict property are primarily suburban- and estate -type residences or residential lots in all directions. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Requirements for Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically Sections 163.3177(6)(a) 2. and 8. Considerations required for the adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment are listed below. 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as —3— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A necessary, that data and analysis. Petition Exhibit "BB" (Statutory Compliance for Plan Amendments) addresses these requirements. BACKGROUND. CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS: This report addresses the minimum amount of [commercial] land needed to accommodate anticipated growth based on projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. This is accomplished through the analysis of the subject property and the surrounding area that includes inventorying the supply of existing commercially -developed and potential commercially - developable land, determining population growth, estimating the amount of commercial development that population will demand, and determining whether the Future Land Use Plan allocates a shortage of commercial land, a sufficient amount, or an excess amount over what is needed to accommodate growth. Both the petitioner and County staff analyze the marketplace, and any similarities and differences are identified and assessed. The County has long relied on the Guidelines for Commercial Development [a localized guide to developing market studies based on ULI standards] to utilize historic data and statistical information about the different types of commercial centers in the County and to provide the figures for determining further demand. The petitioner, in comparison, utilizes a different methodology to analyze the amount of commercial land needed. The two approaches markedly differ, as reported in the following sections. Commercial Analysis Commercial Development: Characteristics of the area immediately surrounding the subject property do not reveal a trend � toward commercial development. Existing and planned land uses in the area are primarily suburban- and estate -type residences or residential lots in all directions, and a plant nursery. Within four miles from the subject property, commercial development is evident, including the following approved projects: ♦ Olde Cypress PUD/DRI commercial component (165,000 sq. ft./12.5 ac.) [0.55 mile east at the Immokalee Road — Preserve Lane intersection] ♦ Quail II PUD commercial component (184,000 sq. ft.) [0.65 mile west at the Immokalee Road — Palazzo Drive intersection] ♦ Southbrooke Plaza PUD (40,000 sq. ft. professional and general offices /5.2 ac.) located mid - block, on the south side of Immokalee Road and north side of Autumn Oaks Lane [0.7 mile west] ♦ Rigas PUD commercial component (10,000 sq. ft.) in the Saturnia Lakes subdivision [southeast via Saturnia Lakes Boulevard] ♦ Malibu Lake PUD (330,000 sq. ft./37.1 ac.) in the southeast quadrant of Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center no. 4) [1.2 miles west] ♦ Northbrooke Plaza PUD (270,000 sq. ft./29.9 ac.) in the northeast quadrant of Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center no. 4) [1.2 miles west] [application materials undercount this commercial square footage as 95,739 — staff calculates 99,614 sq. ft. (an increase of 3,875 sq. ft.)] ♦ Heritage Bay PUD/DRI commercial component (230,000 sq. ft./73.5 ac.) [2.0 miles east] n ♦ Island Walk PUD/DRI commercial component (21,000 sq. ft./15 ac.) [2.5 road miles south] —4— CP -2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A The above -listed sites are located within the primary and secondary market areas described in s'"� the Market Analysis submitted by the petitioner, and currently provide a total of nearly 1,220,000 sq. ft. of commercial use opportunities in the [Urban Land Institute (ULI)-defined] Neighborhood Center, Community Center, and Regional Center development categories. Approximately 1,522,630 sq. ft. of existing commercial development (on 206.09 ac.), and another, approximate 690,000 sq. ft. of vacant land zoned commercial (on 69.06 ac.), are found within a 3 -mile radius of the proposed Subdistrict. The amount of existing and zoned commercial space found within a 3 -mile radius of the proposed Subdistrict totals 2,212,630 sq. ft. on 275.15 ac. Approximately 2,163,692 sq. ft. of existing commercial development (on 342.56 ac.), and another, approximately 827,900 sq. ft. of vacant land zoned commercial (on 82.79 ac.), are found within a 4 -mile radius of the proposed Subdistrict. The amount of existing and zoned commercial space found within a 4 -mile radius of the proposed Subdistrict totals 2,991,592 sq. ft. on 425.35 ac. Sources: December 2015 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master List (prepared and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Planning Section and the Collier County Appraiser's Parcel and Building Footprint GIS databases) Generally, commercial development within a community can be categorized as strip commercial, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, regional commercial, and so forth, based upon shopping center size, commercial uses, and population/area served. Based on specific studies and/or demographic data for an area, such as population, income, household size, percentage of income spent on retail goods, etc., an analyst is able to estimate supportable commercial square feet for different commercial intensities for that geography by shopping center type. The petitioner asserts this site will be developed with a Community Shopping Center. Petitioner's Retail Market Analysis: The firm of John Burns Real Estate Consulting conducted a Retail Market Analysis and Strategic Assessment, dated October, 2016, independently analyzing market conditions for this petition (Exhibit W"). This analysis provides context for assessing a specific selection of goods and services' requirements of the emerging population within the market area identified. The Analysis provides the following data and analysis: Staff includes those sections from the Analysis providing the pertinent parts of the data and analysis. Section 2, Executive Summary defines a Primary Market Area (PMA) covering a radial 3.0 miles — and a Secondary Market Area (SMA) covering a radial 4.0 miles — from the subject property. A PMA represents the geographical area in which the population constitutes the customer pool and influences commercial activities. A SMA represents the extended geographical area in which the population may choose to shop at this location as a second choice and has less influence. This section identifies the type of retail commercial center intended for development as a Community Center providing a selection of retail uses and office uses. These select commercial uses comprise only a segment of the entire range of uses that are allowed in the C-4, General Commercial zoning district. This section summarizes how population and household figures and retail demand were calculated for the current year and years 2021 and 2026. A proprietary Retail GAP Analysis identifies an existing shortage of retail commercial space, and indicates a current demand for approximately 894,884 sq. ft. of additional retail commercial floor space for the segment of —5— CP -2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A commercial uses studied. The additional retail commercial floor space increases to 1,240,092 sq. ft. in 2021; and to 1,555,807 sq. ft. in 2026. -� This section summarizes how the supply of existing and vacant commercial properties were inventoried, how occupancy and vacancy rates were calculated, and how accounts for vacant properties in their demand calculations were calculated. On average, shopping centers in the PMA are 98 percent occupied; development of these vacant parcels adds more than 720,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial floor space to the supply. The Summary concludes the subject property lies in a residential area experiencing higher -than - average growth, where there is an existing shortage of retail commercial space and ample demand for additional retail opportunities. Section 5, Retail Demand Analysis provides the following figures: • The PMA has an estimated current population of 43,406, and SMA current population of 65,648 [occupying 18,579 and 28,965 households, respectively]. • The PMA has a projected population of 47,645 [t year 2021], and SMA projected population of 72,059 [occupying 20,393 and 31,794 households, respectively]. • The PMA has a projected population of 51,409 [t year 2026], and SMA projected population of 77,753 [occupying 22,005 and 34,306 households, respectively]. The GAP analysis calculates demand on the difference, or "gap", which may exist between the level of spending evident at different retail establishments and the potential spending by the emerging population within the market area. People in the PMA spend more than $413M at select types of area retail businesses, while the analysis suggests they possess the potential to spend an additional $263M. These spending habits are not attributed to effects of the National or local economy, personal preferences during recovery from the Great Recession, or the typical and cyclic changes in the marketplace; they are attributed to the undersupply of retail commercial space that impedes this potential spending from being realized. The retail demand analysis suggests the PMA will support an additional 894,884 sq. ft. of commercial uses in this market segment at this time; and the subject property allotment [capture] of this commercial space ranges from 141,599 to 223,721 sq. ft. These figures are based on the preparer's conservative (15%) and optimistic (25%) capture rates. The retail demand analysis suggests the PMA will support 1,240,092 sq. ft. of commercial by 2021; the subject property allotment [capture] of this commercial space ranges from 186,014 to 310,023 sq. ft.; will support 1,555,807 sq. ft. of commercial by 2026; and the subject property allotment [capture] of this commercial space ranges from 233,371 to 388,952 sq. ft. Analysis provided in the Retail Market Analysis is a methodology that targets only certain types of businesses and suspends our reliance on the objective population -based demand methodology - to rely on the subjective consumer spending potential -based methodology. Section 6, Current Commercial Inventory lists commercial leasable floor areas for commercially developed properties located in the PMA. Approximately 1,304,744 sq. ft. of commercial floor area are summarized in the page 37 table and itemized through page 48. This commercial floor area figure compares with the 1,522,630 sq. ft. derived from County sources. If the PMA were being considered alone, the 218,000 sq. ft. discrepancy between the two figures would be of concern. But when leasable floor areas for commercially developed properties located in both the PMA and SMA, then the discrepancy between the two figures is much smaller. The inventory also lists commercial leasable floor areas for commercially developed properties located in the SMA. Approximately 824,090 sq. ft. of commercial floor area are summarized in -6- CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A the page 50 table and itemized through page 53. Together with the PMA, the combined commercial floor area figure of 2,128,834 sq. ft. compares with the 2,163,692 sq. ft. derived from County sources. This 35,000 sq. ft. discrepancy is not so concerning. [Staff surmises that the reduction in the discrepancy between the two figures may be attributable to differing methods utilized to count these square footages at locations located on the boundary between the radial 3- and 4 -mile areas.] Section 7, Future Commercial Inventory lists commercial floor areas for potential commercially developable properties located in the PMA. Approximately 720,862 sq. ft. commercial floor area, on 27.82 ac. are summarized in the page 56 table and itemized through page 59. Three key commercial nodes are inventoried for potentially developable properties, as follows: 1) Immokalee Road at 1-75 (Activity Center no. 4), 2) Immokalee Road at CR -951 (Activity Center no. 3), and 3) Vanderbilt Beach Road at CR -951. Section 8, Demographic and Employment Trends provides population numbers and density, and population projections for the PMA and SMA. This section also provides the "household" figures associated with these populations and, median age statistics and distributions. This section provides the general employment figures for, and identifies top private employers in, the Naples [Census] Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and job loss and gain information in specific income sectors. Median household incomes are reported, along with income growth projections. Median net worth figures are reported. �-. These populations are further grouped through "Tapestry" segmentation, based on their socioeconomic and demographic composition. This market area reveals a prominence of the "senior lifestyle" and "country living" groups — composing approximately three-quarters of the population. The Appendix provides the demographic and employment figures used to conduct an (ESRI) analysis for further defining the Subdistrict's market area — as used in the main sections of the Retail Market Analysis. Staff Assessment of Petitioner's Retail Market Analysis The market areas described in the Retail MarketAnalysis submitted with this petition and available County resources are used to conduct an assessment of the proposal, with the following results: The County's Guidelines for Commercial Development [the localized guide to developing market studies based on ULI standards] utilize information about the different types of retail commercial centers in the County for this assessment and derive the figures for: • An 11 -acre land area and an 110,734 sq. ft. building dimension for a Neighborhood Center (8.45 sq. ft. per capita), and A 28 -acre land area and a 257,668 sq. ft. building dimension for a Community Center (7.48 sq. ft. per capita). The above floor area figures are the average sizes of Neighborhood and Community Centers in existence (developed) in Collier County. This means some Centers are larger, and some smaller, than these County -wide averages; that is, there is a range in size of each type of Center. Each type of Center is classified based upon size as well as uses. —7— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A The per capita figures provided by the County Guidelines are the multipliers applied to the population estimates and projections to determine demand for retail development in this market area. Demand in year 2016 for commercial development in the proposed Subdistrict's PMA is calculated to be 324,677 sq. ft. (for Community Center commercial space), and 366,781 sq. ft. (for Neighborhood Center commercial space), while the County's PUD Master List reports approximately 2,212,630 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space is available in the PMA. The PMA currently provides 219% more than the 691,458 sq. ft. of commercial space needed to serve the estimated current population of 43,406. In contrast, the petitioner's retail demand analysis suggests the SMA will readily support 248,018 sq. ft. of commercial space. Approximately 2,991,592 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space is available in the SMA that currently provides 186% more than the 1,045,772 sq. ft. of commercial space needed to serve the estimated current population of 65,648. The market demands of the population projected for the proposed Subdistrict's PMA in year 2026 increase to 384,539 sq. ft. (for Community Center commercial space), and 434,406 sq. ft. (for Neighborhood Center commercial space), while approximately 2,212,630 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space will still be available in the PMA. The PMA currently provides 170% more than the 818,945 sq. ft. of commercial space needed to serve the projected year 2026 population of 51,409. In comparison, the petitioner's retail demand analysis determined the PMA will support 311,161 sq. ft. of commercial space by 2026. Approximately 2,991,592 sq. ft. will still be developed or available in the SMA even if no additional commercial land is approved — providing 141 % more than the 1,238,604 sq. ft. of the commercial space needed to serve the projected year 2026 population of 77,753. The three key commercial nodes inventoried by the Market Analysis for potentially developable properties were Immokalee Road at 1-75 (Activity Center no. 4), Immokalee Road at CR -951 (Activity Center no. 3), and Vanderbilt Beach Road at CR -951. One other key commercial location in the PMA was not inventoried —the Immokalee Road at Airport Road (Activity Center no. 1). As a result, the petitioner's Retail Market Analysis and Strategic Assessment inventory does not fully represent the potential for additional development at other key locations. Staff estimates that this under -count may be by as much as 107,000 sq. ft. Staff also notes that the potential commercially developable properties' floor area figure will increase by 50,000 sq. ft. upon the approval of a (unrelated party's) GMP amendment proposed for the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, bringing the amount of potentially developable commercial space at existing properties up to approximately 770,862 sq. ft. Note how, at this point in the Analysis, the figures above for the supply of commercial space derived from County resources appear far greater than demand will ever support. The petitioner's retail demand analysis, however, applies a retail GAP analysis to arrive at commercial demand figures for a specific selection of commercial uses based on PMA per capita incomes and this population's propensity toward spending more on certain goods and services than they are currently spending. Applying additional GAP analysis to the PMA population identifies the potential for an estimated 38.9 percent more to be spent on these specific market segment retail expenditures [pg. 26 table]. One exception to this spending "gap" is at General Merchandise Stores, where this population actually spends within the market area more than expected. These results indicate that no additional commercial square footage need be allocated to General Merchandise Stores. Acknowledging the GAP analysis, and applying the additional 38.9% demand [as an average] to the demand figures reached utilizing the County's Guidelines for Commercial Development, then the demand figures increase to 960,435 sq. ft. of commercial space needed to serve the estimated current PMA population of 43,406; with 1,452,577 sq. ft. of commercial space needed to serve —8— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A the estimated current SMA population of 65,648. 1,137,514 sq. ft. of commercial space is needed 110� to serve the projected year 2026 PMA population of 51,409; with 1,720,421 sq. ft. of the commercial space needed to serve the projected year 2026 SMA population of 77,753. These GAP -affected demand figures for the select commercial uses do not surpass the amounts of existing and potential commercial space already available in this market area for the entire range of retail uses. Note here how the figures derived above for the supply of commercial space still appear far greater than demand will ever support. Utilizing the County Guidelines for Commercial Development, one finds that the market area provides an oversupply of the 1,521,172 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space needed to serve the estimated current population. In applying the petitioner's GAP analysis, one may determine that the market area population's demand for the select commercial uses is underserved by 894,884 sq. ft. of commercial space. This assessment lends support to the Analysis' proposition that a need is evident for a future land use change to introduce additional commercial acreage and land uses to this area, and that this location is appropriate to fulfill the need. Appropriateness of the Site and the Channe: The FLUE primarily directs new commercial development into Mixed Use Activity Centers, and gives preference to commercial expansion adjacent to both Mixed Use Activity Centers and other commercial designations when additional demand can be demonstrated. The Activity Centers in Collier County are comprehensively planned to provide ample commercial development opportunities. These planned locations are purposely sized and spatially arranged to encourage and support a healthy business environment countywide, and to discourage and avoid over commercialization and strip development. The adopted Future Land Use Map of the FLUE illustrates an arrangement of designated Activity Centers spaced approximately two miles apart in that portion of the County west of 1-75, and approximately four miles apart in that portion of the County east of 1-75. The subject property is not located within or adjacent to an Activity Center or other commercially - designated land. Logan Boulevard is not planned as, or intended to develop as, a commercial corridor. This amendment introduces new commercial development, uses, and activities to a location where commercial development is not now planned, consequently extending the impact of commercial development to a larger planning area. Whether the designation of the isolated property for commercial development impacts the stability of established residential and other noncommercial uses in the area — and the viability of those yet to be developed — is a valid concern. However, there is presumed to be some positive impact in having shopping (and employment) opportunities located closer than presently exists. Environmental Impacts: An Environmental Report, dated October 2016, prepared by Passarella and Associates, Inc. was submitted with this petition (Exhibit "W"). Environmental review specialists with Collier County's Development Review Division, Environmental Planning Section reviewed these documents and provided the following comments: —9— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A The subject Property is 18.6 acres in size and vegetated with pine, cypress, and cabbage palm type environments. Portions of the site, particularly at the north end, are significantly invaded with exotic vegetation, primarily with Melaleuca, earleaf Acacia, and Brazilian pepper. Canopy of native vegetation on site is dominated with that of slash pine. A listed species survey was conducted on June 15, 2016. No listed wildlife species were observed on the subject property. One state listed plant, cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata), was identified in several locations on site, including that within the preserve identified on the master concept plan (proposed PUD Master Plan) provided with the application. Specific requirements for retention/relocation of protected plants are contained in Section 3.04.03 of the Land Development Code (LDC) as provided for by the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 7.1.6. A letter from the Florida Department of State dated June 22, 2016 states that the proposed project is unlikely to affect historic properties but includes a provision for unexpected finds of prehistoric or historic artifacts. A similar provision concerning accidental discovery of archaeological or historical sites is included in CCME Policy 11.1.3. The provision is also included in Section 2.03.07 E of the LDC. The subject property is not located in any County well field protection zones. Although not required at time of proposed amendment to the GMP, a master concept plan (proposed PUD Master plan) showing the location, acreage, and configuration of the proposed preserve and other uses identified for the site is provided with the application. Preserves which are linear in shape as identified on the master concept plan are discouraged by Section 3.05.07 H.1.b of the LDC. The majority of the preserve although does meets the minimum requirement for width of preserves. Specifically, sites of this size are required by the LDC to have preserves an average of 30 feet in width but no less than 20 feet in width. The location of the proposed preserve can be supported by the preserve selection criteria in Section 3.05.07 A of the LDC since it is located adjacent to the proposed stormwater lake and in proximity to existing Open Space/Preserve within the adjacent Saturnia Lakes subdivision, therefore providing use of the area as a corridor for wildlife. The proposed GMP amendment will have no effect on the requirements of the CCME although the amount of native vegetation required to be retained on this site will change since the amount of native vegetation required to be retained on a site is dependent in part on the uses allowed for a site, for example whether developed as residential or commercial. According to the environmental data provided for the project, approximately 13.29 acres of native vegetation occur on 'site. If developed for residential as currently allowed by the GMP, 3.25 acres of preserve (25 percent of the native vegetation present on site) is required to be retained. If developed as commercial as proposed, 1.99 acres of preserve (15 percent of the native vegetation on site) is required to be retained. In addition, the PUD as proposed will allow for about half of the preserve to be taken off-site, leaving at least one acre of preserve to remain on site as allowed by the LDC. There is a proposed LDC amendment in the current amendment cycle which will further limit the amount of native vegetation (preserve) allowed to be provided for off-site. However, if the PUD application is already submitted, then the current, pre -amendment LDC standards will apply. [Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division] n —10— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: Stantec Consulting Services submitted a Transportation Impact Statement, dated June 23, 2016 and amended to October 11, 2016 (Exhibit "R"). Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition and provided the following analysis: The project's area of influence was determined to be Immokalee Road east and west of Logan Boulevard. The analysis studied: • Immokalee Road, from Livingston Road (west) to Wilson Boulevard (east); • Logan Boulevard, from Immokalee Road (north) to Pine Ridge Road (south); • Vanderbilt Beach Road, from Livingston Road (west) to Collier Boulevard (east); and, • Collier Boulevard, from Immokalee Road (north) to Vanderbilt Beach Road (south). Fully 80% of traffic accessing the property comes from Immokalee Road (40% southbound from west; 40% southbound from east), and 20% from traffic on Logan Boulevard (15% northbound from south; 5% southbound from north). The proposed development project would generate 6,791 daily gross new trips (2 -way) and 599 PM Peak Hour gross new trips routed through two access points; a full -movement access located at the southernmost point on Logan Boulevard, and a right-in/right-out access located at the easternmost point on Immokalee Road. Traffic generated by the new development will impact Immokalee Road, west to 1-75 and east to Collier Boulevard, and Logan Boulevard, south to Vanderbilt Beach Road — but does not create any additional adverse impacts at buildout. Adverse conditions are attributable to background traffic growth. Development will require the construction of new right turn lanes at the Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road project access points, as is a southbound left turn lane at the Logan Boulevard access point. There is capacity on our roadways to accommodate this development; therefore, the development is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. [Michael Sawyer, Project Manager Transportation Planning Section] Public Facilities Impacts: Stantec Consulting Services submitted a Public Facilities Impact Analysis, dated March 15, 2017 (Exhibit "SS"), dated October 2016 (Exhibit "L"), and a Proximity to Public Facilities Map, dated September 2016 (Exhibit "K"). Collier County Public Utilities Department, Planning and Project Management Division staff reviewed this petition and provided the following analysis: No issues or concerns have been identified regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater, solid waste, drainage, park and recreational facilities, schools, or EMS and fire protection services. • Potable Water System: The subject project lies in the County's Potable Water Service Area and development will be served by Collier County potable water services. The anticipated average daily demand for potable water for the commercial project is 17,500 gallons per day (gpd) [23,625 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide water services. • Wastewater Collection and Treatment System: The subject project lies in the North County �..� Water Reclamation Service Area and development will be served by Collier County wastewater collection and treatment services. The anticipated average daily demand for —11— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A wastewater collection and treatment for the commercial project is estimated at 12,500 gallons per day (gpd) [16,875 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide wastewater services. • Solid Waste Collection and Disposal: The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2016 AUIR notes that the County projects more than 50 years of remaining landfill capacity. • Stormwater Management System: The 2016 AUIR does not identify any stormwater management improvement projects in the vicinity of the subject property. Future development will comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of stormwater events by both on-site and off-site improvements.* • Park and Recreational Facilities: No impact on the demand for park facilities result from the proposed commercial development. • Schools: No impact on the demand for public school facilities result from the proposed commercial development. • Emergency Medical (EMS) and Fire Rescue Services: The subject property is located within the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District, with District Station 73 located at 14575 Collier Boulevard. EMS services are provided by Collier County, with Medic Station 42 located at 7010 Immokalee Road. The proposed commercial development is anticipated to have no significant impacts on these safety services. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Monday, March 6, 2017, 5:30 p.m. at St. Monica's Episcopal Church, located at 7070 Immokalee Road. Approximately 55 people other than the application team and County staff attended — and heard the following information: The agent representing this petition (Tim Hancock) introduced other members of the application team present, including applicant, Kevin Ratterree and Michael Friedman (of GL Commercial) and transportation planner, Jeff Perry (of Stantec). He also introduced staff Planners representing Collier County — Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner and project coordinator for the GMP amendment petition, and Daniel Smith, AICP, Principal Planner and project coordinator for the companion PUD rezone petition. The proposed GMP amendments and PUD rezone were described to the group, including the intensity of potential future uses allowed in the C-4, Commercial General zoning district. The agent reviewed the GMPA consideration schedule, and the protracted timeline involved with applications for PUD zoning, followed by development orders, before actual construction could begin. Kevin Ratterree introduced himself and provided an overview of the project. With its location fronting two major roadways, he addressed specific vehicular access points, turning maneuvers, and the potential for road improvements to both Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. GL Homes has developed a number of residential communities in this area but residents are without high-end commercial offerings nearby. This development provides these opportunities, characterizing their plans as high-end by design through limitations on scale and size (including a prohibition on any individual business from occupying more than 45,000 sq. ft.). Commercial floor space is allocated 33,000 sq. ft. to the anchor grocery store, 44,000 sq. ft. to retail shops and 27,000 sq. ft. to outlot business. Building styles will notably contain enhanced elements of woodwork and stonework, landscaping will be supplemented with additional "greenery", and vehicular and pedestrian areas will be enhanced with "pavers" — all parts of their effort to provide —12— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A upscale amenities. [Staff notes, these design elements will need to be addressed at part of the n PUD rezone stage, in PUD documents.] Their development schedule anticipates primary construction (non-outlots) to be completed in one phase, with the anchor grocer to open its doors in early 2019. The term "high-end" was used a number of times by the presenters to describe the select types of businesses to which they are interested in attracting. The application team presented a selection of businesses they are focused -on, such as upscale grocery stores, restaurants, and the targeted retailers. Attendees questioned how the developer can ensure that the development would be "high-end" businesses. Mr. Ratterree explained how this could be accomplished through the "design" of the development. When asked to elaborate, he detailed some characteristics that serve to identify the shopping center's upscale design; such as additional landscaping, water features, enhanced signage, and so forth. He also described commercial uses that were previously identified as having concerns, including automobile gas stations, 24-hour convenience stores, movie theaters, and adult entertainment. The proposal presents these uses as prohibited uses, along with discount and resale stores, and uses that produce loud noises. The applicant committed to the site design, architectural features, and particular tenant types presented here (and that may be codified in the PUD document) to ensure a "high-end", or upscale, project. [Staff notes, these commitments will need to be addressed at part of the PUD rezone stage, in PUD documents.] Jeff Perry provided an explanation of transportation impacts and how the project is designed to accommodate traffic. He explained "capture" and "pass -by" traffic, and how they're considered when gauging traffic impacts. More discussion surrounded traffic concerns, as the subject property is located at the Immokalee — Logan intersection. Attendees also identified awkward traffic maneuvers created by the median design along Immokalee Road, particularly for traffic accessing Saturnia Lakes (restricted to left- in/right-in/right-out) and Heritage Greens (restricted to right-in/right-out), and by vehicles using the small number of dedicated tum lanes to perform U-turns. Mr. Hancock and Mr. Ratterree discussed the LDC deviations being requested; for allowing the oversize project identification sign planned for visual exposure at the intersection, for allowing ground signs for businesses located on outlots (as these "outlots" will not be separately owned, but will remain under the control of the developer with land leases to the individual lessors/ stand- alone businesses), and for additional square footage of on -building business signage. Specific lighting fixtures and a lighting plan were discussed. Attendees presented and generally discussed their concerns with traffic (especially the area of influence studied, inconvenient access points, and differing peak traffic times for different area land uses). More than one speaker described the advantages of the commercial project being within convenient walking distance of their homes. They described the inconvenient distances they now travel to dine at upscale restaurants or shop in upscale establishments. Nearly everyone agreed that another drive-through (fast food) restaurant is unwanted; while drive-through facilities for other businesses were not ruled out. Speakers questioned what they could expect in the project's enhanced landscaping. Besides preserving the maximum amount of natural vegetation (in the buffer areas), information about additional plantings was not detailed. Formal landscaped areas internal to the project can be expected as they appear in images presented here. Additional screening/buffers would be considered for the terminal ends of Autumn Oaks Lane and Hidden Oaks Lane, across Logan ^ Boulevard. The application team clarified that they are committing to the County's "preservation" requirements — including providing for a portion of this preservation off-site. —13— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A Additional discussion took place regarding traffic concerns, with at least one person asking if design plans for the project may include a parking structure. This would reduce the amount of ^ paved and impermeable surfaces dedicated to parking, and avoid the need for larger water retention areas, accommodations for additional run-off, and other compensating measures. This conventional shopping center parking arrangement is not thought to be pedestrian friendly. The application team explained how the basic parking lot is in balance with the economics associated with the size and scale of the project. The information meeting was completed by 7:05 p.m. The applicant transcribed the full proceedings of this meeting, and that transcript, along with their PowerPoint presentation and presentation notes, and other NIM -related materials have been copied and are provided as an appendix to this Staff Report. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The reviews and analyses of this petition provide the following findings and conclusions: • The property is currently zoned "A° and undeveloped. • There are no known historic or archaeological sites on the subject property. • Impact from the development will affect a State listed plant —the cardinal airplant —which has been identified in several locations on site, including within the preserve identified on the proposed PUD master concept plan. Specific requirements for retention/relocation of protected plants are contained in the LDC as provided for by the CCME. • The infrastructure needed to serve the development can be provided without related levels of service or concurrency concerns. Though traffic generated by the new development will impact Immokalee Road, west to 1-75 and east to Collier Boulevard, and Logan Boulevard, south to Vanderbilt Beach Road — it not create any additional adverse impacts at buildout. Adverse conditions are attributable to background traffic growth. Development will require the construction of new right turn lanes at the Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road project access points, as well as a southbound left turn lane at the Logan Boulevard access point. • There is capacity on our roadways to accommodate this development, therefore the development is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. • The property, along with the surrounding area, is currently designated in the GMP for residential development — as well as uses generally allowed throughout the Urban designated area such as essential services, community facilities, recreation and open space uses, etc. This petition introduces new commercial development, uses and activities to a location where commercial development is not now planned. • Based on data and analysis submitted for the amount of existing and potential commercial development within the study area for the subject property, the need for the full range of commercial development contemplated by this amendment has not been demonstrated. • The methodology used in the petition, along with the data and analysis submitted for the amount of existing and potential commercial development, indicates the need for General Merchandise Stores has not been demonstrated. • Not all commercial uses allowed in the CA General Commercial zoning district were analyzed and not all uses analyzed were demonstrated to have supportable demand. Only those uses for which a demand was demonstrated should be included in this Subdistrict. See staff's recommended subdistrict text. —14— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A • Acorrelating, companion PUD rezone has been submitted, and will be considered subsequent to, or concurrent with, the Adoption phase of this GMPA petition. • The applicant made formal commitments to the site design, architectural features, and particular tenant types presented in their Neighborhood Information Meeting to ensure a "high- end", or upscale, project. These commitments should be appropriately addressed as part of the companion PUD rezone, not this GMP amendment. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Office of the County Attorney and has been approved as to form and legality. The criteria for land use map amendments are in Sections 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 8., Florida Statutes. This staff report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on March 22, 2017. [SAS] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP -2016-2 /PL20160001100, as submitted, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. However, staff does recommend approval with revisions to the Subdistrict text as depicted below — to limit commercial uses to those for which supportable demand has been demonstrated by the petitioner's data and analysis, and for proper code language, format, clarity, etc.: Note: Words underlined are added, words S+^ Gk thF9u9l4 are deleted — as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words are deleted — as proposed by staff. Italicized ^ text within brackets is explanatory only — not to be adopted. 13. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict [Page 67] This Subdistrict consists of ±18.6 acres and is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. The Subdistrict allows only those uses permitted by right and by conditional use within the C-4, Commercial General, Zoning District, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the ate of adoption of his Subdistrict= . as follows: Auto supply stores (SIC 5531). [Petitioner'sAutom i P A orie ire stor NAI 441] Home furniture and furnishing stores (SIC 5712 — 5719). (Petitioner's F rnitur Furni h' sto a NAI 44 1 4 Computer and computer software stores (SIC 5734). Household appliance stores (SIC 5722). Radio, television and consumer electronics stores (SIC 5731). Record and prerecorded tape stores (SIC 5735). Videotape rental (SIC 7841). [Petitioner'sni s & li r NAIC11 44 12 44 13 Lumber and other building materials dealers (SIC 5211). Hardware stores (SIC 5251). Paint stores (SIC 5231). Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (SIC 5261). Wallpaper stores IC 5231). (Petitioner's it in M eri r n E ui men NAI 441t 44 Food stores (SIC 5411 — 5499). Liquor stores (SIC 5921). except Convenience stores. (Petitioner's F o y r s I 4451 44 2 44 3 —15— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A Pharmacies and Drug stores (SIC 5912). Cosmetics and Beauty supply stores (undetermined SIC). Optical goods stores (undetermined SIC). Food (Health) supplement stores (undetermined SIC). Medical equipment rental and leasing (SIC 73521. [Petitioner's H,g so al Care tore NAICS 44 11 44612 44 1 4 1 Apparel & accessory stores (SIC 5611 — 5699). Shoe stores (undetermined SIC). Jewelry stores (undetermined SIC). Luggage and Leather goods stores (undetermined SIC). (Petitioner's 1 hip l hip A r 1 4 82 44 Musical instrument storea.-CM-5736). Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops (SIC 5941). Hobby, toy and game stores (undetermined SIC). Book stores (SIC 5942). (Petitioner's oods Hob B k M c r 1 4512 Retail - miscellaneous (5921 — 5963. 5992 — 5999) including Florists. Pet and pet supply stores. and Art dealers only. (Petitioner's M' a us St r R it r NAI 4 2 4 33 4453-X Eating and drinking establishments ISIC 5812. 5813) including food service contractors. caterers. and mobile food services. (Petitioner's Food Service.i NAIa e 72 3 Personal and Business services (SIC 5812. 5813). andPetitioner's i 72 1 Z] Stationary stores (SIC 5943). Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops (SIC 5947). Used merchandise ores (SIC 5932). (Petitioner's ffi 1 i r h n i r 4 1 4 22 45 1 The following uses permitted by right or by conditional use within the C-4 district in JhLand Development Code shall not be allowed: • Gasoline service stations (SIC 5541). (Petitioner's u v Gas Statin NAIC 447 44 19 ] • Department stores (SIC 5311). General merchandise stores (SIC 5331 —5399) including warehouse clubs. [Petitioner's ffiOjQa45ZjAUM IF the Planning Commission chooses to recommend transmittal as proposed by the petitioner, staff recommends the following revisions to the applicant's proposed Subdistrict text (for proper code language, format, clarity, etc. only — not intended to change allowable uses, intensities, development standards or other items of substance): Note: Words underlined are added, words stFUsl h are deleted — as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words are deleted — as proposed by staff. 13. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict [Page 67] This Subdistrict consists of ±18.6 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. The Subdistrict allows those uses permitted by right and by conditional use within the CA Commercial General, Zoning District, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, in effect as of the date of adoption of Subdistrict. Development within this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with the neighboring uses. —16— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A This Subdistrict is intended to serve the surrounding residential uses within a convenient travel distance to the subiect property. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the adjacent properties will be pursued to the extent feasible and practical to encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian use. The maximum total development intensity allowed is 100,000 square feet of gross floor area. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] —17— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict PREPARED BY: AM CORBY SC MIDT, AICP, RINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREH NSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISIO REVIE�BY: Agenda Item 9. A DATE: N DATE: -3 f 7 DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY. MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: -, JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION No.: CP -2016-2 / PL20160001100 Staff Report for the April 6, 2017, CCPC meeting. DATE: --S- 'Z>- 0, f DATE: /` / % NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the May 9, 2017, BCC meeting. –18— CP-2016-2 / PL20160001100 Immokalee Road Associates: Establishing the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict IMMOKALEE ROAD/LOGAN BOULEVARD — NIM MEETING MINUTES MARCH 06, 2017 Tim Hancock: Well, my iPhone time I have S:32 and I think that's official. My name's Tim Hancock with Stantec. We do have a microphone available, but can everyone hear my voice okay? Audience: Yes. Tim Hancock: Okay, great, sometimes the microphone actually makes it a little bit worse, but if you have any problem hearing or understanding me or any of the presenters, please just raise your hand, let us know, and we'll either speak up or use the microphone. I'm with Stantec, I'm the planner for this project. I have the pleasure of work with GL in bringing this project to [inaudible]. Before starting the presentation, a couple of quick safety items. In the event that we had to evacuate the building for any reason, the exit is to your rear, there also is one down this hallway, and one out this way as well. Not that I expect that to happen, this is not Naples High School, but we should be okay nonetheless. Also, for you comfort and convenience, restrooms are down this hallway, you don't need to raise your hand and you don't need my permission, please help yourself if you need to use the facilities. I want to introduce members of our team that are here this evening with. With Geo, we have Mr. Kevin Ratterree here in front, some of you have met him ---� before. We also have Mr. Michael Freedman. We've got a couple other folks with GL, but we've told them we wouldn't make them say anything, so I'm not going to introduce them. We also have with Stantec, Mr. Jeff Perry who's in charge of our transportation planning. Jeff has the unenviable position of talking to you about [inaudible 00:01:57] go and why. Wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, but Jeff prepared the analysis and calculations in helping to determine the potential traffic impact from the project. In addition to making a presentation, he also is here to answer any questions you may have. We also have reviewers with Collier County. The way this process works is, we develop and file an application, that application is then reviewed by up to 14 or 15 county departments simultaneously. We have two applications going forward and they're both running concurrently, at the same time. The first one is an application to amend the Collier county growth management plan. Now, the growth management plan is an umbrella plan helps determine where particular types of land usage makeup. For example, it may designate that commercial is appropriate here, residential here, industrial here. As the county evolves and changes, that plan gets amended periodically. Sometimes it's amended by the county, sometimes it's amended by private land owners. So we have filed an application to amend the plan, to take this 18.6 acre parcel and designate it from what it is currently, urban residential, to what's call a commercial infill subdistrict. That application, the lead reviewer for that is Mr. Corby Schmidt, who has got his hand up over there. Corby works for Collier County, so I'd just like to tell you, if you have any 170306 0020 Page 2 of 33 problems with your commissioners, talk to Corby. Oh I'm sorry. I meant if you love your commissioner, please talk to Corby. We are blessed with a good board, but anyway, Corby is in the comprehensive planning department, they handle the growth management plan side of things. The second application we have is a rezone application. If the growth management plan is an umbrella that says these are the types of usage you can have, and I'm being very simplistic in this, the rezone delves into the details. What are the setbacks, what are the building heights, what does it look like, what are the specific usage you can have, and what are some of the usage you can't have? So the zoning works with the growth management plan, in concert, they have to be consistent with each other, and there's a separate county department that reviews zoning applications. Our lead planner on that is Mr. Daniel Smith. Speaker 3: That's me and if you have any questions, call Corby. Tim Hancock: Right. Speaker 3: My card is out there, too. Me and Corby's card is out there. Tim Hancock: Both Corby and Daniel did leave their cards out there, I have a stack of mine as well afterwards if you want them, if you're trying to see who has the best hand with your cards at the end of the night, feel free to come ask me for that, as well. 10� I'll kind of give you an overview. The process going forward is that the growth management plan amendment tracks a little bit ahead of the zoning. The reason is that the growth management plan amendment has two cycles. One is, it gets reviewed by the local governing bodies and then it's transmitted to the State Department of Economic Opportunity for review. They then send it back and there's a second hearing for ultimate decision or adoption of that amendment. The zoning only has one set of hearings. So the growth management plan will actually have a hearing for transmittal, when it comes back, both the growth management plan and the zoning will be heard at the same time. So tonight's presentation deals with both applications because really, we need to look at them together. One of them allows certain broad land, set of land uses and the other one delves into the details, together they'll give you a clear picture of exactly what is that's being requested [inaudible 00:05:381. As you came in, there was a sign in sheet, if you did not sign in, please do so. It helps us be able to record how many people were here and if you raised your hand and said, "My name's John Smith and I've got a question," if I have your information at the end, I can circle back to you through that contact sheet. So if you didn't sign in, please do so before you leave tonight. Also on the table is a copy of the exact wording of the growth management plan amendment that we have requested and also is a copy of what's called the commercial planning unit !_ 170306_0020 Page 3 of 33 development, or CPUD document, that's the zoning document, that's the one with all the more meaty details in it. That is still in draft form, by the way, we have made one submittal to the county and gotten comments back, we're working on a re -submittal on that. So the growth management plan amendment is pretty close to what we're going to see going forward. The CPUD document may have a few more changes that go into it. With that, I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Kevin Ratterree who is going to walk you through the presentation for the project. Then Mr. Perry is going to give you a little bit of transportation information. I'm going to wrap up with a few more comments, and we're going to do our absolute best to have this wrapped up and get you out of here, back home where we all want to be. Mr. Ratterree? Kevin Ratterree: Thank you. Okay thank you Tim. Can everybody hear me? Audience: Yes. Kevin Ratterree: For those of you that don't know me, my name is Kevin Ratterree and I'm with GL Homes, I work out of the corporate office [inaudible 00:07:07]. 1 work out of the corporate office over on the east coast of Florida. I have been dealing with the GL Naples division since its inception, I was part of the team that made the decision to move to GL from the east coast over to the west coast. I was intimately involved with the initial Saturnia Lakes project. I was intimately ^ involve with the Riverstone and obviously with Stone Creek, so I've had a lot of history with GL relative to this particular corridor and know a lot about how these approvals came about and the history of those. Instead of you trying to remember how to spell my last name, I'm just going to tell you I have business cards up here, but just think battery, Ratterree, for pronunciation which one of my kids' teachers came up with that. If you want to spell it, think Tallahassee, you're probably going to be pretty good. A lot of doubles in there. Let me start off by saying, some you I recognize, I have been doing this traveling road show for a while on this project. We have already presented it to Longshore Lakes, Old Cypress, Saturnia Lakes, Riverstone. Part of this process, this neighborhood information process, it's a little bit broader scale in getting to a few more areas and geographic components that we haven't gotten to in terms of the overall presentation. If you could, I know some of you have questions, if you could just kind of let me get through the presentation, I found a lot of times I answer your question as I go through. Then at the end, we're all here to answer your questions as best we can. If you ask a question we don't know the answer to, we'll take your name down and we'll get back to you when we get an answer to that question. So just wanted to kind of go through that. Let me start off with, that name, Naples Garden Shops, that's not going to be the name. So the first slide in our presentation is wrong and the reason it's wrong is because we have been told by Collier County that we cannot use the name Naples Garden Shops. Naples and garden has been too used over here, so we 170306_0020 Page 4 of 33 need to come up with another name. So Michael Freedman over here will take you to dinner if you want to give us a name and we end up using that name, we will be happy to have Michael take you dinner on his tab. We'll be coming up with another name as we discuss this project with the project planners and in- house folks about it. Let me just start off by geographically orienting everybody. This area in pink is the 18.6 acre site that's the subject of the application. This is Logan boulevard right here, this is Immokalee road right here. The estates are over here. The area in blue is owned by Oakwood Park West, is the legal name, you may know it more as Landscape Workaholics, LRM, Cullen Walker, who operates his landscape maintenance service company out of this property here and also owns this piece of property here. Mr. Walker also owned this little triangular piece right here which was .99 acres in size, we bought that from Mr. Walker so it is part of the GL Homes ownership, it's part of that the GL homes buildership, it makes up the 18.6 acres. The reason we bought it relates to access, which will be my next slide, but I wanted to kind of bring everybody up to speed with what you're looking at here. Again, Mr. Walker here, Raymond Cleary owns this piece of property here. Some of you may be aware that they have initiated some discussions about doing a kind of group living facility, ALF type facility on that site, but it has nothing do with our particular application. This is the main entry for Saturnia Lakes right here, that's one of the northerly pods of Saturnia Lakes. Geographically, everybody good? Everybody got what we're talking about here? Okay, so instead of spending a lot of time trying to figure out the site plan, I'll get to that in a minute. I brought this up to talk about access. We have two points of proposed access to the site. One on the far easterly side of the site, fronting on Immokalee, that will be a right in, right out only. So if you're traveling eastbound on Immokalee, you will be able to take a right into the shopping center. If you're in the shopping center, you'll be able to take a right out of the shopping center. You bypass the Saturnia lights because there's no left turn. If you wanted to back west, you would go to the next U-turn and take a U-turn. The second point of ingress and egress is right here, it's on the extreme, and I'm going to call it western side, southern side is across on Logan Boulevard. That triangular piece that I was referring to earlier is that piece of property right there. The reason we bought it from Mr. Walker was to get that access point as far south as we possibly could with the goal of having a left turn in movement. So if you're traveling on Logan boulevard, you would be able to take a left and go into the center. It would have its normal right out, it would have its normal right in. There is also discussion with Collier County about the possibility of a left out. That left out depends entirely on whether Logan stays as a two lane road or whether Logan ultimately gets built as a four lane road. We as GL, for those of you who don't know the history, that built Logan Boulevard for the county, many years ago, a little over $10 million, a little spare change for what we had going on at the time. The whole point of that is that left out is a possibility while it is a two r-� 170306_0020 Page 5 of 33 lane section, but they're kind of giving us warning that the left out will probably go away if in fact they end up four lane in that roadway. Our project is not tripping the need for the four lane, but the county at least has expressed some interest in making sure that we understand from an access standpoint the left out could go away. So that's the ingress, egress. If you notice right here on the plan, there's a little arrow that goes to the east and there's a little driveway connection that goes here. As part of our discussion with Mr. Walker to buy that acre piece of property, that triangular piece, we also wanted to set up future access to his properties so that in the event. Mr. Walker decides to convert use, his access would be a connection point to right there, so that we would have one common point of ingress and egress versus multiple curb cuts along the roadway. That's really designed to kind of control the flow of traffic from those several properties so that they're all coming in and out at one geographic location. Audience: Can you start over? Because everyone from Riverstone got sent to the wrong location. Can you kind of recap what you just said? Kevin Ratterree: Yeah, okay. Everybody here love what we're doing? Audience: [crosstalk 00:14:22] Kevin Ratterree: Did I summarize it good for you? Audience: [crosstalk 00:14:30] Kevin Ratterree: All right, I'm going to do it really quickly, if you don't mind, okay? This is the 18.6 acre site that's located on the southeast corner of Immokalee and Logan. Access, one access point on Immokalee on the far east side and one access point on Logan on the far west side up against Logan boulevard. That's as far as I've gotten so far. A little more detail that I did and I'll do that after the meeting with you, if you don't mind. This is the overall plan of development. You may remember, for those of you that have been around for a while, that a couple years ago there was an application filed to change the land use on this property and seek commercial zoning on it, and the rumor going around was that Lowe's was the interested tenant for the site. So Saturnia Lakes, Old Cypress, and a couple other communities were very fearful of that application. I don't want to speak for you guys, but there was a lot of concern regarding that potential type of use. What we're trying to do is bring in a very high end neighborhood scale shopping center. What I mean by that is, what we're trying to do is make sure it is a grocery anchored shopping center. That it's not designed to accommodate and we are put in restrictions to preclude those big box tenants, like the Lowe's and the Home Depots of the world, need to be able to fit on a commercial property. 170306_0020 Page 6 of 33 So when I say neighborhood scaled center, the prior application is seeking over 200,000 square feet of commercial space. We are going to limit this site to 100,000 square feet maximum retail site. We are also going to limit the scale of the users, that no individual tenant can be over 45,000 square feet. The purpose of that is to make sure that a Walmart, a Target, a Lowe's, a Home Depot, all of those guys that need 75,000, 80,000, 100,000 plus, they can't locate on this center. Again, the purpose of this is to accommodate the grocery anchor on a neighborhood scale setup. In sales, in Saturnia Lakes, in Riverstone, in Stone Creek, we have received a lot of feedback over the years about there not being a higher end shopping center that's designed to cater to some of the higher end neighborhoods that are in this geographic area. With all due respect to Target down the street, and some of those other users, it's really been something that we have heard on our sales floor that we really want to see something that has a nice grocery store, it's got great elevation, it looks good, it has restaurants that we want to go to, those types of things. So again, the whole purpose of this application is to bring in that neighborhood scale shopping center. From the site plan, what you'll see again is the grocery anchor, this is a Immokalee, this is Logan, we have put in the main retention area on the extreme southern side of the site. The reason for that because if you recall from the earlier graph that is Mr. Walker's property right there, but catty -corner to over here is Saturnia Lakes, so we were trying to provide as much spatial separation between Saturnia Lakes and where our buildings would start. In doing that, we had kept that retention area, and a native preserve area, and a buffer along that southern, eastern, and western side. Again, the access on Immokalee here, the access on Logan, this being local retail, local restaurant space, and then we're going to try anchor this corner with two restaurant pads, and I've got some elevations to show you if we get through this process. Again, goal number one is to limit the scale and size, we've done that by limiting ourselves to 100,000 square feet. Goal number two was to make sure that we couldn't accommodate, nor would we allow, a Home Depot or Lowe's scale tenant in this space. Again, talking about spatial separation, this is that cul de sac in Saturnia Lakes, it's about 575 feet to the western side of that rear grocery store and about 525 feet from the eastern side of that store, just to give you a spatial separation. This is the first of our elevations, again, disregard that name for a minute. I had a little fun with this, [inaudible 00:19:12], these mountains back here [crosstalk 00:19:15], but they're here. [crosstalk 00:19:21] Some of our rendering guys have a little fun sometimes, but this whole [inaudible 00:19:28] was designed to give you orientation and scale. The pointer would be sitting at the corner of Logan and Immokalee. So I referenced earlier those two restaurant pads in that corner leg, those are those two restaurant pads, and directly across is the grocery 170306_0020 Page 7 of 33 1 anchor. So you get a scale, it's kind of set on a diagonal, which is a little different than a traditional shopping center. Again, part of that is designed to kind of create that neighborhood scale that we're trying to accommodate with this application. This is some of the local retail space. What you'll notice here is we're spending a lot of time with the elevations of this site, coloring, we're carrying a lot of stonework, we're carrying a lot of woodwork, we're making these part of the application so that they're part of the review. Then we need a little bit of flexibility depending how and what tenants we get in here, but the overall scale and scheme of this is being set not only the land use amendment process, but the zoning process. Same picture, a little bit higher elevation. Again, notice try to deal with the pedestrian scale here, a lot of landscaping, a lot of greenery, and again the elevations to give you an idea of what we're trying to accomplish here. A lot of paver work. Again, all of that is designed to bring that upscale amenity to the area. This is that corner, so the grocery store is going to be way over here to the right, this is that corner over on Immokalee road side. Again, trying to accommodate that local retail, local restaurant space. ^ Again, you'll notice we're spending a lot of time with a little open space area, pedestrian scale, walk ability of the overall center. This is the grocery store front. So, somebody's going to ask me, or all of you are going to ask me, who are your tenants going to be? Okay. Let me start with the big one, which is the grocery anchor. We are under a confidentiality agreement with one of those four right there, okay? All right? So, everybody hear me? That will give you an idea of the grocery anchor. Audience: When you say confidentiality agreement, is this a signed deal that you're saying is absolutely 100% done that is going to be one of those four candidates? Kevin Ratterree: It is. Already gone through their real estate committee, their real estate committee has approved, the paperwork is being executed as we speak. Before this thing is finally approved, that will be an ink deal. [crosstalk 00:22:09] Audience: [crosstalk 00:22:091 [inaudible 00:22:12] Kevin Ratterree: If you wouldn't mind, let me just get through the presentation and I'll get the questions in the end just to get you a little sporadic. All right, so let me go back to restaurants. Michael Freedman who Ken introduced is the VP of promotion for GL. Michael is the guy that does all of our leasing for GL's commercial centers, and don't let the name GL Homes confuse you, we are both a residential home builder, Saturnia Lakes, Riverstone, Stone Creek, we are also a commercial 170306_0020 Page 8 of 33 builder. We have a commercial division, we've got several centers on the east coast of Florida, this is our first foray over on the west coast. Michael's been the guy that's been dealing with all these folks. When you ask those questions later, I'm going to let Michael answer those because he's the guy that's been dealing with them. Since we have done the neighborhood information meetings that we had with the communities, we have received at least 20 inquires from people that know somebody, who know somebody, that was at that meeting who had called us an inquired about leasing spacing in the center. So there are the tenants that Michael is trying to get to, again, retail down at the bottom, but again, the whole thing is premised on that grocery store anchor. Okay, this is probably the slide that most people want to spend a little time on. In addition to the 100,000 square foot cap, the 45,000 square foot max per tenant, one of the things that we get a lot of feedback on is, "Well, are you going to allow," I'm sorry for doing this to you, WaWa in here, "Are you going to allow WaWa in your center? Are you going to have 24 hour fuel and convenience store? Are you going to have a theater? Are you going to have adult entertainment? Are you going to have ..." Start going down the list of all these things that folks have concern about being potentially located in proximity to the neighborhood. So what we have done as part of this process, is we have then included a list of uses that will be prohibited so that they are, by zoning development order, restricted on the property, we cannot cite them on the site. We have provided that as part of our CPUD application. It's a little hard to see it at that you're at, but just to run through them, discount dollar stores, the Dollar Tree, Family whatever, those types of uses will not be allowed. Those types of uses that create loud noises, we get a lot of people concerned about, "Are you going to have a bar in here that's going to have live music?" The answer is no, we're restricting both bars and we're restricting uses that generate loud music. Sound is regulated by the Collier County code, I've been asked especially in prior meetings, we are going to add outdoor seating areas. If you've been to a restaurant with outdoor seating areas a lot of times have speakers outside where they pipe in music. The music is not so loud that you can't have your conversation while you're eating dinner with your family. So the idea is we're going to ask ambient music allowed for the outdoor seating areas, but you would not have live entertainment or anything like that outdoors that would create the type of music that would be objectionable to you in the immediate area. Manufacturing facility, that's kind of a no-brainer. Dry cleaners, a lot of people have concerns about dry cleaners, especially areas that have well proximate to it, they're worried about chemicals potentially getting in their well system. Car washers, tire stores, automobile repair, those guns that they use to take tires off are some of the loudest things out there, you can hear those things for miles, so it's prohibited for those reasons. Salvation Army, Goodwill, again, they all do great services for the community, but those are the types of uses that are being prohibited. 170306_0020 Page 9 of 33 Surplus stores, overstock stores, stores that you see that typically are bigger box type users with [inaudible 00:26:10]. Amusement center, carnivals, laser tag, trampoline facilities, those are all prohibited under our application as well. Massage parlor, kind of goes without explanation, but there it is. Adult bookshop, adult movie theater, mortuary, funeral parlor, coin operated laundry, cocktail lounge, bar, tavern, night club, cinema, or theater. It's an interesting one because I get a lot of people that would say, "We would love to have a theater pretty close to our house," and then you have a lot of people that say, "I would hate to have a theater close to my house." Generally, those uses are very intense on Friday and Saturday nights, they go to early hours of the morning, there's a lot of traffic trips attributed to them, so we have just decided to prohibit that use in the center. So those of you that wanted to have a movie theater there, my apologies, but those are the types of things that we're trying to do to keep the scale of this down to a neighborhood center. Bowling alley, pool hall, skating rink, animal raising and storage facility. You saw earlier about PetSmart, it's not designed to be overnight boarding or that type of facility, but a retail store like a PetSmart would be something that would be allowed. Hotels, motels, lodging facilities, again prohibited. With all due respect to where we are, churches would be prohibited. [inaudible 00:27:35], sorry, but churches would be prohibited. Gun range, occult sciences, I don't know what those are, but okay. Nursing home, old age center, tobacco store, hookah lounge, electronic cigarettes, all of those things are just things that we have prohibited through this application and inclusive of what will be gas station, convenience store, gas sales, we're not going to have any of that. Let's spend a little time with buffers, I don't know that it's necessary to go through it unless I get a question, but these are some examples of some buffers. I think the best way to talk about what we do in terms of buffering is, go and drive down communities and see what we do. We have always been known to be a landscape heavy company, sometimes we get complaints in our communities that we were too landscape heavy, but we really try to do as much landscape ... This is a commercial center, so obviously visibility's important, but obviously we're trying to do this in an upscale manner, so the landscaping that we do will be. This is an actual picture, this our Canyon Town Center over on the east coast. For those of you who happen to be over there, I would encourage you to take a drive by and see what we do from a commercial ... It's off of the Florida turnpike's Florida Beach boulevard. Just head west, you're going to run right into it. This is a shopping center we built back in 2005, Mike? Michael F.: Eight. Kevin Ratterree: 2008, 1 was close. It's anchored by a Publix, but just to give you an idea of scale and elevation, it's got a Panera Bread in it here, that's the Publix corner over there. There's the Publix elevation there. They have [inaudible 00:29:19], and a Wells Fargo. This is an actual picture as well, yes the grass is actually that green 170306_0020 Page 10 of 33 don't know why, but it is that green. This is an actual aerial photograph of the shopping center. This is a main street right here, this is the Publix anchor over here. This is part of a civic site that we gave to Palm Beach County. There's an amphitheater back here that events are held at and we built in soccer fields as kind of a temporary because the kids are having a hard time getting of the soccer fields out there. When the county builds this park over on this property, they'll get rid of that soccer field, but it's something we did as part of the overall site. Tim can probably get into a little more detail of this, if necessary, but I want to talk about subdistrict because one of the questions that I get a lot is, "If we allow this to be approved, does that mean that everybody next to us, the barn doors open, and now suddenly everybody can come in and request a commercial designation?" It's a very important question I want to make sure we spend a little time talking about. First off, anybody can come in and file an application with Collier county to change land usage, it's the right of any property on Earth to do that. So I can't preclude Mr. Walker or Mr. [Courier 00:30:37] or anybody coming in and making an application. What we tried to do when we set this application was to set it up as an infill subdistrict and that's important because what we want to have a property owner do is go through the entitlement process, very similar to what we're doing, where they have to go through public hearings, they have to do community meetings, they don't have to labor of information meetings. You want to be involved in the process, you want to know what's going on. What we did with the subdistrict was we set it up where this particular standard right here, on one side [inaudible 00:31:171 commercial side is not [inaudible 00:31:19] urban commercial district. What that really means is, if we got commercial on this property, the adjacent property, just a commercial designation, the adjacent property could come in and seek commercial zoning without going through the land use amendment process because there's a standard in Collier County development regulations that allows that to happen. However, by creating this as a subdistrict, we have preempted that property owner's right to do that, they would have to go through the same process that we go through relevant to notice to homeowners and request that through a public [inaudible 00:31:56] process. Lighting, we've got our lighting plan. The Collier County standard is zero foot candles when you get off the property. We've done a lot of [inaudible 00:32:09] plan to show that. We're hitting zero foot candles on the adjacent property. This is done, just for an example of the lighting fixture. These are the new state of the art LED lighting fixtures that are going in. The whole purpose of those is really refine the light and direct it down so that you don't have a lot of ambient light coming out. [inaudible 00:32:28] be able to see the light. If you're across the street and you're staring at a shopping center, you're going to be able to see the light. The question is, is the light getting to you? That's spill over in the foot candles. You can see light, but the question is, is it spilling over to the point 170306_0020 Page 11 of 33 n where you're being lighted by the light. The answer is, that standard of Collier County, is to get to 0.00 foot candles on the property. Here's an example of that. These are much taller LED fixtures, but if you'll notice, very bright around the base of them, but as you get off the light fixture itself it gets very dark very quickly. Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Jeff, let him talk about the traffic a little bit. I know that's probably a good bit of the questions that are going to come up tonight, so I'm going to let Jeff handle that. Then I'll be back up to kind of summarize and get questions. Jeff Perry: [inaudible 00:33:211 Okay. Good evening. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry, a transportation planner with Santec consulting. I prepared the traffic analysis for this particular project for both applications. As Kevin and Tim said, there are two companion applications moving together. There will actually be a third analysis that will be required by the county. You have one for the conference of planning, you have one for zoning analysis, and then you also have one for the actual site development plan. When this project, if it's approved, it moved forward through site development plan review where we get down really down into the weed about engineering and the very fine details of a site design, building permits, there's a traffic stuff that's done, again. That's important because if there is any lag between a project's zoning approval and when the site plan approval comes in, you want to make sure that the site plan zoning analysis, traffic analysis, is up to date. That it's the most current available the time, that analysis of is done in a timely fashion. When we do an analysis like this, we follow the county's regulations, there is a standard set of guidelines, we establish a study area, look at the different roadways that are likely to be impacted by a particular project and we do what's called trip generation. We look at the project form the standpoint of the amount of development that's being proposed. We can then use national standards for determining how many trips will generated to and from a project. In the case of residential, we know that residential projects are generators. When a 100 units, or 1,000 units or developed, people move into those homes, they are generating traffic. It's brand new trips, coming and going to their homes. Commercial on the other hand is what we call attractors. They are the places where people go to. The people that leave their home and go to the grocery store, or go to work, go to an office, they are actually going to that destination or to that attractor. Commercial shopping centers of this type, neighborhood commercial centers, also have the advantage of capturing traffic that's already on the roadway. So we see that there's traffic moving along Immokalee road, this is Logan Boulevard here and the shopping center here. There's traffic already on Immokalee road. As it passes by the shopping center, on your way home from work to get to your residence, you stop at the grocery store. You stop at the drug store, or whatever it is that you want to stop at. It's called a pass by trip, so it's not generating new 170306_0020 Page 12 of 33 trips. There are some employment numbers, people that are working here are coming from their home, they're going to a particular place, but generally speaking, a project like this is capturing quite a bit of traffic along the existing route, and especially during the peak hour. When we analyze traffic, the county is most concerned about the peak hour of the day, which in also every case, is the evening. It just so happens on Immokalee road the AM peak hour of background traffic, the current volumes, are a little bit higher in the morning going inbound, going towards Naples, than they are in the afternoon going out. But generally speaking, generators, those that are generating traffic, are generating either in the morning or in the afternoons. Attractors like shopping centers typically have a much higher PM peak traffic, there's very little activity going on here at 7:00, 8:00 in the morning. You have some grocery stores that might be open at that hour, but many of the retail establishments, small offices that might be in there, are not open at that particular hour in the day, so people are not coming in and out of the shopping center in the morning. So we're required to look at the evening, PM peak hour, how many trips will come into and out of the site relative to the amount of traffic on a particular road. These particular numbers ... This traffic analysis is available in the public record, we can get you copies of it if you're interested in the entire report. We've analyzed the traffic signals, we've analyzed the amount of traffic coming into and out of the site. We've estimated, with all these little blue arrows, the amount of traffic that will go in each direction because obviously as Kevin had said, there's a right in and a right out on Immokalee road. We're proposing right out, left out, left in, and right in on Logan boulevard, so we've assigned what we believe is a distribution of traffic in each of these movements in each of these directions. There will be some people that will be coming down on Immokalee road westbound and will want to make a U-turn and come back around into the shopping center. There will be others that will want to come down here and use the access off of Logan. So we tried to account for all of the movements that will people will make into and out of the shopping center. These numbers, the red numbers, are the numbers that are the total driveway volumes so that includes the trips that are already on the roadway that someone stops and says, "Oh, I'm going to go into Publix," got a call, turn and go into the grocery store get a quart of milk and then turn around and come back out once they get whatever it is you need. So these are the active driveway volumes. That's not the net new traffic that would ultimately be added to the roadway. These are the volumes on the roadways today. In the morning, and this is a peak hour, there's 2,200 vehicles an hour traveling on Immokalee road westbound. In the evening, a little bit less than that, about 1,900 vehicles per hour traveling in that direction. Our traffic, as you can see, is 124, 173 coming in and turning in this way. The total numbers, as I said, are the driveway volumes coming in. A small fraction of the amount of traffic that is currently on the road and some of 170306_0020 Page 13 of 33 that traffic that is currently in this, what we call the travel screen, this numbers up here, will actually be showing up in these numbers in the driveways because they'll be turning in off of a driveway. We've conducted the analysis for the county. Our analysis shows that there is existing failures at the intersections, the volumes on the roadways are not significant enough to require additional travel lanes on the roadways, but we do know that there are problems at some of the intersections. The county is aware of these problems. The problems are not caused by this particular project. The county is currently pursuing a study of the entire corridor of Immokalee road to try to identify what improves are ultimately going to be needed and then using their impact fees and assessments of individual projects, determine what improves have to be constructed and who has to pay for them. So when this project comes in for its site development plan, we'll go back through another analysis and if there's a proportionate share or some improvement that the county feels is the responsibility of this developer, then they would contribute that particular portion to fixing one or more of these intersection problems. These are problems that exist today that are not the responsibility of this developer so we have to assume that the county's going to fix these in the future, but if the developer is contributing any deficiencies, then they are required, any developer, is required to pay a proportionate share to remedy that particular problem. I think that's it. We will answer any questions a --N little bit later. Kevin Ratterree: Michael told me I needed to clarify my statement on the massage parlors. Not a frequenter of massage parlors, so Massage Envy is different than a massage parlor. That's the way he's tried [crosstalk 00:41:42]. Before we get to questions, there are these things called deviations. Deviations are, code says you can do this, you request a deviation to allow you to do this. We do a lot of deviations when we deal with our residential PUDs and I'll have Tim come up here and go through those really quickly. It's kind of a standard procedure that we have to ask for them, but we have to kind of inform you what those deviations are. A lot of it relates to the signage on the corner, trying to make sure we can accommodate that signage and that it has that scale to it, but I'm going to let him go through them real quick. Tim Hancock: [inaudible 00:42:291 Okay, it'll be little more helpful with this slide to discuss this with you. As Kevin said, again, for those of you who came in late, my name is Tim Hancock with Stantec, I'm the planner for this project. There are, in our current document, there are a total of three deviations being requested. The deviations are form what's called the land development code. That is, in essence, the rules and regulations of development for Collier County. Just like any code, it's not really a one size fits all. One of the nice things about a planning unit development or a PUD, which is this project is, is that we can tailor the land uses, we can tailor the standards to meet an intended result. That's really what the deviations do, is they take what you've seen here today and they make sure 170306_0020 Page 14 of 33 that's what you're going to get. So let me go over these quickly and most of them deal with signage. The first deviation on our document dealt with parking. Well, that deviation actually is going to go away. The reason is because GL has reduced the square footage to 100,000 square feet or less, normally a parcel of this size would have 150,000 square feet or more. Because of that, there's no squeeze on parking, there's no parking issues. So deviation number one in the document is going to go away, we don't need to talk about that. Deviation number two is really about the exhibit that you see here. This is a project identification sign. Collier County code really isn't set up for most projects to have these. As a matter of fact, how many of these have you seen Collier County that are not in a residential development? Not many, but it's a very key feature for the aesthetics and the treatment you see here, that tells you, you have arrived somewhere special. So rather than just having grass and a lake, we think this project identification sign is important. We're asking, and by the way, this doesn't identify any of the businesses in here, it's simply the project name, which again, for those of you who showed up late, it will not be Naples Garden Shop or Naples Village Shops, we're having to go back to the drawing board because we're using some overused names. So there's a contest out there, if anyone comes up with a name, see Michael. He doesn't have to have dinner with you if you win the contest, you can go on your own. This project identifier, we had a deviation that says, "Yes, we can do this," because the code really doesn't allow for that type of signage. The second deviation ... Let's see. In most shopping centers, and you've probably heard them called out parcels. Usually when you have a building along the perimeter of the project, they design these ... We do this from a fit standpoint as, you put this out parcel here, and then this one, and this one, and this one. You just line them up like soldiers. The reason is, you normally carve out a piece of property and you sell the land itself fee simple to whoever's going to develop it. Each of those out parcels is allowed to have what's called a ground sign, which is, I believe, it's 12 feet in the code, maybe eight feet. Because it is not our intent to carve out and sell out parcels, it is actually GL's intent to lease the pads so that we can have this nice continuous flow of parking and not break every little site up, which really makes it harder to walk from one to the other, and just gives you more of what I call a campus effect where you can move freely on the site. When you break it into out parcels, you lose some of them. Once we're no longer carving out parcels, the county code doesn't let us have those little ground signs. So our deviation is to ask for the ability for each one of these buildings to have one ground sign out here, eight feet tall, no more than 60 square feet in size. Very small, very low profile, but again, very important in order to get quality tenants in these buildings, they really have to have their ground signs. So just because we're not breaking them into out parcels, we have to request a deviation for that. Ir. -NO 170306_0020 Page 15 of 33 Deviation number goes away, number two and three I just described to you. We did discover a third deviation for the grocery anchor here. For the size that we have planned, the county allows 200 square feet of total signage on the front of that grocery anchor. Picture a Publix, if you will, and they normally have like Publix, then they have pharmacy, and something else over here, they kind of break it up into three pieces. Because we're doing a little smaller anchor here, we don't have enough frontage ... We can have our 200 square feet, but we can't break it into three pieces that when you add them up, then they make 200 square feet. We met with the sign reviewer today at the county, we're requesting a deviation so that we're not going to have any more signage than we're allowed by code, we just want to be able to have those little signs that the grocery anchor may need in order to advertise the total business that its performing. So that's the third deviation. None of them terribly significant, most of them are signage and aesthetics. There are things that are very important to the folks, the high end businesses, that are looking to go here, and things that we think don't attract them. As a matter of fact, we think many of the deviations will add to the aesthetics of the project. Those are the deviations as we've had them, but last thing I want to mention is, the zoning is still in process. So as we go forward and we resubmit, there will be minor changes to the zoning. '^ Now, the things that you have been told tonight, things such as no massage parlors, and I've got to figure how to allow Massage Envy, but not have a massage parlor, I'm not sure how we do that, but we'll figure that out. Those things are commitments that we've made to you and we're not going to waver in those, but there may be things that get added and taken out through the process of reviewing the staff. If any time in this process you want to know what's in there, all you have to do is call or email me, I will send you the document. I have my business cards here when you leave. Everything we submit is public record, you can call Mr. Smith or Mr. Schmidt and they'll provide it to you, or call me and I'll provide it to you. When I do, I usually copy them anyway so that they know that we're responding to those things. So if you have any questions after you leave here today, we remain available throughout the process to address those questions. What I'd like to do now is, is turn it back over to Kevin. He gets all the hard questions, but if you have any easy ones, I'll be over there. Kevin Ratterree: Tim, thanks. [inaudible 00:49:34] Assuming that the application's approved and we continue through this process, our goal is deliver the grocery pad first quarter of 2019, so that's the anticipated timing. Somebody's going to ask me, "Well, GL Homes gets it approved and then they flip it, sell it to somebody who builds it." First off, I've been with GL for 18 years, we've never sold a single piece of property, we are going to develop them, we are not a seller. We have a complete division that is designed for the purpose of leasing and operating commercial 170306_0020 Page 16 of 33 shopping centers Our intent and our end product will be a center built by GL, a center maintained by GL, a center operated by GL. So if anybody's concerned about building a high quality center, we are. Why are we going to be concerned about that? Because we're selling right up the street Stone Creek, we want to utilize this center as an amenity to the folks that are coming onto our sales floor. So understand from our perspective, this is a GL center, this is not an approval that gets done and then flips to somebody else. So understand that from [inaudible 00:50:51]. Finally, lastly, as Tim said, please, by all means, if you have any questions that didn't get answered, you think of something at night, if you're like me you wake up at 3:00 in the morning and go, "Ah, totally forgot that," just send us an email and we'll get an answer back to you ask quickly as we can. All right, questions. Let me see if I can do this in a framework that is logical. People are going to raise their hands, I'm not being gender specific or color specific, or I like you, I don't like you, I'm just going to do them as I go along. If you just ask your question and we'll see what we can do to answer it. Yes, sir? Speaker 7: You said first quarter 2019 for the pad for the grocery store, is that the first one, the last one, the middle one? Kevin Ratterree: That's the first one. Speaker 7: Okay. It'll all be built at one time though? Kevin Ratterree: Yeah. The goal is to get the grocery, and we're going to build everything at the same time, but our target is to get that grocery pad up. Yes, ma'am? Second row. Sorry, I'll get you. Speaker 8: Okay, my concern is traffic. We live in [inaudible 00:51:531 and stranger danger is leaving our community, I wonder that when you did your analyzing, I have several questions. First of all, did you consider the schools that are there? Number one. The other thing was, when we talked to the police officers who have come into our community, they constantly tell us the lights are on timers, however, they never consider the fact that there's a right on red at the corner of Logan and Immokalee. So even though that light may change and become red and gives us an opportunity to cross three lanes, which they tell us is illegal, but if that's the only way we get to get inside, the fact that it's right on red deters us from ... Again, we still have traffic coming through. So I guess my question to you is, was that looked at, at all? Or are you just concerned with the area from Logan and Immokalee? Jeff Perry: The answer is yes ... The answer is no, we did not look at that far off away from the project. Once the traffic gets into the travel stream, depending on how much traffic is being generated, and I can share with you some of the numbers up there, 133 trips, stuff like that, the county only requires us to go so far because after that, it attenuates off, some of it goes into Saturnia Lakes, some of it goes a 170306_0020 Page 17 of 33 little further, goes into another driveway. It ultimately gets reduced. So a much larger project, for instance, the project that Kevin mentioned that previously had been [inaudible 00:53:35] here, 200,000 square feet would generate twice as much traffic and this would. The traffic analysis would have extended out a little further, it would have looked a little bit further, perhaps to the next intersection beyond. But once you get to a certain point, the amount of traffic that's being added to the travel stream no longer becomes an issue as far as levels of service. Not withstanding your problem of getting into and out of the projects, and we've seen that on Saturnia Lakes, we've seen it in just countless situations where the access connections that don't have a traffic signal, don't have the luxury of having a traffic signal, have to deal with median openings that divert traffic, that only allow you one way in and one way out to have to make a right turn and go down, make a U -turn - Speaker 8: We only have one in and out, that's all. We don't have the [inaudible 00:54:31] like Saturnia Lakes can get out on Logan or Immokalee- Jeff Perry: Right. Speaker 8: We have no choice. Jeff Perry: The county's cover their ears. The county's responsibility to main the level of service of the roadway, it is not to make your access convenient. They need to make sure that your access is safe, so they don't want to put you in harm's way, but the access into and out of a project is regulated by access management standards. Not everybody can have a full median opening, not everybody can have a traffic signal, so there are standards that are adopted, and when these projects are developed, you have to live with those particular standards. As inconvenient as it might be to be able to get into and out of a project, those are based on the standards that we're faced with. We would love to be able to provide much more convenient interconnections for projects when we sponsor these projects to the county, but their responsibility is the mainline, your movements along the major highways. Speaker 8: My concern isn't convenience, my concern is safety. There are a lot of accidents in that area and you're talking schools, you're talking [inaudible 00:55:42] - Jeff Perry: Right, Speaker 8: There are accidents there all the time. Jeff Perry: The county's traffic operations staff looks at those accidents, they get accident reports, crash reports from all the accidents, from all the crashes. They look at the crash reports, if there are geometric problems with an intersection, or with a turn lane, or something like that, they can take steps to correct it. More often 170306_0020 Page 18 of 33 than not, crashes are not caused by geometric or engineering problems, they're caused by driver behavior. The county's response to those kinds of changes is to, in fact, limit some of the movements that are causing the problems. For instance, if there's a connection that allows you to cross over three lines of traffic and it becomes a problem, becomes a crash problem, the county can close that access so that you have to turn right and go down, make a U-turn, and make some other movements to get into and out of a project. So, the problem that we have is that everybody would love to have the most convenient, safe access connections that they can, into and out of a development, but often times what you get is not convenient. It's supposed to be safe, it's designed to be safe, driver behavior plays a big role in whether or not you have crashes at a particular area. The amount of traffic that this project is generating is, to use the term, dropping the bucket from the amount of traffic that is on this road today and is going to grow from projects further east, that are going to be developed, that are going to come into 1-75 and so forth. What this development does, what this commercial development does, is gives people today, leaving Saturnia Lakes, or leaving one of the other developments in this particular area, have to travel three, four, or five miles to get to a grocery story. You won't have to do that with a neighborhood center like this. Likewise, people traveling that long distance along the road will not have to stop at one other place or go out of their way, they'll be able to stop at this particular commercial, if they need to stop and get groceries or something like that. That's a long winded answer, but - Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:57:57] If you pull and if you want to go west, you go up a short distance and make the U-turn . Speaker 8: [inaudible 00:58:02] the school. Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:05] Speaker 8: I was just saying, are all of these cars who are going to pull out of there, they're going to have to go that same U-turn to head west, so it will be that much busier for [inaudible 00:58:15]. Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:17] Jeff Perry: No, hold on for a second. Yeah. Speaker 9: [crosstalk 00:58:20] Jeff Perry: Please, here's what ends up happening, if everybody starts talking over each other, it's complete anarchy. Based on the conversation, understand what people do from a traffic pattern standpoint, what you're referring to is 170306_0020 Page 19 of 33 '"N' somebody who's going east, to go west. Now, think about your driving pattern. If you're going west, what exit are you going to go out of? The logical exit is that you're going to come out on the Logan boulevard side, take a right, and go up to a signalized intersection to take your left. Very few people, there will be some, again, driver patterns are driver partners, that will take a right out and then try to get over to whatever will be the first legal U-turn that they can make, to do a U-turn. Most people who go ... I go to pretty much the same grocery store, the same several grocery stores every time I shop, I know the traffic pattern in terms of how it works best for me, being able to get in and out. So folks that are traveling west, or folks that are going to Old Cypress, or Riverside, or Stone Creek, they're going to do this movement here. There's going to go come and do this or they're going to come out and do that because that is going to be the most convenient and it's going to be the safest. So to just kind of expand the [inaudible 00:59:52] of your comment. Speaker 9: That makes sense. Jeff Perry: Okay. Yes, ma'am? Speaker 10: Yes. With the traffic study, do you take into consideration that there is a proposed school coming in Stone Creek that will cause a lot of bus traffic, school children on buses, this is already ... Immokalee Road is already very heavily traffic and the school and all the new cars from Stone Creek, was that in to the study? Jeff Perry: It is. The background traffic, what we call background traffic, not related to this particular project, is in the existing numbers as well as in our forecast. So when we analyze something five years out into the future, or 10 years out into the future, we have to grow the traffic or inflate the traffic numbers to represent traffic from developments that are outside the area that are traveling along the roadway. This traffic is going to grow 2% per year or 3% per year, whatever the number happens to be based on historical trends and modeling. Those numbers are all considered in the analysis. Speaker 10: So the school was in it? Jeff Perry: Yes. Speaker 10: The new school? Jeff Perry: Also, keep in mind, this is an important thing that people sometimes don't think about in terms of shopping centers, hours. So school has a peak time at around, I'm going to say, just to be conservative, 6:30 to 8:30, okay? This is a peak time for a school. Well most of the tenants in a shopping center are not open yet. If you have a coffee shop, they will be open, grocery probably is open, they probably open at 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning, but all your local retail, unless you're restaurants, they generally don't open that early in the morning. So it's a little bit off an off peak to peak review that you need to be thinking about. Then 170306_0020 Page 20 of 33 in the afternoon, the peak time of a school is a little earlier in the afternoon than the peak time the county uses in terms of the PM peak hour which is generally 4:00 to 6:00, that time frame, most schools are out and have completely dissipated by then. Again, just something to think about. We did take it into account there is a little bit of different in peak hour traffic, but we were ... [inaudible 01:02:12] that school site was part of our [inaudible 01:02:161 approval to dedicate that school site to Collier, I'm not aware that that school's been funded yet, but Collier County, to my knowledge, has not been funded, so they would have to put that in their five year capital plan, they would have to do the construction drawings, they would have to do all that. It's years off in terms of the planning provided for that, but even if it were there, it's going to be a little bit different peak hours in terms of the peak hour of the shopping center compared to the peak hour of the elementary school. Yes, sir? Speaker 11: There's a school being built by Stone Creek, north of us. Jeff Perry: There is a school site dedicated to the Collier County school district, it's secured. If you've been out to Stone Creek and you go into Stone Creek, you take a left off of Logan boulevard, the school site is directly north of that, a vacant piece of property that is part of Collier County's obligation in the project [inaudible 01:03:091 approval process which we've dedicated that school site potentially for a future school. Somebody's going to ask me about Logan boulevard? '^ Speaker 11: Is it a high school, a middle school? Jeff Perry: It's an elementary school. Audience: Elementary school. Jeff Perry: Hold on one second, let me just address the Logan boulevard thing for a second. Somebody's going to ask me what's the timing of Logan boulevard? The answer is, we have to have that road [inaudible 01:03:301 when we reach 297 certificates of occupancy in Stone Creek and we have to build it within one year of starting construction. So it is not imminent, imminent, but it's on the horizon. That's something that over the next couple of years, that link between Bonita Beach and Immokalee is going to be built. Somebody is going to ask me, is it going to be a four lane section? That one I can definitely say no because when Old Cypress first dedicated the right of way they only dedicated 60 feet for the future roadway, so there's not enough right of way for a four lane section to be built. Now, the county could have the right to come in and condemn property and do all that, but the whole ... If you've been part of that public participation in the discussion on Logan boulevard, that [inaudible 01:04:20] had been planned to be a two lane road. Yes ma'am, over here? 170306_0020 Page 21 of 33 n n Speaker 12: 1 have a question, so what about Logan boulevard between Immokalee and Vanderbilt? Is there a plan or availability to widen that? Jeff Perry: There is right of way available, the road was designed ... Yep, I'm going to take the blame for it, you can blame me for a few things out here, but Logan boulevard was built by GL, we obtained the right of way for the construction of Logan, for that length of Logan, so [inaudible 01:04:46], there's right of way for a four lane section. It's actually design to accommodate a four lane section. It is not funded by Collier County, there's nobody on the book who has the obligation to four lane it, but it has the potential of being four laned. Speaker 12: In this development, you said this is [inaudible 01:05:071 owned by GL homes - Jeff Perry: Yes. Speaker 12: And operated by GL homes? Jeff Perry: Yeah, Immokalee Road Associates LLC is a affiliated entity of GL. Speaker 12: Do they have other commercial properties? Jeff Perry: Yes, we do. Yes, sir? Speaker 13: You mentioned high end a few times, so would it be like a smaller version of Mercado's? Jeff Perry: I'm going to let them speak to you about that. Kevin Ratterree: It won't be sort of Mercado, effectively it's a mix of these projects, residential and I think they have an office there, it's going to be a neighborhood shopping center, we're going to aim for the higher end restaurants, [inaudible 01:05:44] restaurants that you stop in front, but no, it won't be a full mixed use project. Speaker 13: Because I have a house in Old Cypress and for me to get out of my development, by the time you get to Mercado's [inaudible 01:05:53]. So obviously we know [inaudible 01:05:56], there is traffic, and because of that I think it's cool if there's that kind of, if we could have that smaller venue closer - Speaker 14: Yeah, if I could piggy back on his question, I live in Saturnia Lakes and this is going to put a lot of stuff within a walk from me. So it's going to get me out of my car a lot, do I really have to wait until 2019 to get it? [crosstalk 01:06:22] Speaker 13: [inaudible 01:06:27] 1 don't need to go there for lunch, but a cool place to go to have a nice dinner, without having to go to fifth avenue, which I could fly a plane down to, or or just, to me, is more convenient because of the traffic. When you say high end, I think that's a cool, it's like a fresh market, it tells us what it is. Whether a Whole Foods, [inaudible 01:06:491 a Publix, like a smaller [inaudible 170306_0020 Page 22 of 33 10-1\ 01:06:51], would be a hell of a lot more convenient than driving to the East Springs or down the 41. Kevin Ratterree: Right, and again, to reiterate again something I said earlier today to you that may have come in late. That was really the driving force behind us buying the property and assembling with Mr. Walker's acre, is to try to come in and do a very high end shopping center because we were hearing the same thing that you're saying, from the folks that were buying from us. Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:07:17] Kevin Ratterree: That's great, but I have to drive 25 minutes to get to a reasonably good restaurant or whatever, I'd like to have something a little more convenient. So that was a driving force [crosstalk 01:07:31]. That is how long it takes us to get through a regulatory approval process. It is what it is, for those of you have been around a GL homes project, you know we build relatively fast. Speaker 13: Yeah, that's for sure. Kevin Ratterree: So when we get the ability to go, we're going to go. If we get the ability to go. Speaker 13: Super. Kevin Ratterree: Cool, yes ma'am. Speaker 15: In the list of [inaudible 01:07:50] uses, you keep driving around the term high end, high end, high end, and I understand that's what you want, but reality is something different as to who wants this shopping center and who wants to be there. The two restaurant pads that you had [inaudible 01:08:06], is there any way for you to guarantee us that that's not going to be a fast food, a drive through Starbucks, a Chipotle, a Taco Bell, something like that? I don't think we need any more of that. Speaker 13: We might need Starbucks. Speaker 15: 1 don't. Kevin Ratterree: [crosstalk 01:08:30] This is the part of the meeting where people start getting mad at each other. [crosstalk 01:08:34] Speaker 13: I do have a second question to follow. Kevin Ratterree: So everybody has their own opinions of what they like. Some people like Chipotle, some people like [inaudible 01:08:41], some people like Starbucks, some people like Dunkin Donuts. Our site plan is not set up to have fast food, drive through, on those front outposts. The goal is to have sit down restaurants. 170306_0020 Page 23 of 33 •"N We haven't gotten into the leasing process with those restaurants yet because we have this approval process in front of us. Speaker 13: That's your goal, but I'm saying, you're trying to get the neighborhoods approval or support, and I'm saying you're saying high end, but you're not saying, but we won't take a McDonald's, we won't take a Burger King. Kevin Ratterree: There's a ton of leases out there and we don't know who they are yet - Speaker 13: But you decide who's going to be in the shopping center. Kevin Ratterree: Absolutely. Speaker 13: That's my point. So in the [inaudible 01:09:23] uses, and you say it's going to be high end, maybe it should say, we won't. Tim Hancock: I'm sorry, if I may, I think this is where I come in. This is a zoning process and zoning has certain criteria that it can and cannot apply. In the zoning document, to say that we will not have this brand name is not something that is either typical and may not even be [crosstalk 01:09:49]. So, [inaudible 01:09:51]. [crosstalk 01:09:56] We get into another problem when you say, we don't want a drive through. [inaudible 01:10:00] dry cleaners has a drive through. Panera Bread, do you like Panera bread? Speaker 13: They're like a Target. Tim Hancock: That isn't the question, my question is, do you like Panera Bread? Speaker 13: Yes. Tim Hancock: If they have a drive through, do you like them less? Speaker 13: Yes. Tim Hancock: Because Panera now has drive throughs. So we get into this really strange conversation, so I just want to ... We're dealing with land use right now - Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:10:21] community and the community know honestly what's going to be there. Tim Hancock: Right, understood, so what I'll tell you is, the way in which we're going to ensure quality is through high end site design at this stage. I have done hundreds, I have not had developers, at this stage, showing the degree of architecture that you see here. Usually it's very speculative at this stage, they don't even know what the buildings are going to look like. I think what you're seeing is the commitment. They even asked to put the elevations in the zoning document and we were told that you can't, but you can make it an exhibit at the hearing, so they're willing to 170306_0020 Page 24 of 33 commit to what you see here, which is high end. I just wanted to kind of give you a framework, there are things we can commit to, and the things in the zoning document are difficult to [inaudible 01:11:13] commit to, so I just don't want it to appear that they're being difficult, we do have [inaudible 01:11:17]. Speaker 13: So what you're saying is, it could end up being a fast food restaurant, right? Kevin Ratterree: The site design of the two pads is not fast food, the site design doesn't show a fast food lane, it shows a sit down restaurant - Speaker 13: [crosstalk 01:11:32] [inaudible 01:11:34]. Kevin Ratterree: Okay. If the center was 100% leased before we started, we already be out of business. That's not how centers operate. The goal, number one, is to get the grocery anchor locked in, and Michael, as I said earlier, before we go through the final approval process, that grocery anchor will be ink. Whether or not they will allow us to say who it is, that's up to them, but one of those four will be ink signed, sealed, and delivered before. Rule number one is getting the high end grocery anchor. Then we start dealing with, now we know who that is, all the other retail guys start to fall in place, all the other restaurant guys start to fall into place. We're not going to lease a center that's going to be crappy little uses because it's just going to be a detraction from what we're trying to accomplish, which is to have a high end center. I understand your concern, but we wouldn't be doing the detail, and the commitment, and the things that we're doing if we weren't convinced and we know that we're going to get those type of tenants here because we've been getting the calls from the tenants that are interested in coming to the center, already, and we have to tell them, we're not ready and we're not to that stage yet. We have to get to a point where we're farther along in the approval process. Yes, sir? Speaker 16: Yes, when you looked at the traffic pattern, [inaudible 01:12:591? Kevin Ratterree: I'm sorry. Speaker 16: [crosstalk 01:13:02] Kevin Ratterree: The answer is yes. If you're showing a drive through, you would have to [crosstalk 01:13:08] - Speaker 16: So if you did [crosstalk 01:13:10] drive through, [inaudible 01:13:12] - Kevin Ratterree: Revised traffic. Speaker 16: [crosstalk 01:13:15] 170306_0020 Page 25 of 33 n Kevin Ratterree: What was the question? Speaker 16: If the study is based on not a drive through restaurant, then if they did lease to a fast food restaurant, I assume the traffic patterns would increase. Kevin Ratterree: It's use is going to be determined at the [S and P 01:13:38] for transportation, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question until ... That would be something you would be welcome to give me a call, my card is out there, and I can put you in with our transportation [inaudible 01:13:53]. Speaker 16: Okay. Yeah. Kevin Ratterree: [inaudible 01:13:58] showing it on the [SDP 01:14:001, your traffic has to account for it. Jeff Perry: That's that third analysis I was talking about. Kevin Ratterree: Right. Speaker 16: [inaudible 01:14:06] Speaker 17: As far as Saturnia Lakes, on the south and the southeastern [inaudible 01:14:14], it is a [inaudible 01:14:22] space. What is the size of the trees you're putting in there so we can ... That is still fairly close to the homes on those two streets, what is the level of foliage that's going to be there to have kind of a [crosstalk 01:14:38]. Kevin Ratterree: That whole green area right there is set up to be a preserve, so the existing vegetation that's there remains, we just pull out the exotic vegetation, the material that we have to take out, so the existing native vegetation that's there will remain. Speaker 17: Okay. Preserves don't last forever, is there something [inaudible 01:14:57] with the regular PUD, you can't plant in there unless you get special permission and everything. If that dissipates or goes away, [crosstalk 01:15:07] Kevin Ratterree: We can certainly - Tim Hancock: Yeah. Once something is designed a native preserve, fire county standards require that all three strata be present, ground cover, mid story, and canopy. If over the course of time one of those strata were to be adversely impacted, for whatever reason, you have to replant. So yes, ma'am, the [crosstalk 01:15:31]. Speaker 17: So now we can set our camp is 60 feet, is that what those trees are out there now or what? [crosstalk 01:15:38] 170306_0020 Page 26 of 33 Tim Hancock: Most of what you see there that are on canopy are pines and their canopy can start as low as 15 or 20 feet and go up to 60 or more. So yes, that's what I would call canopy in that area. The mid story in there is also a place that is very thick as well. Then the one thing you don't see in that is, on the back side of that, across the lake, we also will have some buffering there as well. So we'll be doing even more than what would be ... This one doesn't quite show it, that southeast corner, actually the lake shape is a little bit different, we have it cut at an angle to allow for more native vegetation there closer to the residences. Speaker 17: And there'll be additional plantings that you put in there? Tim Hancock: [crosstalk 01:16:21] What's there has done a great job over the last century. Speaker 17: Yeah. Tim Hancock: So we want to leave as much of that as we can. Speaker 17: That's what I was concerned about. The other thing that I do want to say to people in here, I've known Kevin and dealt with Kevin and GL Homes for the last six years, and they are [inaudible 01:16:39] Saturnia and they are people with integrity and they stand behind their word. They're not going to sell [inaudible 01:16:46] because they still want to build in Naples and I know they've got other property down on Immokalee, they're not going to shaft people in the neighborhood. They're here to be a partner and I applaud them for it. They stand behind their word and [inaudible 01:17:03]. Kevin Ratterree: I think that's the first time I've heard that kind of testimonial in 27 years. Thank you. Speaker 17: Thank you. Kevin Ratterree: I take back all the other [inaudible 01:17:14]. Yes, ma'am? Speaker 18: We've all seen developments and construction projects that have failed in these last few years, I'm thinking Vanderbilt Galleria, but what you can tell us about this one that we can have confidence? Building on your point here that that's not going to be happening here. Kevin Ratterree: So the primary driver of the shopping center being the grocery, they typically like to locate with about 10,000 residents at a minimum. So if you take this broad area, east of 75, up to [Veneta 01:17:50] Beach, south of Vanderbilt, eat to wherever you want to go, you have on Publix [inaudible 01:17:58] area. So, most people [crosstalk 01:18:02]. West of 75. Most people don't like to deal with the interchange, most people feel that's a natural buffer, but if you add up the amount of residential units now and in the future, there's a significant need for more grocers. Obviously that debatable, how far you want to drive, where you want to drive, and what store you want to go to, but in that general vicinity 170306_0020 Page 27 of 33 there's one primary grocery story in Collier county. So we've had a significant amount of interest from multiple grocers, as I said, one of those four, we could probably swap out most of them for interest level. So we think that that would be the driving force of the shopping center. Most shopping centers feed off of the grocery store. If you look at this overall market as a whole, it's probably 98% leased, it's very, very vacancy. Anywhere you go on Immokalee, especially the Publix, both public centers, [inaudible 01:19:04], so we feel good about the market from the demand side. Tim Hancock: The other thing you mentioned is you mentioned Galleria shops. I want to point something out to you. After Gallerias shops at the ... Are familiar with the intersection at [inaudible 01:19:18] and [inaudible 01:19:19] road? Speaker 18: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Tim Hancock: On that southeast corner, that center struggled. The reason it struggled was, when I originally designed it, it looked like this. Somebody took it, and what they did was, to maximize the square footage they started putting buildings in front of buildings, in front of buildings. If you've ever been in there, you notice you can stand in front of retail shopping, you can't see anything but the building? Speaker 18: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Tim Hancock: So because of the high intensity of square footage per acre, and poor visibility, who wants to put their business money in there when they can go somewhere that has got great visibility? When GL first brought this project to me, I looked at 18 acres and thought, "Oh, they're going to be building about 150,000 square feet." It's 100,000 square feet. What you get with this lesser square footage is, you get view windows, openings, a sense of air and light, these are the things that help centers sustain and maintain a high rent such as what [inaudible 01:20:15] are looking for. I don't want to Kevin's economics, but I can tell you, the lower intensity of this, the less square footage, is a premium development. So the one you sited specifically suffered from just the opposite. So from a planning standpoint, that's something I see as being significantly different about this project. Kevin Ratterree: Yes, ma'am. Speaker 19: Yeah, I might have missed this at the beginning. On the traffic flow questions, first question is, at what time was that traffic flow, what month of the year was that done? Number one. Number two, I know you sort of compartmentalized the area of your traffic flow, however, our [inaudible 01:20:59] between Collier and [inaudible 01:21:02] going in where the Oaks Farms and that sort of tricky traffic signal and what's going to be happening there, we're already jammed up and can't even turn out of Logan sometimes through a whole light because they're in the middle of the road, and you say, "Well that's people, they're not driving right," but this is a very significant thing already. We're adding another one, and 170306_0020 Page 28 of 33 for a two lane road that can never be anything but a two lane road, for all the community, [inaudible 01:21:31] Riverstone, that poses a potential jam up on what we already have. Jeff Perry: Well to answer you first question, the traffic numbers that I displayed there were peak seasonal, daily volumes ... I'm sorry, peak season, peak hour volumes in each direction. So those are, for lack of a better term, the worst traffic of the year, basically, going in the morning peak hours and in the afternoon peak hours. Some roads have midday peaks, typically there's a high peak in the morning and a high peak ... Especially on a commuter route like Immokalee road, serves a tremendous amount of development, residents, east of Collier, east of here certainly, and east of Collier, that are traveling inbound to get to 1-75 or to get into Naples or to take other routes. There will be some improvement as the network expands, as construction on 951 south of [inaudible 01:22:36] road, all the way down to Green Boulevard, once that's completed, a lot of people are diverting, so there's ... Traffic sort of seeks its own level. In this particular instance, keep in mind that we're not adding a significant amount of new traffic during these worst hours of the day. That we're talking about if the number was 126 or 130, it's about two vehicles per minute, one every 30 seconds, leaving the driveway. You could sit here for a minute, or 30 seconds and say, "Oh, there goes another car," and 30 seconds from now we could say, "There goes another car." We're not talking about a significant amount of traffic here. We're talking about a lot less traffic than had previously been proposed for this particular site. The type of use we have here is the perfect type of use for this particular location. This is use is absent anywhere between 1-75 and 951. Kevin Ratterree: Jeff, to add on to something you said earlier, regardless of whether this project moves forward or not, isn't the county doing a study on Immokalee at those points right now? Jeff Perry: Right. Kevin Ratterree: To look at improvements and modifications, and this project will be, if it goes forward, will be a part of some of those improvements [crosstalk 01:23:55] - Jeff Perry: Right. The county understand that there's problems on this particular roadway, starting at 1-75, even west of 1-75, and they will look at these individual intersections, try to figure out what needs to be done, we've given them some hints in our analysis as to what we think needs to be done to solve their problem, the existing problem that needs to be corrected. If there is contribution that has to be made by this developer, or another developer, impact fees are paid by developers, whether they're commercial or residential, to add capacity to the roadway system. So all of these kind of things are in play. Doesn't help you tonight or tomorrow morning when you try to get out of your driveway, to get 170306_0020 Page 29 of 33 out onto the roadway, you're still dealing with all of that background traffic that is not associated with this particular project. Fortunately, we're not adding a significant amount of traffic to the travel street, and part of the traffic that we are capturing here is already on the roadway. It's you driving past this intersection, on your way home you stop to go to the grocery store or stop for happy hour, or whatever you want to do, this is the place where you would be able to do that without having to go all the way to 951 and turn around, and go all the way back down Saturnia Lakes to go into your development. Speaker 19: So for the [inaudible 01:25:17] this is not part of the traffic statement [crosstalk 01:25:20] - Jeff Perry: We did not have to - Speaker 19: [crosstalk 01:25:20] Jeff Perry: No, we did not have to go beyond 1-75 to look at the traffic impacts. Speaker 19: And that's [inaudible 01:25:28]. But you're not hitting the traffic that you got [inaudible 01:25:311 for dinner. You got that with your dinner, you go [inaudible 01:25:35]. [inaudible 01:25:37] that traffic that's on the other side of 1-75? To me, [inaudible 01:25:40] go to dinner here than the traffic going out that way. [crosstalk 01:25:45] Jeff Perry: Yes, sir? Speaker 20: Yeah, I wondering if you had considered a site design that included a parking garage? The reason I ask is that with a parking garage, you wouldn't need so much of the site dedicated to parking and impermeable asphalt and paved over surfaces that require large water retention areas, a lot of run off, and parking lots are not exactly pedestrian friendly either. I mean, two of the six buildings in the site design are adjacent to each other, they do not require crossing a parking lot, but the other four buildings are surrounded by parking lots and require walking across a parking lot to get to them. Jeff Perry: It's not economically viable typically for a shopping center to put a parking garage in a situation like this. We're already pretty under density as these guys alluded to with our square footage. We're trying to make parking be convenient for all the uses. So we do have those uses and we do have parking accessible to all those buildings, and to not be a parking disaster as I think the Galleria may have been. Speaker 20: Yeah. 170306 0020 Page 30 of 33 Jeff Perry: We're balancing the economics of the project along with convenient parking in close proximity - Speaker 20: Yeah. I just like to add quickly that one of the things that people like about a place like Mercado's, as someone else was saying earlier, is that it's walkable, it's not a strip mall with giant parking lots, that's why people like going there, walking around, saying things that [inaudible 01:27:33]. Makes it more of a destination rather than just a shopping center where you drive to and [crosstalk 01:27:40]. Jeff Perry: Mercado's a great project, no doubt about it, but it's a totally different animal than this from the density, and the masses that they have. This is a suburban shopping center with surface parking. We are taking that and trying to take it to the other level where it is a destination with higher end restaurants, with an upper end grocer, but it is still a suburban shopping center that is balancing parking needs. Kevin Ratterree: I kind of joke, this is kind of like Mercado and a public shopping center having a baby. You've got a little bit of both in there. Speaker 20: Yeah, exactly. [crosstalk 01:28:20] Kevin Ratterree: Doesn't it? Speaker 20: [crosstalk 01:28:21] a strip mall. Kevin Ratterree: Yeah, it doesn't, it's a different design. The truth is, Mercado's require a huge number of rooftops within their proximity plus a resort [inaudible 01:28:32]. You can't drop a Mercado in the middle of suburbia and be successful. I've watched it happen and fail in a lot of [inaudible 01:28:42]. So you have to be ... The demographics have to match a project and I think that's [crosstalk 01:28:45]. Speaker 21: A couple questions for the folks, particular in Oaks. We've worked really hard in the last 15, 18 years to make sure none of our streets got connected to Logan boulevard. So first question is, no connectivity to Logan for those streets, particular Autumn Oaks, Hidden Oaks, Golden Oaks, and - Kevin Ratterree: We're not proposing any changes to access on our western [crosstalk 01:29:09] - Speaker 21: Second part, the Logan interchange there, you're not proposing a light at this time, at all, at that in/out on Logan? Kevin Ratterree: No, we don't think we're going to meet the spatial separation to even have a light, it's going to be too close. Speaker 21: Okay, and last question on that, again, for that last stretch there, once it gets the site plan approval and everything, we would be particularly concerned about 170306_0020 Page 31 of 33 some screening and other buffers as much as possible because Autumn, Hidden, and Golden are ones that are exposed most to Logan and uses along here. Kevin Ratterree: I'm happy to have a conversation with you about that. There's two ways you can skin a cat, sorry for that analogy, I don't have a cat. Speaker 21: Or you wouldn't have said that. Kevin Ratterree: Obviously, visibility is important for a shopping center, you want people to kind of be able to see it. It may be something we can do, some landscaping on your side - Speaker 21: Okay. Kevin Ratterree: Of the lines, so to speak, but that would be the other way to skin the cat. Speaker 21: Gotcha. Kevin Ratterree: Yes, ma'am? Speaker 22: Nobody has mentioned this, but I've refrained from [inaudible 01:30:18] Old Cypress, and she is just delighted with the fact that she could probably be able to walk. Kevin Ratterree: Or ride a bike. Speaker 22: Or ride a bike. [crosstalk 01:30:30] Kevin Ratterree: Ma'am. Speaker 23: Nobody thinks ever thinks about the pedestrian that's walking in those parking lots. I saw one of your photographs where you had a wide walkway with [inaudible 01:30:481 either side, that would be great. You could walk on the walkways instead of dodging cars that are backing up. Kevin Ratterree: Right. [crosstalk 01:30:59] Speaker 23: Yeah. Kevin Ratterree: That's designed to be a walkway that connects here, all the way to here- Speaker23: Yeah. Kevin Ratterree: And the only place that you have breaks in that walkway is that connection right there, that's that [inaudible 01:31:10] there, and then obviously the drive over here. The whole purpose of that is to give you a safe place to be able to walk from one side to the other only crossing the street twice. Yes, ma'am? 170306 0020 Page 32 of 33 RESOLUTION NO. 17 - AN RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN, MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT, TO URBAN, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOGAN BOULEVARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR USES ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND BY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-4, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONING DISTRICT, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORDIA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 18.6± ACRES. JPL20160001100 / CP -2016-21 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seg., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Immokalee Road Associates, LLC, requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to redesignate lands to the Urban, Commercial District, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict; and WHEREAS, on , 2017 the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on , 2017 the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and [16 -CMP -00971/1271941/119 1 of3 11/23116 Words underlined are added, words stFuekt#r-eegh have been deleted. �jJ WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. [ 16 -CMP -00971/1271941/11 9 11/23/16 2 of 3 Words underlined are added, words str�� have been deleted. W THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority this day of , 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone, Assistant County Attorney BY: e -n2, -Tck kor-, Chairman 0 N,72 Attachment: Exhibit A — Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment [16 -CMP -00971/1271941/1] 9 11/23/16 Words underlined are added, words struck thFeugh have been deleted. 3 of 3 PL20160001100/CP-2016-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Policy 1.1: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: text break *** *** *** *** ** B. URBAN - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT [Page 11] *** *** *** *** *** text break 9. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 10. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 11. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 12. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** ** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** ** B. Urban — Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** text break Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict [Page 67] This Subdistrict consists of ±18.6 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. The Subdistrict allows those uses permitted by right and by conditional use within the C-4 Commercial General Zoning District as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41 as amended in effect as of the adoption of the Subdistrict. Development within this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with the neighboring uses This Subdistrict is intended to serve the surrounding residential uses within a convenient travel distance to the subject property. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the adjacent properties will be pursued to the extent feasible and practical to encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian use The maximum development intensity allowed is 100,000 square feet of gross floor area *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page 144] *** *** *** *** *** text break Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map 1 Words underlined are added; words stFusk-thmugh are deleted. Row of asterisks (**'* **** ***") denotes break in text. FAI[fit! O lit C ;g j 1 `- EZtll NN P CT m 1 co 1 C��� A N 4 o ` z�2A� � O M n Q > - Q w CP A��m roman 777 s D M V F s:X: m d t J i i lei? A v m r$ 3 11111 u 1 111119 Jill I ®Ion i MM x m 3E {pR �3 II101i0oI � 11 rn REQ g=$ Lgt f u � 3 m ..% 0®E Im00 i II L vo4 gmg0 ogo4,04 `oo &o oa oeee sags a e o R p d D M 6CSI I 9ZSl I 5 41 SOSl S".L 1 2W.L SLtl I SW.L 4 m A Y m D EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160001100 / CP -2016-2 LOGAN BLVD./IMMOKALEE RD. COMMERCIA1, INFILL 91IRD14TRICT LEGEND GROWTH AN GEMEN DEPPING ARTMENT SECTION 0 360 720 1,440 Feet ® SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 3/2017 1 l f a I l 1 t Application to Amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan Prepared For: Immokalee Road Associates, LLC 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400 Sunrise, FL 33323 Prepared 13v: Stantee Tim Hancock, AICP 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34108 (239)649-4040 tim.hancock("&stantec.com and Cheffy Passidomo, PA R. Bruce Anderson 821 5th Ave South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 261-9300 rbandersonAnapleslaw.com October 14, 2016 Stantec LIST OF EXHIBITS Application to Amend the Growth Management Plan Exhibit A and Supporting Documents List of Subject Properties Exhibit B Disclosure of Interest Exhibit C Application Authorization Agreements Exhibit D Professional Qualifications Exhibit E Proposed GMPA Text Amendment language Exhibit F Project Location Map Exhibit G Zoning Map Exhibit H Existing Future Land Use Map Exhibit I Proposed Future Land Use Map Exhibit J Proximity to Public Facilities Map Exhibit K Public Utilities Location Map Exhibit L FLUCCS Map Exhibit M FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Exhibit N Master Concept Plan Exhibit O Boundary Survey & Legal Descriptions Exhibit P Property Deed Exhibit Q Traffic Impact Statement Exhibit R Public Facilities Impact Analysis Exhibit S Public Utility Availability Letters Exhibit T Historic Resources Impact Assessment Exhibit U Commercial Market Assessment Exhibit V Environmental Assessment Exhibit W Surrounding Existing Land Use Exhibit X Growth Management Pian Consistency Narrative Exhibit Y Proposed Subdistrict Map Exhibit Z Map of Adjacent Land Uses Exhibit AA Statutory Compliance Narrative Exhibit BB Utility Provisions Application Exhibit CC EXHIBIT "A" APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97- 431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant Kevin Ratterree Company _ Immokalee Road Associates, LLC Address 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway. Suite 400 n City Sunrise State FL Zip Code 33323 Phone Number 0541796-4500 Fax Number B. Name of Agent " Tim Hancock / Bruce Anderson • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Stantec / Cheffy Passidomo. P.A. Address: 5801 Peliocan Bay Blvd Suite 300 821 Aveh City Naples / Naples State FL/FL Zip Code 34108 / 34102 Phone Number 239-649-4040/ 239-261-9300 _ Fax Number 239-649-5716 / C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Immokalee Road Associates, LLC Address 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway. Suite 400 City Sunrise State FL Zip Code 33323 Phone Number _ (954) 796-4500 / (239) 572-2111 Fax Number D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. II. 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 Percentage 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 Percentage of Stock See Exhibit C 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 Percentage of Interest 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 Percentage 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 Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired (X ) leased (): January 2014 & July 2016 Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: 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. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Exhibit P B. GENERAL LOCATION 18.6± Acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard C. PLANNING COMMUNITY Urban Estates D. TAZ 184 E. SIZE IN ACRES 18.6± Acres F. ZONING: A- Rural Agriculture G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: Please refer to Exhibit X. Surrounding Existing Land Use narrative H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S)_ Urban Residential Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub -Element Mass Transit Sub -Element Aviation Sub -Element Potable Water Sub -Element Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element NGWAR Sub -Element 3 Solid Waste Sub -Element Drainage Sub -Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element See Exhibit F _ Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) 11,49,&145 OF THE Future Land Use ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use S#ike-thmug a -to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: The proposed GMP amendment is to create a new commercial Igpd Use desia at0 ion known as the Logan Boulevard/immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Thepr000sed language is attached as Exhibit F. C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Residential Subdistrict TO Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) •• map (Exhibit Z1 at • of - ♦• sggti2n • • inclUgJg • `••- 141 a FLUE E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Include the orol2osed new Subdistrict in Future Land Use Elgmgnt Policy 1.1 B n V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8-1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE See Exhibit H Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. See Exhibit G Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. See Exhibit AA Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION See Exhibit J Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL See Exhibit W Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. See Exhibit W Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). l . INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J -11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1) (c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(l)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). n If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-1 1.007, F.A.C.) PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: See Exhibit S Potable Water See Exhibit S _ Sanitary Sewer See Exhibit S _ Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Immokalee Road - L SSD _ Loaan Boulevard - LOS B See Exhibit S Drainage See Exhibit S Solid Waste See Exhibit S Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. See Exhibit K & L Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. See Exhibit S Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: See EXHIBIT N Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION X $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) See Exhibit Q Proof of ownership (copy of deed) See Exhibit D Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) X 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1 "=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre -application meeting. EXHIBIT "B" LIST OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES 10\ ff; EXHIBIT B List of Subiect Parcels Parcel ID STR Address 00195040001 28-48-26 N/A 00195480001 28-48-26 N/A 00194880000 28-48-26 N/A 00195440009 28-48-26 N/A 00195200003 28-48-26 5470 Hidden Oaks Ln 00195000009 28-48-26 N/A October 13, 2016 1 Ownership Immokalee Road Associates LLC Immokalee Road Associates LLC Immokalee Road Associates LLC Immokalee Road Associates LLC Immokalee Road Associates LLC Immokalee Road Associates LLC Stantec EXHIBIT "C" DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST n 4 Stantec EXHIBIT C Disclosure of Interest Immokalee Road Associates, LLC GL Commercial, LLC - 100% Ownership G.L. Commercial. LLC ltzhak Ezratti - 100% Ownership (directly or indirectly) October 13, 2016 EXHIBIT "D" APPLICATION AUTHORIZATIONS LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Tim Hancock, AICP (Stantec) 8, R. Bruce Anderson fCheffv Passidomo) (Name of Agents) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: _ _ Immokalee Road Associates LLC Date: (Name of Owner(s) of Record) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Alan Fant, Vice President Name - Typed or Printed STATE OF FLORIDA n COUNTY OF BROWARD Swor to and subscribed before me this�day of UYI� 20 T, - by MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: EE 662499 EXPIRES; Me -h 18, 2017 Bonded Thio Nolery Publo WenINNO _ who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of %500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 0 EXHIBIT "E" PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS EXHIBIT E Professional Oualifications Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. R. Bruce Anderson Project Attorney Mr. Anderson is a partner in the Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. law firm and has thirty years' private and public sector experience in land use, zoning and environmental law in Southwest Florida. He graduated from Stetson University College of Law and is admitted to practice in Illinois and Florida. Mr. Anderson has an AV rating from the Martindale -Hubbell Law Directory. He has been recognized in "The Best Lawyers in America" for Land Use & Zoning from 2007 — present and was named by them as Land Use and Zoning Law Attorney of the Year for the Naples -Ft. Myers region. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Tim Hancock, AICP Senior Associate Mr. Hancock has a Bachelor's Degree in Geography with emphasis in Urban Planning from the University of South Florida and has practiced planning in Southwest Florida since 1990. He has been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1994. Mr. Hancock has been tendered and accepted as an expert in land planning in cities and counties throughout Florida as well as being tendered as an expert witness in the area of Planning in both State and Federal court proceedings. Josh Philpott, AICP Senior Planner Mr. Philpott has a Bachelor's Degree in Natural Resource Management with a concentration in Urban Planning from Western Carolina University. Mr. Philpott has over 13 years of planning and zoning experience in October 13, 2016 southwest Florida and has been involved in over 300 zoning applications. Mr. Philpott has been accepted as an expert witness in planning and zoning related issues in multiple jurisdictions in the region. Passarella and Associates, Inc. Shane Johnson Senior Ecologist Shane received a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale in 1999 and joined Passarella & Associates, Inc. in 2004. Shane's environmental consulting experiences include state, federal, and local wetland jurisdictional determinations and permitting; environmental construction inspections; agency negotiations; presentations for planning, zoning, and board of county commissioner hearings; environmental impact assessments; ecological assessments; listed species surveys, permitting, and relocation; wetland mitigation assessments, design, permitting, monitoring, and construction observations; wetland mitigation banking management, design, permitting and construction observations; and environmental project management. Shane is a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent and has also completed a FWCC workshop focused on identifying and handling invasive exotic reptiles. He is a member of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Florida Association of Environmental Professionals, and the Southeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. Shane served as President of the Calusa Herpetological Society from 2009-2012. John Burns Real Estate Consultina, LLC. Lesley Deutch Principal Lesley serves as Consulting Principal of John Burns Real Estate Consulting and is based in Florida, bringing more than 20 years of experience in real estate and economic research to the team. Previously, she was Vice President in the Global Real Estate division of Deutsche Bank in New York, where she authored reports on real estate and economic conditions in the major U.S. metropolitan areas, and wrote due diligence reports for RREEF (owned by n Deutsche Bank) acquisitions across the country. Lesley also served as Senior Research Manager for Montecito Property Company's Strategic Market Intelligence Group, as well as a Principal of Focus Real Estate Advisors and President of Miles Research, Inc. Ms. Deutch holds a B.S. from the Wharton School and a B.A. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. Lesley is a full member of the Urban Land Institute. Kristine Smale Manager Kristine has over twelve years of experience in Residential and Commercial Real Estate and is based in Fort Myers, Florida. Prior to joining John Burns Real Estate Consulting in 2015, Kristine worked for two public home builders providing feasibility studies on current and future communities. She has also performed market and financial analyses on commercial projects throughout the U.S. during her work with several commercial Real Estate Investment Trusts while based in Chicago. Kristine has a B.B.A. in Finance and Marketing from the University of Iowa. She also has a certificate in Urban Real Estate from the University of Illinois - Chicago. Kristine is a full member of the Urban Land Institute. n J EXHIBIT "F" PROPOSED GMPA TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE EXHIBIT F Proposed GMPA Text Amendment language This amendment will create a new sub -district in the Collier County GMP as follows: Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of ±18.6 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard The Subdistrict allows those uses permitted by right and by conditional use within the C-4, General Commercial, Zonina District as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance 04-41 as amended in effect as of the adoption of the Subdistrict Development within this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with the neighboring uses 101-1-11 This Subdistrict is intended to serve the surrounding residential uses within a convenient travel distance to the subject property. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the adjacent properties will be pursued to thg gxtent feasible and practical to encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian use. The maximum development intensity allowed is 100,000 square feet of gross floor area. Policy 1.1: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: B. URBAN - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 6. Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict March 21, 2017 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 9. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 10. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 11. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 12. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bays h ore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve - Conservation Designation Map Lely Mitigation Park - Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 2 March 21, 2017 Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis - Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Loaan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 3 March 21, 2017 Stantec- EXHIBIT "G" PROJECT LOCATION MAP y..... « "_ 171 �•., ,,""-.. klt a Y EE ; a t , t x. L E G E N D EXHIBIT "H" ZONING MAP Stantec Logan Blvd/Immokalee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict ...... Exhibit H: Zoning Map September 2016, CStantec EXHIBIT "I" EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP 10-1111, 1 d v F Stantee Logan Blvd/Immokolee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict s,o a4'n mrr r . ov eon Exhibit I: Existing Future Land Use Map o Septeomber<016 t � w Ib ' per' L E G E N D Projectrq Boundary DescriptionFLU rEstates e Desingation t Urban Residential Subdistrict Stantee Logan Blvd/Immokolee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict s,o a4'n mrr r . ov eon Exhibit I: Existing Future Land Use Map o Septeomber<016 EXHIBIT "J" PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP rq Project Boundary Logan Blvd/Immokalee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict Estates Designation Urban Residental Subdistrict Logan Blvd/l mmokalee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict'. Stantec-` �.I= �1. * , I I I _. 1 -.111 * I- Exhibit J: Proposed Future Land Use Map ....... CICI.VsI 2016 EXHIBIT "K" PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP Ap ZZ " cAg U4 , _ Immokalee RD 1t41 ... t . M 2 ♦ j.'d�, in ' ; • ,.t �� l t. r£ t u ; K �dM• n>», . ....{.. sLL+-� .� �'tt_ tv�ih7 ,4 Z �j' L'fl�- FI+MY'A• �y7, c r ( <p ' 1k 1001 . .' + ,( �- �•+r�4 , .�}µii � .� .,. ewx au � 49 1 .t W ---mmJm1kx-_V,(3nderb11FiB_each;RD,�;-� � � �* .... r' L E G E N D • w* ProjectBoundaryOig tt lacilifles 10 Fire ne Schooli J EXHIBIT "L" PUBLIC UTILITIES LOCATION MAP roo Stantee Logan Blvd/Immokalee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit L: Public Utilties Location Map 3 <_` October 2016 ] vc/.evoe nepo�eJ by Fs !0/,3!,c J EXHIBIT "M" FLUCCS MAP ll� +'f 41R El a it'+. , # � $% = X ft•' J#iy� "i'� �. -41 1, EI, t�i•.� ** �9 `; iS ">.9 � � • `»x • , ' :•�°� 4,159 E1,,� }. Cyt,,, :ya„. • �.+ { ! _ ++ € `<;' 9t'+?f°.•-sP ` 0.0 • 17, r � eg w , i74 .; 4289•E3 S y,s. „ • . , .. + K 4119 E 9.' • h - t.T L E G E N D Project Boundary 4289 E3, Cabbage Palm Disturbed (50 "MEW FILUCCS Code, Description 24 1, Tree Nursery 439, Mixed Exotic Hardwood 4119 El, Pine 6215 E3, Cypress Disturbed and Flotwoods • t Drained 04159 E I. Pine Disturbed (0 - 24% 6245 E3, Cypress/Pine/Cubbge Palm` 24% Exotics) Disturbed and Drained ,s Exotics) Z' tom: Disturbed4159 E3, Pine • .-. Land' LoganEXC4:jCS) 740, . - Rd CommercialSubdistrict Exhibit M: FLUCCS •• W� EXHIBIT "N" FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP Stantec Logan Blvd/Immokalee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit N: FEMA Hood Insurance Rate Map September 2076 J EXHIBIT "O" MASTER CONCEPT PLAN Zoning: Olde Cypress DRI Land Use: Golf Course r EXHIBIT O Zoning: ND • RPUD Land Use: Single Family Residential Immokalee Road r LaMscapa 3 011rfX cif Zoning: 20 Typ. V, Building 4 C "' 4Estates ands<ap. ,>.]# Land Use: Bun. , j Misc. Agriculture ) U U r r BulldMg 5 � Fm e x Building 20 Type -D rill ' LafWyc�pe i`.. f4 lZoning: Estates Land Use:: ,✓j y Vacant r �{ �� � � ;�'� • �` Rez(dentlal / d / v'r �� ,✓� Building t ('� t r t t .F` Zoning: f t Agriculture Land Use: Misc. Agriculture 10Tyr. 'A LarMscape p� fIB! �a , } Zoning: !k Agriculture Land Use: I Misc. Agriculture IUType 'A' iI uuwsrep. ww1 I i t i� ,) r Zoning: Agriculture Land Use: I Misc. Agriculture w Ir ince 1 aurfw Zoning: Agriculture Land Use: Misc, Agriculture Ift-1 Ej. Emnxn( Zoning: Agriculture Land Use: sm—i. Misc. Agriculture Lk - Sitek.s Site Data: Site acreage: 18.6 acres Buildings: 100,000 SF Parking: 650+ spaces Preserves and the Native vegetation Buffer Tract may be used to satisfy Lake: 2.12 acres 111.4 % of site) the landscape buffer requirements after exotic removal in accordance Preserve: 1.0 acres (5.4 % of site) with LDC section 4.06.02 and LDC section 4.06.05.E.1; wpplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be In accordance Wtli LDC Section 3.05.07. EXHIBIT "P" BOUNDARYSURVEY LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT P LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER, LYING IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BEING A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4313 AT PAGE 2422 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF SAID COLLIER COUNTY AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE 589"58'22"E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 28 ALSO BEING THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (150 FEET WIDE) FOR 390.37 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 00"01'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 166.85 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID IMMOKALEE ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN ORDER OF TAKING, OFFICIAL RECORD 3888, PAGE 1611 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY, SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, /'� A DISTANCE OF 606.56 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 28; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 28, SOUTH 0211'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,169.86 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW '/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 28, NORTH 89"58'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 660.43 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28. THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 28, NORTH D2"l 1'D7' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 285.D8 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87"49'2D" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 147.65 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF LOGAN BOULEVARD( RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH VARIES); THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES; COURSE ONE: NORTHERLY, 190.25 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,132.54 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05"06'42" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 1216'34" EAST, 190.19 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; COURSE TWO: THENCE NORTHERLY, 328.45 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,461.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07"38'43" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 11"00'33" EAST, 328.20 FEET; COURSE THREE: THENCE NORTH 17"32'26" EAST, October 7, 2016 W.!',,i Stantec A DISTANCE OF 52.62 FEET; COURSE FOUR: THENCE NORTH 05"21'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 53.61 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE; COURSE FIVE: THENCE NORTHERLY, 209.81 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,471.50 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04"51'50" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 02"18'18" EAST, 209.74 FEET; COURSE SIX: THENCE NORTH 00"07'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 22.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45"37'16" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 49.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 1) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE ATTHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, SOUTH 02"10'58 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 964.50 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST SECTION LINE, NORTH 87"49'02" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 203.41 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF LOGAN BOULEVARD (RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH VARIES) AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87"49'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 126.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02"l 1'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87"49'20" WEST, ADISTANCE OF n 147.65 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENTIAL CURVE AND TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID LOGAN BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIG ITT OF WAY, NORTHERLY, 91.07 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,132.54 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02"26'49" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS NORTH 10"56'37" EAST, 91.06 FEETTOTHE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 12,385 SQUARE FEET OR 0.28 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 2) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 990.47 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH SECTION LINE, SOUTH 02"11'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 166.97 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (150 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY) AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 0211'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89"58'22" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0211'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE October 7, 2016 ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 89"58'22" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 90.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 13,490 SQUARE FEET OR 0.310 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTION (EASEMENT 3) A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICUARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWESTER QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER SECTION, SOUTH 89058'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 879.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DEPARTING SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER, NORTH 43"5618" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 153.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02"11'25" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 111.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 89"58'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 11 1.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL CONTAINS 6,156 SQUARE FEET OR 0.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 18.64 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 3 October 7, 2016 g ............... Kg. a i a In s a- y a In j �iL�1 a _M ________________ v� 932 „F a �Sd t - '- ---- ---- ---- -- - - -- -� ~f3 s a- LNLJ �nR cr- U S54 i . a .io g: Q p>S ` aaa 3a; I j �iL�1 a _M ________________ v� 932 „F a �Sd t - '- ---- ---- ---- -- - - -- -� ~f3 EXHIBIT 66Q99 INSTR 4938329 OR 5003 PG 1836 RECORDED 1/27/2014 2:33 PM PAGES 3 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 517,500.00 REC $27.00 CONS S2,500,000.00 This instrument prepared by and after recording, return to: Immokalee Road Associates, LLC 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway Suite 400 Sunrise, Florida 33323 Attn: Clayton M. Ratliff, Esq. Parcel Identification Nos.: 00195440009, 00195040001,00194880000,0019548001 WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED is made and entered into as of the 20 day of January, 2014 by WILLIAM A. LANYI ("Grantor"), whose 1831 Atlantic Place, Go Summer Beach, Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034, to IM FA ► TES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Grantee"), whose mailin is 1600 Saw orate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise Florida 33323. Wherever used her i terms "Grantor' and n " shall include all of the parties to this instrument and their suc ces a (,., GRANTOR, for and in c n 'd ti e n of 0' of s $10.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid by cie is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold, these presents d g nt, a in and sell, to Grantee, and Grantee's heirs, successors and is forever, the folio cated in Collier County, Florida (the "Property"), to -wit: See Exhibit "A" a d C rt hereof. THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT TUTE THE HOMESTEAD OF THE GRANTOR OR GRANTOR'S SPOUSE AND IT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE HOMESTEAD OF THE GRANTOR OR GRANTOR'S SPOUSE. TOGETHER with all tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining. THIS CONVEYANCE is subject to: (a) taxes and assessments for the year 2014 and subsequent years not yet due or payable; (b) all laws, ordinances, regulations, restrictions, prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authority, including, but not limited to, all applicable building, zoning, land use and environmental ordinances and regulations; and (c) easements, conditions, restrictions, matters, limitations and reservations of record, if any, but this reference shall not operate to reimpose same. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns in fee simple forever. GRANTOR hereby warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. OR 5003 PG 1837 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Deed as of the day and year first above written. Witnessed by: Name: Print Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing My commission expires: } ss: o s+n � nowiedged before d _ olulily„ He is D qvlll�' day of January, 2014 by Nm to me or produced ]Notarial Seal] TDWLCM NYCOM9AIS MtEELIM EXPIRES: November 12, 2016 9MW Thu NmY Nk tMdarmten *** OR 5003 PG 1838 *** EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description The West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, AND the West 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, LESS the North 100 feet thereof, Collier County, Florida; ALSO LESS the South Fifty (50') feet of the North 150 feet of the West 112 of the NE 114 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 114 of Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; ALSO LESS the property described in Official Records Book 3888, Pages 1611 and 1617. AND The East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 114 of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, LESS the North 100 feet thereof; ALSO Less the South Fifty (50') feet of the North 150 feet of the East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 114 of the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florid - the property described in Official Records Book 3888, Pages 1611, 1613 and 1617. cotj AND The East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of East, Collier County, Florida. All of the above being more Township 48 South, Range 26 Commencing at a Northwest of ection 28, T–ow—n'Bhlp 4 So ange 26 East, Collier County, Florida, thence along the North said Section 26, aftpei g orth right-of-way of Immokalee Road (150' wide), South 89°58' a distance of 3 . nce leaving said North line and along the West line of the East 1/2 W 1/4 of the NW 1/ f NW 1/4 of said Section 28, South 02°11'07" East, a distance of 150.11 leavin lip nd along a line that is parallel and South 150 feet, measured at right angle dip e, South 89°58'22" East, a distance of 54.42 feet; thence leaving said parallel line So est, a distance of 16.85 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land herein described; thence South 89°58'22" East, a distance of 606.50 feet to the East line of the West 112 of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and the West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 114 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 28; thence along said East line South 02°11'33" East, a distance of 1,169.86 feet to the South line of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 28; thence along said South line North 89°58'00" West, a distance of 660.44 feet to the West line of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 and the East 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 114 of said Section 28, thence North 02°11'07" West, a distance of 902.69 to a point on a non-tangential circular curve; thence Northerly, 209.81 feet along the arc of a circular curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 2,471.50 feet; through a central angle of 04051'50" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 02018'18" East, 209.74 feet; thence North 00°07'37" West, a distance of 22.84 feet; thence North 45°37'16" East, a distance of 49.26 feet to the Point of Beginning. 10"\ This instrument prepared by and after recording, return to: Immokelee Road Associates, LLC 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway Suite 400 Sunrise, Florida 33323 Attn: Clayton M. Ratliff, Esq. Parcel Identification Nos.: 00195000009, and a portion of 00195200003 IN'$TR 52137294 OR 5291 116 M93 t&ccit;I F -D 717r2010 4 A"i PM PAGES 3 D\Mc,IIT E BROCK, 0 FIM OF Ti IE CIRCUIT COURT COLLICR COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $4,865.00 }TEC $27 00 CONS $695.000 00 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED is made and entered into as of the 6 i day of July, 2016 by OAKWOOD PARK WEST, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is 2170 Logan Boulevard North, Naples, Florida 34119, to IMMOKALEE ROAD ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise Florida 33323. Wherever used herein, the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" shall include all of the parties to this instrument and their successors and assigns. WITNESSETH; GRANTOR, for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10,00) and other good and valuable consideration paid by Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents does grant, bargain and sell, to Grantee, and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever, the following property located In Collier County, Florida (the "Property"), to -wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. TOGETHER with all tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or In anywise appertaining. THIS CONVEYANCE is subject to: (a) taxes and assessments for the year 2016 and subsequent years not yet due or payable; (b) all laws, ordinances, regulations, restrictions, prohlbitlons and other requirements imposed by governmental authority, including, but not limited to, all applicable building, zoning, land use and environmental ordinances and regulations; and (c) easements, conditlons, restrictions, matters, limitations and reservations of record, if any, but this reference shall not operate to reimpose same. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto Grantee and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns in fee simple forever. AND GRANTOR hereby covenants with Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of the Property in fee slmple, that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the Property, and that Grantor specially warrants the title to the Property subject to the foregoing matters and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor, but no others. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Deed an of the day and year first above written. Witnessed by: ( Print Print N me.- STATEOFFLORIDA ) )oa: COUNTY OF COLLIER GRANTOR:, OAKVW000 PARK WEST, LLC, a Florida limited liability com,pany � The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20 day of ����//r . 2010 by Cullen Z, VVa|krt as MonmgAg Member odUAKVVCDD P/�RK, VVE§T. �1, Ca Fk"Wm||mhadliability oompany, on behalf of said company, He !o�| known to or produced as identification, ~—� Name: _/±-�_/__'- olary Public, State of Florida My commissionissmmmo.___ My Comm, Expires JW 28, 2018 'Notarial Seal] EXHIBIT "R" TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT Logan/Immokalee GMPA GMP Amendment and CPUD Rezoning Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) Prepared for: Immokalee Road Associates, LLC 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400, Sunrise, FL 33332 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated Wilson Professional Center 3200 Bailey lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 June 23, 2016 October 11, 2016 (Amended) TIS Methodology Meeting Fee - $500 Major TIS Application Fee - $1,500 4 Stantec PURPOSE The following traffic impact statement (TIS) is intended to satisfy the applicable requirements associated with a Major Study to support the Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated CPUD Rezoning for the Logan/lmmokofee GMPA project (hereafter "PROJECT") located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. The PROJECT is currently zoned A -Agriculture. The property is currently vacant. The applicant intends to construct a shopping center with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. A Methodology Meeting was held with County Staff on May 24, 2016. The Methodology Meeting Checklist is attached in the Appendices. STUDY AREA The 18.6 acre site is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, approximately 1.4 miles east of 1-75 and 1.9 miles west of Collier Boulevard (Figure 1). FIGURE 1: Site Location 1 (Page ACCESS CONNECTIONS The PROJECT site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, with frontage on both roadways. As shown on the Master Plan (Figure 2), access to the site is proposed to include a right-in/right-out f Rl/ROj connection on Immokalee Road at the northeast corner of the site, and a full FIGURE 2: Master Concept Plan access connection on _.._ Logan Boulevard at the south west corner of the site hnrroka(ee Ro c the latter being a shared ingress/egress connection with the adjoining- i "j11 nursery/landscape business p immediately to the south. In addition to the shared access connection to Logan Boulevard, an internal connection to the adjoining parcel immediately to the east is being provided to satisfy the code requirements for accommodating interconnections to adjacent parcels. The PROJECT also provides on easement in the southeast corner that allows for an interconnection between the parcel to the east and the parcel to the south to accommodate future access to Logan Boulevard. PROJECT BUILD -OUT The PROJECT is expected to be built out by 2019. .... If __ Z —___----_ site Data: toc.W s= Pan irp. E`A. ryes P:cs<ne_ i.tp x«s i591 � of si+e� 2'! P Jr* .... If __ Z —___----_ site Data: toc.W s= Pan irp. E`A. ryes P:cs<ne_ i.tp x«s i591 � of si+e� 2'! P TRIP GENERATION The p.m. peak hour trip generation for the PROJECT is based upon ITE Trip Generation Manual. 9ih Ed., and is shown below in Table 1. TABLE 1: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation ITE Land Use (LU) ITE Units Unit 24 -Hr Trips Peak Hour Passe PTripsys Net New Enter Exit Driveway Volume ExdudingPass-8y Enter Exit Enter Exit LUq Measure r e Rate Trip Rate Rate (2 -Way) Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Sq. Ft. Shopping Center 820 'A i AM Pk Hr 6,791 156 156 62% Wl' 97' S9 97 59 — GLFA) PMPkHr 599 0.25 150 449 480/c 52% 288 311 216_ 233 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The percent of project trips, and the resulting number of trips assigned to each roadway segment within the study area as provided for in the approved methodology is depicted below in Figure 2. FIGURE 2: Trip Distribution and Assignment 3 1 P a g e DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED LINKS Pursuant to the TIS guidelines an evaluation of the trips assigned to the network was conducted to determine which segments were significantly impacted by project traffic (i.e., PROJECT trips exceeding 2% of the peak directional service volume). Project traffic was traced along the network until the segments were no longer significantly impacted by the number of assigned trips. Table 2 depicts the evaluated links. Only three segments within the study area were found to be significantly impacted by project trips TABLE 2: Determination of Significantly Impacted Links segment From To AUIR Off i of Lanes Each Dir LOS Std Directional Service Volume l'I Trips %Project Criteria %of %of Traffic Threshold LOS Assigned Project Trips Exceeds Net New 2%-2%-3 Directional Project Threshold Trips Assigned at Build NB WB SB EB Out imnl0kalee Road Livinirsban 1-75 42.2 314 1 E 1 3.500 2% 7 Volumes 58 Ss No Immokalee Road 175 Logan Blvd 43.1 3/4 1 E 1 3,500 2X.. 10 40% 93 86 1 2,390 Immokalee Road to&an Blvd. Collier Blvd. 43.2 3 E 3,200 2% 64 40% 86 NB Immokalee Road Collier Bl vd. Wilson Blvd, 44.0 3 E 3.300 2% 66 20% 43 47 No Lo an. Blvd 2 Immoka Iee Road North NP. I D 1,000 2% 20 5% 11 No Logan Blvd imrnokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road 50.0 1 D 1,000 20 ' `,! 35 j Lo an Blvd Vanderbilt Bch Road Pine Ridge Road 48.0 i D 1.,000 2% 20 5% 12 No Vanderbilt Bch Road ILivingston Road lLogan Blvd. 111.2 3 E 3.000 2% 60 --% 12 No Vanderbilt8ch Road lLogan Blvd. Col: i er B!vd. 112.0 3 E 3p00 2% 6o 5% '1 No Collier Blvd ImmokaleeRoad IV.nderbilt Beach Ro 30.1 3 E 3,000 2% 60 1 15% 35 No t1J LUIS AUIR (2) This segment of Logan is not in the AUIR; Characteristics borrowed from south of Immokalee Road EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions were evaluated based upon the 2015 AUIR values available at the time of the preparation of the TIS. The existing conditions for the three significantly impacted roadway segments are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3: Existing Conditions tl/ GV 1>HVI15 4P'u C 2025 Directional Exisiting LOS Peak Service Volumes V/Std Road Name From To I Std I Dir I Volumelll 1 (t)1 Ratio I LOS ImmokaleeRoad 1-75 Logan Blvd E EB 1 3,500 1 2,390 0.68 C ImmokaIee Road Logan Blvd. Collier Blvd. E EB 3,200 1,960 0.61 C Logan Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road D NB 1 1,000 470 0.47 B tl/ GV 1>HVI15 4P'u C FUTURE CONDITIONS Background growth (traffic growth not associated with project trips) on the significantly impacted links was derived by comparing the 2015 AUIR annual growth rate (AGR) for each segment against the 2015 AUIR's +1/7th Trip[ Bank Total. As shown in Table 4, the 4% value was the larger of the two values for two segments, while the Trip Bank value was the larger value for one segment (the higher values shown in red). TABLE 4: Background Traffic Growth Determination (1) 2015 AUIR Future traffic without project traffic was developed by adding the higher of the background growth values to the existing 2015 volumes (Table 5). The analysis shows all three segments operating at an acceptable level of service in 2019. TABLE 5: Future Background Traffic Annual 2019 Net 2019 2015 Growth Bkgd Growth Growth Estimate Growth LOS Peak Directional Rate (AGR) Volumes Using 2015 Trip Road Name From To Std Dir Volume ttl Ili Using AGR AGR Bank ImmokaleeRoad 1-75 Logan Blvd E EB 2,390 4M% 2,796 406 381 Immokalee Road Lo an Blvd. Collier Bivd. E EB 1,960 4.00% 2,293 333 527 !LoganBivd ImmokaleeRoad VanderbiltBchRoad D N8 470 4,00% 550 SD 30 (1) 2015 AUIR Future traffic without project traffic was developed by adding the higher of the background growth values to the existing 2015 volumes (Table 5). The analysis shows all three segments operating at an acceptable level of service in 2019. TABLE 5: Future Background Traffic (1) 2015 AUIR Project trips on the significantly impacted roadways were combined with the higher background growth value identified in Table 4 to yield the future total traffic volume on each segment, shown in Table 6. The analysis shows all three segments operating at an acceptable level of service in 2019. TABLE 6: Future Total Traffic Net Bkgd Net Bkgd 2019 2019 Growth Estimate Growth 2015 Road Name LOS From 70 Std Peak Dir Project Trips (Pk Using Net Directional Using Exisiting 2019 Highest LOS Peak Service Highest Volumes Estimate V/Std Dir) Road Name From To Std Dir Volume ni Value (1) Total Ratio LOS Immokalee Road 1-75 Logan Blvd E EB 3,500 406 2,390 2,796 0.80 D Immokalee Road Lo an Bivd. Collier Bivd. E EB 3 200 527 1960 2.487 0.78 D Lo an Blvd Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Bch Road D NB 1000 80 470 550 O.SS G (1) 2015 AUIR Project trips on the significantly impacted roadways were combined with the higher background growth value identified in Table 4 to yield the future total traffic volume on each segment, shown in Table 6. The analysis shows all three segments operating at an acceptable level of service in 2019. TABLE 6: Future Total Traffic (1) 2015 AuiR 5311a -Te Net Bkgd 2019 2019 2019 Growth Estimate Bkgd• Directional Road Name LOS From 70 Std Peak Dir Project Trips (Pk Using Net Project V/Std Service Ratio LOS Highest Growth Volumes Volume Dir) Value Total Total Immokalee Road 1-75 - Logan Blvd E. EB 86 406 492 2,882 3,500 0.82 D Immokalee Road Lo an Bivd. Collier Blvd. E. EB 93 527 620 2 580 3 200 0.81 D Lo an Blvd ImmokaleeRoad Vanderbilt Bch Road D NB 35 80 115 585 1,000 0.58 C (1) 2015 AuiR 5311a -Te 11� OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Vehicle turning movement counts were conducted at the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection and at the existing driveway connection on Logan Boulevard on Thursday June 2, 2016. The turning movement counts were taken during the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) to quantify existing PM peak -hour conditions. It should be noted that no traffic used the existing driveway connection on Logan Boulevard that today serves as a gated exit only connection for the existing landscape nursery business to the south. We do not expect the nursery's use of the shared access to change in the immediate future. The turning movement counts at the intersections were then adjusted by FDOT's peak -season conversion factor of 1.19 published for Collier County for the week the data was collected. The peak -season factors, turning movement counts, and signal timing information are attached in Appendix B. The intersection analysis was performed using the Synchro Software. As part of the analysis, existing lane geometry was used at the intersection. An overall intersection level -of -service standard of E, corresponding with Collier County's adopted level -of -service for Immokalee Road, was used for the intersection. In addition to the overall delay, the approach level of service at the intersection was checked to make sure it was E or better with each intersection movement having a v/c ratio less than 1.0. Like the future roadway conditions, future intersection volumes were grown at a 4% annual 110\ growth rate to the year 2019 to establish the background traffic conditions. Prior to evaluating project traffic at the intersection, the necessary improvements to allow the intersection to operate at acceptable level -of -service standards were assumed to be in place. Chapter 163.3180 Florida Statutes and Chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida as amended by HB 319 requires a developer to only correct those transportation deficiencies that are directly created by the addition of their project traffic. The following intersection improvements were identified to correct the background traffic deficiencies: • Add a fourth eastbound through lane • Add a second northbound right turn lane Once the improvements required to correct the background deficiencies were assumed to be in place, project traffic was then added to the improved background traffic conditions. The project traffic will not create any additional deficiencies, beyond what is required to correct the background traffic conditions. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 7 and the Synchro output worksheets are summarized in Appendix C. 61Page TABLE 7: Logan Blvd/Immokalee Rd Intersection Operating Conditions Intersection Scenario Overall Intersection LOS Delay (sec/veh) Max v/c Ratio Approach LOS Standard Colc. EB WB NB SB Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 2016 Existing E E 61.1 1.08 E C E C 2019 Bkgd E F 106.0 1.29 F D F D 2019 Bkgd w/Imp, E D 36.4 0.89 C C D E 2019 Total E D 43.9 0.97 D C E E SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS The development will utilize a full access connection to Logan Boulevard and a right- in/right-out connection to Immokalee Road. The need for turn lanes was based on Collier County's Construction Standards Handbook for Work within the Public Right -of -Way. Section III(A.) (1.) specify the threshold volumes for right and left turn lanes. During the PM peak -hour, it is estimated that 43 vehicles will make a northbound right turn and 72 vehicles will make a southbound left turn from Logan Boulevard. The 43 right turning vehicles exceed the threshold volume of 40 vehicles for constructing a right turn lane and the 72 left turning vehicles exceed the threshold volume of 20 vehicles for constructing a left turn lane. FIGURE 3: Total Traffic Volumes 5% 5% 1 16 58 20% 40°/u 124 58 20% 4030 115 1734o% 124 � 609'0 r 124 124 100,000 Sq Ft 25%45% 549 Total 72 140 288 Enter 311 Exit r During the PM peak -hour, it is estimated that 173 vehicles will make an eastbound right turn from Immokalee Road. For multi -lane divided roadways, Collier County requires right turn lanes regardless of the turning volume. The total traffic volumes entering the site (new external plus pass -by) are shown in Figure 3. Both Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road have a posted speed of 45 mph. FDOT Standard Index 301 specifies a deceleration length of 185 feet for a speed of 45 mph; therefore, the right turn lanes need to be 185 feet. 71Page /001\ The required unsignalized queue length for the left turn lane was calculated using procedures outlined in the AASHTO Green Book. The AASHTO Green Book specifies that at a minimum, queue storage for at least two vehicles (50 feet) be provided. The 72 southbound left turning vehicle will require 60 feet of queue storage; therefore, the left turn lane should be 245 feet (185 + 60). The queue length calculation for the left turn lane is shown below: Southbound Left Turn Lane Queue Length: veh 1 hr l (2 mint (_ 25 f tl 72 hr �60 minl \ J l veh J — 60 ft CONCLUSIONS The Logan/Immokalee GMPA project, if built to the maximum 100,000 square feet, can be expected to generate 449 net new p.m. peak hour 2 -way trips that would be distributed to the surrounding roadway network. The link -level concurrency analysis indicates that the net new trips will not create any adverse LOS conditions. The operational analysis of the signalized intersection of Immokalee Road at Logan Boulevard indicates there may be adverse conditions as a result of background traffic growth (unrelated to the PROJECT); however, the net new trips generated by the PROJECT do not create any additional adverse impacts at buildout. The site impact analysis indicates that 185 -foot right turn lanes are warranted at the Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road access points and a 245 -foot southbound left turn lane is warranted at the Logan Boulevard access point. Turn lanes should be constructed in accordance with the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual and Standard Index 301. 8 1 P a g e APPENDIX A APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date: Tuesday, 24, 2016 Time: 2:30 p.m. Location: CDS Conf. Rm TBD People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Jeff Perry, S(antec Consulting Services Incorporated 2) Michael Sawyer, Project Manager 3) Stephen Baluch 4) ChakiwTet-- 5) Study Preparer•+ Preparer's Nameand Title: Jeff Perry. AICP Organization: Stantec ConsultingServices Incorporated Address & Telephone Number: 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, FL, (239.649.40) Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: Mike Sawyer Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name & Title: Organization & Telephone Number: Applicant: Applicant's Name: Immokalee Road Associates, LLC Address: 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway. Suite 400 Sunrise FL 33332 Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: Immokalee/Logan Commercial Location: SE Corner Immokalee Road at Logan Blvd Land Use Type: Commercial Shopping Center ITE Code #: 820 Proposed number of development units: +/- 100,000 Sq. Ft. Other: Description: Shopping Center with outparcels Zonine Existing: A -Agricultural Comprehensive plan recommendation: GMPA to Requested: CPUD Findings of the Preliminary Study: No adverse impacts immediately identified Study Type: Small Scale TIS Minor TIS Maior TIS X ($1,500 + $500 Methodology Meeting Fee) Study Area: Boundaries: Livingston Road on the West, Wilson Blvd on the Cast, Pine Ridge Road on the South Additional intersections to be analyzed: Immokalee Road at Logan Blvd. Horizon Year(s): 2019 Analysis Time Period(s): BIO Future Off -Site Developments: Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE 9'h Ed. Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: Pass -by trips: 25% reduction assumed Internal trips (PUD): None Transit use: No reductions assumed Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: Collier County 5 -Year CIP FDOT 5 -Year Work Program_ Methodoloey & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: From the 2015 AUIR Site -trip generation: 100,000 sq ft. floor area Trip distribution method: Manual (see attached) Traffic, assignment method: Manual (see attached) __'\ Traffic growth rate: Larger of AUIR Annual Growth for each segment vs. 2015 AUIR Trip Bank (incl. 1/7"') Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: NA Sight distance: NA Queuing: NA Access location & configuration: Full access connection on Logan Blvd. and RI/RO on Immokalee Road _-------- _-_ Traffic control: NA Signal system location & progression needs: On-site parking needs: Per LDC _ Data Sources: Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Collier County Review process: Normal _ Requirements: Miscellaneous: Small Scale Study — No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1,500.00 X Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign -off on the application. Applicant V:pl564xtaol2l5673760Yranspalarnnlspealiearbnlagency_guvtareelCouiei County doc EXHIBIT A Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodology Review - $500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement, including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re -submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County, if needed. "Small Scale Study" Review - No Additional Fee (includes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation, distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review" - $750 Fee (Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off-site improvements within the right-of-way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency" comments/questions. "Mnior Study Review" - $1,500 Fee (Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confinnation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data coil ected/assembled, review of traffic growth analysis, review of off-site roadway operations and capacity analysis, review of site access and circulation, neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and preparation and review of up to two rounds of "sufficiency" comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review" - $500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the "Major Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufiicieney Reviews" - $500 Fee) Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. k�§ # ■ « ■ ..E 2 � • |° t 3 ----+ a■ , f� ( 2| � -/--/ � 4 \ ! "� - ® $ ■ ' � _ § ■ � Y C J aj GJ V O_ E T c m u c 00 N c O m C v D V N O� M m Q •a N d Q' z° z z z z z z t: m O � to a y Z lic Z d h m In Q1 00 r-4 IH Q z aR • LnQ N C N Ln Ln V1 Ln 6 N O 1� O r V lD tp 10 O N O N O N O w O w O w O � � O lu N N N N N N N N N N d � .t' u 10 ~ai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L' vi N O O O O O O Q ! Nf O N o to J a R a C c7 z N V~ N ~ N M O O m 0 m > > m m L m m L to r, Li 3 z° > C a v° O V wfo a 10 m c E o a° cc z z° WG yW OJ CO > W a� ? m m N ML .+ m A G C m_ d p E he O E W cto c C O O E In m m f0 O 10 O 9 M cc C m O O O O L L d tryc w CO !C m m CO 0° 0 E 0 E 0 E a E C f0 C O G 1O c c- E E E E J J o>> U to r M a u v Z m a N v rnu .2 m 00 r, m ol 'I 0 Z I Ln 11 j = dn O O O C O O A n o m n+ M dE F O iq Lq m m w ono v Qnf. O N N N kO Z O m N 00 N N N r -I r -i l 1f1 o0 �-i r• -i st .i O CL 6 Q w 00 O� a, n V N .•y N m ey rf .ti .9 N .-� N m C m o 0 0 0 0 0 C C rri rn m rri .-i - .-i rri rri r» a mrp 4!1 m rn n N .n N 1p w Q Z O m 01 H LO w 01 00 N tD A m - mm - - m m m m -- nd W m� W W Z on Z W 0 Z Ln7 v� m Ol voi 1D Q V mo �tl 0 oa ry 000 a Q N W W W W Z Q Q r -f •-i r.1 N > A C d 0 V) 0 V1 0 N 0 m 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 m m m m O .ti O .•+ 0 m O O M Fu A .. m dw d d o Lfta u O 0 o z m m m cc m 00 L F c w y u m 0 C N m 1 m f° > m t . m w -o > m - a cen z a v a ^s�3Z>asu> �° u° > a 3 u° c m E m m 0 o ¢ z0 zM m o $ m m° 0 cc � o m � c da`r g E y 10 ac = 9 c u° E E> w Q 3 E d C C c J^ o u E E j J o f 13 r0 m N a 17 "o 'O C K r0 t L L r Z E E E E E EE�� E m to Ou v u m Z m v u m m .2 m 00 r, m ol 'I Z I Ln 11 j O O O C O O m N d O O O O O O O N "1 O1 kO Z O m N 00 7 N O N N r -I r -i l 1f1 o0 �-i r• -i st .i A N Q d O O O O O O O O O O m o 0 0 0 0 0 bCI rri rn m rri .-i - .-i rri rri r» A m m mm m m m m m m 4 0 W W W W Z Z Z W W Z N Q N W W W W Q Q Q W W W v a o Fu A dw u O N m m m m 00 L c w N - __ t C d r0 z - �° u° > a 3 u° > m 0 a zM v o m° 0 cc m cr v o o w Q c o C C c J^ o u E E j J o f 13 r0 m N a 17 "o 'O C K r0 _ L L r Z S N K u K OOC m to adi w w �i > i «_ " - a > A m m io col- > d L Y Y O Y O Y O C d N E EO ju E E E to tw 9>>: C CE 10"\ QG C 0 u Z u v u Co u 9 H Oo N w N w N n w m n Ql w d N r° IA N N w O w CI w - W 00 l0 .+ l7 n 10 n Q E p w w N in m a w w 'm o N c N rn 1jY+J N N -1 Q N d � N d N l0m w¢¢ l0 N N o N O n N- n ry N N N Z o N a rl N N ia' y 0 `w , e o 0 C c p o N� o 0 o 0 o z 0 o 0 o V n O o D D Q� a N a N N 'c► cf d E O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0a O O 0 ` n M n M ry m m m o 0 .ti 0 0 0 M IA o > I A mm co 0o m m m cp m CO d 0 W W W W Z Z Z W W Z N C N W W W W O E W W W a a 0 o cr O f K L m m 10 K L V IpA fD b > j m m > m C W O L d pC m y d LA f0 - N ` d N C isu°3�Joas3> C a a a 0 z a E 0 m i L 0 eo CO m m m m S m a C O O d N C 0 vi = E E c 0 E i s E E» s E c°� a a aaav W°o°c i! �0. OO 0: O C O OC N L m L m .0 w d w d d W, wp d a > a > a > t Y> m Cp Y Y Y Y m m m ', L O O E O E O E L 10 c ° G'a' O c c- d E E Es9s»u Wy AL ~ C U z -1- U 0 U of Ri mm vmi `O m N .••1 L11 m .�, (D 00 a 0v1 m 00 m n 1n 1n tc Q to N o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 L � O Ln ooc�pp00000 L O M p 0 0 0 0 0 C 17 � pp d (9 ul to Y m d o "1 17,10 100 Q O Q O b m 00 1� f\% N n Z 0 O Q n NO c N N N N �n to N N � .SJ V1 O O OQ 7 o o C' O p O O O O O Z O O n 0 0 d Q Q Ct OC t0 N Z 00 Q C,I ID C O O O O O O O O O c E LIiI a!'C ZnmomNc Q ~ .10 k O N N .� ri .-i .•ti .ti A is R m m m m m m m m m m d W W W W Z Z Z W W Z N 0 y J W W W W Q Q Q W W W NG N O 0 O 0[ F w w w w z z z w °° u h Q H J W W W W O u m O C W W 00) m _a > m « y > m m O v ac K F to '^ c w Ct,c u 0 �a�t°,>" 0 m z a m 0 m m 0 L0 V O 0 O m m C D C m m 0 c W C yy O1 0y Ol y C d 0 m_ _> .L. 8 C > c a 9 > r- > a c° c to E i9 L) E Ej v 9 E p M w M z° v v z W o v 0 -0 d N m o°e m wo d m K 0 cc1 N t m L m ' c u+ C 10 = Y E 0 01 c t.0 � Y Y Y Y Y E E>j3 E O E E 0 0 0 0 -O -O L l E E 9 -o v W O J U -1- U m U Vti N N .••1 L11 00 01 1l Q1 0v1 m 00 m n 1n 1n tc Q to o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 A 01 rj ? O Ln ooc�pp00000 L O M p 0 0 0 0 0 C Y CN '0 E O ul to 0 3 N o0 m 00 m Ln InJ rn dLn 00 o Q m it �' N N N N 0 N H N ; N d i V1 N O Ot 7 vl O Q t0 N •y Z�� N Q �D O� .••I � N N Q LTjYn � t0 N Z 00 Q C,I ID zi N V 0 t0 N N Q A is o. a m M n N r+ N In m Q1 Q H M N N N M NG N a= D w w w w z z z w °° m Z h Q H J W W W W O O Q W W W O O K F cc O u v 0 m O C 001 m m m m C m 0 v y m'o 0 m_ —_ .L. 8 C > c a 9 7--1 UO r- > m 13a0 v v p M w M z° o z W C >> d N r d c u+ C 10 = Y E 0 01 c t.0 � Y E E>j3 E -o v m ro z Ea IV0Z a =0 a OG OOC N cr w m u m V O Y Y Y Y m m m L m m tL c VE E E E 9ss>>Uo 101 APPENDIX B �1 2014 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL Category: 0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0.88 Week Dates SF PSCF 1 01/01/2014 - 01/04/2014 1.00 1.14 2 01/05/2014 - 01/11/2014 0.98 1.11 3 01/12/2014 01/18/2014 0.96 1.09 4 01/19/2014 - 01/25/2014 0-94 1.07 * 5 01/26/2014 - 02/01/2014 0.92 1.05 * 6 02/02/2014 - 02/08/2014 0.90 1.02 * 7 02/09/2014 - 02/15/2014 0.88 1.00 * 8 02/16/2014 - 02/22/2014 0.86 0.98 * 9 02/23/2014 - 03/01/2014 0.86 0.98 *10 03/02/2014 03/08/2014 0.86 0.98 *11 03/09/2014 - 03/15/2014 0.86 0.98 *12 03/16/2014 - 03/22/2014 0.86 0.98 *13 03/23/2014 03/29/2014 0.87 0.99 *14 03/30/2014 - 04/05/2014 0.88 1.00 *15 04/06/2014 04/12/2014 0.88 1.00 *16 04/13/2014 - 04/1.9/2014 0.89 1.01 *17 04/20/2014 - 04/26/2014 0.92 1.05 18 04/27/2014 - 05/03/2014 0.94 1.07 19 05/04/2014 - 05/10/2014 0.96 1..09 20 05/11/2014 - 05/17/2014 0.98 1.11 21 05/18/2014 - 05/24/2014 1.00 1.14 22 05/25/2014 - 05/31/2014 1.03 1..17 23 06/01/2014 - 06/07/2014 1.05 1.19 24 06/08/2014 - 06/14/2014 1.07 1.22 25 06/15/2014 - 06/21/201.4 1.09 1.24 26 06/22/2014 - 06/28/2014 1.10 1.25 27 06/29/2014 - 07/05/201.4 1.10 1.25 28 07/06/2014 - 07/12/7.014 1.11 1.26 29 07/13/2014 - 07/19/201.4 1.11 1.26 30 07/20/201.4 - 07/26/2014 1.11 1.26 31 07/27/2014 - 08/02/2014 1.12 1.27 32 08/03/2014 - 08/09/2014 1.12 1.27 33 08/10/2014 - 06/16/2014 1.1.2 1.27 34 08/17/2014 - 08/23/2014 1.13 1.28 35 08/24/2014 08/30/2014 1.14 1.30 36 08/31/2014 - 09/06/201.4. 1.16 1.32 37 09/07/2014 - 09/13/2014 1.1.8 1.34 38 09/14/2014 - 09/20/201.4 1.20 1.36 39 09/21/2014 - 09/27/2014 1.17 1.33 40 09/28/2014 - 10/04/2014 1.14 1.30 41 10/05/2014 - 10/11/2014 1.11 1.26 42 10/12/2014 - 10/18/2014 1..08 1..23 43 10/19/2014 - 10/25/2014 1.07 1.22 44 10/26/2014 - 11/01/2014 1.06 1.20 45 11/02/2014 - 11/06/2014 1.05 1.19 46 11/09/2014 - 11/15/2014 1.04 1.18 47 1.1/16/2014 • 11/22/2014 1.03 1.17 48 11/23/2014 - 11/29/2014 1.02 1.16 49 11/30/2014 - 12/06/2014 1.01 1.15 50 12/07/2014 - 12/13/2014 1..01 1.15 51 12/14/2014 - 12/20/2014 1.00 1.14 52 12/21/2014 - 12/27/2014 0.98 1.11 53 12/28/2014 - 12/31/2014 0.96 1.09 * Peak Season Page 1 of 7 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determininn neck hm w Tntal Gnfnr{nn Wnh imn LOCATION: Logan Blvd N -- Dwy Connection CITY/STATE: Na I s FL CIC JOB #: 13833402 DATE: ThU, Jun 02 2016 368 5*3 368 0 ✓ ♦ L Peak -Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15 -Min: 5:30 PM -- 5:45 PM 1113 25 I00 10.3 010 0 «0 , 1, O t ~ t 0 �J ✓ ♦ b co t 00 00 t 00 o 0.90 o 0 y 1% 1 t P e 0 0 553 0 ♦ F♦ 0 JaQuaLity Coup l�J ♦ t 00 oe 00 t i r ♦ ,4 ti • r n� �i l,;0 + 368 553 • 0s 2._ — 1 L J ✓ ♦ 4 L 0 0 0 J tv 0 o . �� t Q 1 ♦ 1' 0 0 0 0 r NA �✓ ♦ Vf� NAL �✓ NA ~ t NA ♦ NA �� t NA NA NA 7 OR 15 -Min CountLogan Blvd N Period (Northbound) Logan Blvd N (Southbound) Dwy Connection (Eastbound) Dwy Connection Total Hourly (Westbound) Totals Be innin At _ Right U 4 00 PM 0 105 0 0 4:15 PM 0 92 0 0 0 0 ''; 0 75 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 4:30 PM 0 102, _ 0 0 LL 0 0 0 0 0 100 _0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0.._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 4'45 PM 0 141 0 0 5 00 PM 0 120 0 0 0 0 6 79 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 __. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ _202 0 0 D 0 0 0 220 764 0 0 0 0 0206 790 515 PM 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 p o 240 868 5A5 PM 0 127 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 213. 914 Peak 15 -Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound All Vehicles 'r' 0 616 0 0 Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 0 0 404 0 0 0' 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.. 0 0 0 0 0 1020 0 0 0 32 Pedestrians i 0 Bicycles i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 Railroad Stopped Btzes::i Comments Report generated on 6/15/2016 6:37 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.gualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Type of peak hour being reported Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Logan Blvd N -- Immokalee Rd CIC JOB #: 13833401 CITY/STATE: Naples. FL DATE: Thu Jun 02 2016 235 242 114'0 69 36 * L Peak -Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM Peak 15 -Min: 5:15 PM -• 5:30 PM 51 04 1## 38 87 28 J ` 4 1433« 152 j _ t 37 4-1294 52 — .: ♦ V 4.0, i It. 00 « 52 2359-0 0.96 -'.. « 1161 7 �I•-�-•• 134 61 331II Quality Counts 35 1 * I 4.2 30 52 0 06II 377 526 ♦ ! 1 66 17 ISI J t ° « 1 1- NA —� NA « « � t t NA « NA NA « NA NA 1 t P � NA + ! R'. RTOP 15 -Min Count Logan Blvd N Period (Northbound) Logan Blvd N (Southbound) Immokalee Rd (Eastbound) Immokalee Rd Total '.. Hourly (Westbound)Totals B2jinninq At ; , 400 PM 33 17 23 0 27 4:15 PM 35 16 18 0 21 '�. i6 15 17 3 0 20 10 5 0 16 26 407 27 3 45 398 29 5 8 '.. 23 14 ', 28 371 5 0 7 11033 268 5 1 5 934 4:30 PM 31 19 10 0 22 4 45 PM 28 24 71 0 25 --...-----� T6. 9 14 13 1 0 31 19 5 0 32 26 446 44 1 31 520 26 4 13 j 24 13 25 313 4 0 1 1008 261 14 2 4 ! 1118 4093 5:00 PM t 6 15 9 - ---- ------ 3 15 0 t — 25 43 34 3 7 17 311 7 0 1 1153 t 4213 24 5'30 PM 31 16 95 0 17 5A5 PM 34 15 45 0 22 8 12 22 6 0 25 7 6 0 26_ 48 599 37 2 36 5$7 37 1 18 29 20 21 276 8 1 2 1240 4757 262 4 05 1140 4779 Peak 15 -Min .; Northbound FlQwratel Ila- LQ Southbound T Eastbound Westbound All Vehicles ? 132 60 2t6 0 88 Heavy Trucks: 0 0 0 28 0 68 2D 0 104 0 8 140 2520 144 8 4 80 32 56 112 1248 32 0 8 4984 4 104 0 232 Pedestrians ' 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 Railroad �.pm.^tteI'f5 Neport generated on 6/15/2016 6:37 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 N Z LO r U ,W,AA V/ w W Z L�L V! a LU J O U V. LL L� r 0 0 0 E E Oa -o m N a- :3 7 O O O O m T CO c N � O a) o J O W O CC O F +� ci d R d d LL d O E C w cc Y Y aaL g a m N N M 0 o C? O tf n N T M O O M O O 0 V J M � 0 LO co fn O a V' m M M O OV a Z C0 r- M 0 O 01 00 Z J M O N ti Z Z r � o � M O � a v m m M O w +� co O LO M N O � T � N O M N W W M � M W N O V M M J OD M � N N w w � L CA � O W O OC 0 O O � G7 V O `O c7 d .. LL y cc N C O 7 LL x W } c Q va as V O O N m Programmed EPAC Data 6/13/2016 Intersection Name: Immokalee @ Logan Blvd Intersection Alias: IM127 Access Code 9999 Channel: 48 Address. Revision: 3.33d Output Ring Respons Access Data Miscellaneous Port 2 Comm :19200 Baud 2 Ring 2 No 115 Ped Flashing Ped Rest Non -Act Veh Ped Phase Data Non Dual Last Car Conditional Simultaneous Phase Walk Clear Walk Port 3 Comm :19200 Baud Vehical Basic Timings Initialize Response Recall Recall Dei' Lock Vehical Density Tinimps Time B4 Cars Time To 1 0 Phase Min -Gni Passage Maxi Max2 Yellow All Red Added Initial Max Initial Reduction Before Reduce Min -Gap 1 5 2.0 20 0 4.8 2.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 15 4.0 60 0 4.8 2.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 00 3 5 2.0 20 0 40 4.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 4 5 20 25 0 48 2.3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 5 5 2.0 35 0 4.8 2.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 6 15 4.0 60 0 48 22 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 7 5 2.0 30 0 4.8 23 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 8 5 2.0 20 0 4.0 4.0 00 u 0 0 0 0.0 Pedestrian Timing Alternate Sequence: Extended Actuated General Control Output Ring Respons Selection Miscellaneous Ring 1 2 Ring 2 No 3 None Ped Flashing Ped Rest Non -Act Veh Ped Non Dual Last Car Conditional Simultaneous Phase Walk Clear Walk Clear in Walk Initialize Response Recall Recall Dei' Lock Entry Passage Service Gap Out 1 0 0 No 0 No Inactive None None None 0 Yes No No No No 2 7 24 No 0 No Green None Min None 0 Yes No No No No 3 0 0 No 0 No Inactive None None None 0 Yes No No No No 4 7 37 No 0 No Inactive None None None 0 Yes Yes No No No 5 0 0 No 0 No Inactive None None None 0 Yes No No No No 6 9 36 No 0 No Green None Min None 0 Yes No No No No 7 0 0 No 0 No Inactive None None None 0 Yes No No No No 8 10 36 No 0 No Inactive None None None 0 Yes Yes No No No Special Sequence Vehical Detector Phase Assignment Default Data Assigned Phase Mode Switched Phase Extend Delav Vehical Detector Channel : I 6 Veh 0 0.0 0 Vehical Detector Channel :2 I Veh 0 0.0 0 Vehical Detector Channel :3 7 Veh 0 0.0 0 Vehical Detector Channel :5 2 Veh 0 0.0 0 Vehical Detector Channel :6 5 Veh 0 0.0 0 Vehical Detector Channel :7 3 Veh 0 0.0 0 Default Data Pedestrian Detector Default Data Unit Data General Control Startup Time: 6scc Startup State: All Red Auto Ped Clear: No Stop Time Reset: No ABC connector Input Modes: 0 ABC connector Output Modes: 0 I D connector Input Modes: 0 D connector Output Modes: 6 Page 1 of 9 Red Revert: 4sec Alternate Sequence: 0 Input Output Ring Respons Selection I Ring I Ring 1 2 Ring 2 Ring 2 3 None None 4 None None Special Detector Phase Assignment Assign Switched Phase ?Mode Phase Extend Delay Default Data Remote Flash Flash Flash Test A= Flash No Channel Color Altemat 1 Red No Flash Flash 2 Yellow No Entry Exit Phase Phase Phase 3 Red Yes 2 No Yes 4 Red Yes 4 Yes No 5 Red No 6 No Yes 6 Yellow No 8 Yes No 7 Red Yes 8 Red Yes n Overlaps Phase(s) Trail Green Trail Yellow Trail Red Plus Green Minus Green Ring Overlaps A B C D E F G H 1 J K L M N O F A B C Next Phase Ring Phase 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 4 1 1 5 2 6 6 2 7 7 2 8 8 2 5 Overlaps A B C D E F G H 1 J K L M N O F A B C D E F G H 1 J K L M N O P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ph.I Ped 17 9 -Ph.] DPW 9 Ph.3 Ped 18 11 - Ph3 DPW 1 i Phase(s) 19 13 - Ph,5 DPW 13 Ph.7 Ped 20 15 - Ph.7 DPW 15 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 1 2 3 4 1 1 3 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 5 5 7 7 2 2 4 4 o a 6 6 8 8 5 6 7 8 J Alternate Sequences Port 1 Data Alternate Sequences BIU Port Message Addr Status 40 I 0 Used No Hardware Pin Set 1 Used No Phase 1 I 8 Used No Pair(s) 2 Set Ph.1 Vch 1 16 Used No Channel Assignment Control Channel Hardware Pin Set Control Channel Hardware Pin Set Control Channel Hardware Pin Set Ph.1 Vch 1 1 - Ph.l RYG I Ph.2 Veh 2 2 - Ph.2 RYG 2 Ph.3 Veh 3 3 - Ph.3 RYG 3 PhA Veh 4 4 - PhA RYG 4 Ph.5 Veh 5 5 - Ph.5 RYG 5 Ph.6 Veh 6 6 - Ph.6 RYG 6 Ph.7 Veh 7 7 - Ph.7 RYG 7 Ph.8 Veh 8 8 - Ph.8 RYG 8 Ph -2 Ped 9 10 - Ph.2 DPW 10 PhA Ped 10 12 - PhA DPW 12 Ph.6 Ped 11 14 - Ph.6 DPW 14 Ph.8 Ped 12 16 - Ph.8 DPW 16 Ph.] OLP 13 17 -Ph, l RYG 17 Ph.2 OLP 14 18 - Ph.2 RYG 18 Ph.3 OLP 15 19 - Ph.3 RYG 19 Ph.4 OLP 16 20 - PhA RYG 20 Ph.I Ped 17 9 -Ph.] DPW 9 Ph.3 Ped 18 11 - Ph3 DPW 1 i Ph.5 Ped 19 13 - Ph,5 DPW 13 Ph.7 Ped 20 15 - Ph.7 DPW 15 Page 2 of 9 Coordination Data General Coordination Data Operation Mode: ]=Auto Coordination Mode: 2=Permissive K40mun Mode: O=Inhibit Correction Mode: 2=Short Way Page 3 of 9 Offsct Mode: 0=Beg Gm Force Mode: O=Plan Max Dwell Time: 0 Yield Period: 0 Manual Dial: I Manual Split: l Manual Offset: I Dial/Split Cycle 1/1 145 1/2 145 1/3 145 1/4 135 2/1 135 22 145 2/3 135 3/1 135 3/2 145 3/3 135 3/4 180 4/1 160 42 160 4/3 180 e*,"1 ?I—\ 14�\ Page 4 of 9 Ph Splits Ph, Mode 2 78 1=Coordinate 6 78 1—Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 67 1=Coordinate 6 67 ]=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 63 I=Coordinate 6 73 1=Coordinate Ph, Splits Ph. Mode 2 69 t=Coordinate 6 69 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph. Mode 2 71 ]—Coordinate 6 71 ]=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph Mode 2 74 1=Coordinate 6 74 1=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph Mode 2 69 ]=Coordinate 6 69 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 71 1=Coordinate 6 71 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 74 ]—Coordinate 6 74 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 69 1=Coordinate 6 69 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph. Mode 2 95 1=Coordinate 6 90 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph, Mode 2 84 ]=Coordinate 6 80 1=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 2 78 I=Coordinate 6 88 1=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 2 88 ]=Coordinate 6 99 I=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph Mode 3 18 O=Actuated 7 24 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 22 O=Actuated 7 30 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 18 O=Actuated 7 18 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 21 O=Actuated 7 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 22 O=Actuated 7 22 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 25 O=Actuated 7 25 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 3 21 O=Actuated 7 21 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph Mode 3 22 O=Actuated 7 22 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph. Mode 3 25 O=Actuated 7 25 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 21 O=Actuated 7 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 29 O=Actuated 7 29 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 26 O=Actuated 7 26 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph Mode 3 18 O=Actuated 7 18 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 3 20 O=Actuated 7 20 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 18 O-Acivatcd Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 33 O=Actuated 8 25 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph. Mode 4 37 O=Actuated 8 37 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 24 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph. Mode 4 21 O=Actuated 8 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 23 O=Actuated 8 23 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph, Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 24 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 21 O=Actuated 8 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 23 O=Actuated 8 23 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph. Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 24 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph Mode 4 29 O=Actuated 8 29 O—Actuated Ph Splits Ph, Mode 4 26 O=Actuated 8 26 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph. Mode 4 37 O—Actuated 8 37 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 4 42 O=Actuated 8 42 O=Actuated Split Times and Phase Mode Dial I ' Split 1 ph Splits Ph. Mode 1 25 O—Actuated 5 25 O=Actuated Dial I - Split 2 Ph. Splits I'll Mode 1 23 O=Actuated 5 23 O=Actuated Dial 1 ' Split 3 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 1 27 O=Actuated 5 17 O=Actuated Dial I Split 4 ph Splits Ph. Mode 1 21 O=Actuated 5 21 O=Actuated Bial 2 Split 1 Ph Splits Ph. Mode 1 21 O=Actuated 5 21 O=Actuated Dia] 2 t Split 2 Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 1 23 O=Actuated 5 23 O=Actuated Dia121 Split3 Ph. Splits Ph, Mode 1 21 O=Actuated 5 21 O=Actuated Dial 3' Split I Ph Splits Ph. Mode 1 21 O=Actuated 5 21 O=Actuated Dial 3 Split 2 ph Splits Ph. Mode 1 23 O=Actuated 5 23 O=Actuated Dial 3 r Split 3 ph. Splits Ph, Mode 1 21 O=Actuated 5 21 O=Actuated Dial 3 Split 4 ph Splits Ph Mode 1 27 O=Actuated 5 32 O=Actuated Dial 4 ` Split 1 Ph Splits Ph. Mode 1 24 O=Actuated 5 28 O=Actuated Dial 4.' Split 2 pit. Splits Ph. Mode 1 27 O=Actuated 5 17 O=Actuated Dial 4 i Split 3 Ph, Splits Ph. Mode 30 O=Actuated I1 5 19 O=Actuated Page 4 of 9 Ph Splits Ph, Mode 2 78 1=Coordinate 6 78 1—Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 67 1=Coordinate 6 67 ]=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 63 I=Coordinate 6 73 1=Coordinate Ph, Splits Ph. Mode 2 69 t=Coordinate 6 69 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph. Mode 2 71 ]—Coordinate 6 71 ]=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph Mode 2 74 1=Coordinate 6 74 1=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph Mode 2 69 ]=Coordinate 6 69 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 71 1=Coordinate 6 71 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 74 ]—Coordinate 6 74 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph Mode 2 69 1=Coordinate 6 69 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph. Mode 2 95 1=Coordinate 6 90 1=Coordinate Ph Splits Ph, Mode 2 84 ]=Coordinate 6 80 1=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 2 78 I=Coordinate 6 88 1=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 2 88 ]=Coordinate 6 99 I=Coordinate Ph. Splits Ph Mode 3 18 O=Actuated 7 24 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 22 O=Actuated 7 30 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 18 O=Actuated 7 18 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 21 O=Actuated 7 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 22 O=Actuated 7 22 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 25 O=Actuated 7 25 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 3 21 O=Actuated 7 21 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph Mode 3 22 O=Actuated 7 22 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph. Mode 3 25 O=Actuated 7 25 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 21 O=Actuated 7 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 29 O=Actuated 7 29 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 3 26 O=Actuated 7 26 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph Mode 3 18 O=Actuated 7 18 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 3 20 O=Actuated 7 20 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 18 O-Acivatcd Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 33 O=Actuated 8 25 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph. Mode 4 37 O=Actuated 8 37 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 24 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph. Mode 4 21 O=Actuated 8 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 23 O=Actuated 8 23 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph, Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 24 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 21 O=Actuated 8 21 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph Mode 4 23 O=Actuated 8 23 O=Actuated Ph, Splits Ph. Mode 4 24 O=Actuated 8 24 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph Mode 4 29 O=Actuated 8 29 O—Actuated Ph Splits Ph, Mode 4 26 O=Actuated 8 26 O=Actuated Ph Splits Ph. Mode 4 37 O—Actuated 8 37 O=Actuated Ph. Splits Ph. Mode 4 42 O=Actuated 8 42 O=Actuated Traffic Plan Data Plan I/1/1 Offsei I unc 102 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode: O=Normal Rg 2 Lag f ime: 0 Rg 3 1.ag Tintc: 0 Rg 41.ag'Pime: 0 Plan. 1/2/1 Offset'Dime: 126 Alt Sequence:() Mode: O=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0 Plan 1/3/1 Offset Time: 45 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode: O=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Timc: 0 Plan 1/4/1 Offset Time: 87 All. Sequence: 0 Mode: O=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0 Plan: 2/1/1 Offset Time: 72 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode: O=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0 Plan 2/2/1 OftsetTime 64 Alt Sequence:0 Mode O=Normal Rg2Lag Time 0 Rg31agTime:0 Rg 4 L.ag Time: 0 Pian 2/3/1 011set'l line: 87 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode: O=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag 1 ime: 0 Rg 4 Lag'] line. 0 Plan 3/1/1 Offset Time 72 Alt. Sequence: 0 Mode. O=Normal Rg 2 Lag '1 ime: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0 Plan 3/2/1 Offset "fime: 72 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode: 0—Normal Rg 2 Lag Time. 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Mime: 0 Plat: 3/3/1 Offset Time: 87 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode O=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0 Plw• 3/4/1 Offset Time: 146 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode: O=Normal Rg 2 Lag Time 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag "rime: 0 Plan 4/1/1 Oftset I ime: 116 Alt Sequence: O Mode, O=Normal Rg 2 Lag 7ime: 0 Rg 3 Lag'] ime: 0 Rg 4 Lag Mime: 0 Plat- 4/2/1 offset Time 16 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode O=Normal Rg 21 ag Time 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag'Lime: 0 Ptar 4/3/1 Off -t Time. 27 Alt Sequence: 0 Mode. O—Normal Rg 2 Lag Mime: 0 Rg 3 Lag Time: 0 Rg 4 Lag Time: 0 Local TBC Data )oUree Equate Days Start of Daylight Saving Month: 3 Week: 2 Cycle Zero Referertcr l lom, 24 Mw 0 Dai 1 2 _. 4 5 6 End of Daylight Saving Month: 11 Week: 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 Traffic Data PHASE FUNCTION Event Dav Time I 1 0:1 D/S/O flash 0/0/4 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ 3 ❑ 6 ❑ 7 ❑ 8 ❑ 9 ❑ it) 11 ❑ ❑ 12 ❑ 1 's_ 14 ❑ ❑ 15 16 ❑ ❑ 2 1 6:0 0/0/4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F1 3 1 9:0 3/1/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 1 10:0 3/2/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 1 18:0 3/3/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b 1 20:30 0/0/4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 2 0:1 0/0/4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 2 6:0 1/l/I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F1 ❑ 9 2 6:30 4/]/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 2 9:30 1/2/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CJ ❑ ❑ El11 2 15:20 4/2/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ F-1❑ F-1 F-1 F-1 ❑ ElF1 ❑ ❑ 12 2 18:0 1/3/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13 2 19:0 1/4/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14 2 22:0 0/0/4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El 15 7 0:1 0/0/4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ ❑ 1:11:1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16 7 6:0 0/0/4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 7 7:0 2/1/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18 7 8:30 2/2/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ OF ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 7 19:0 2/3/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 7 22:0 0/0/4 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 5 of 9 Default Data - No Special Da; �s crammed Special Functions AUX. Events I - x F -I F7 F1 ❑❑E ❑ El ❑ El ❑ 7 F -I 1-171 D F I S1 '3 7 I❑I El F -I F1 F -I SI -4 SF5 SI'6 El F -I ❑ F -I ❑F I E E]17 D ❑ ❑ LI ❑X F -I r❑I ❑ E r -I ❑ El F-1 E El SF7 D 7 E 7 F7 F7 El Sl:8 7 7 E-1 F -I F7 F -I 7 ELJ Det Det. Det Program Aux OLIPLAS Diag Rpt MultI00 Special Function Outputs Lvent Day Hour Min 1 2 3 DI D2 D3 Dimming 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PF13 F1 I 1 0 1 X X F❑I F1 F F-1 F -I 71 ❑ F7 F7 7 2 1 6 0 7 X 3 1 18 0 7 7 F❑1 4 2 0 j 7 7 F -I 5 2 6 0 X E1717D7,❑ D7[:17 E I❑I 6 2 18 0 F -I X 7 7 01 F -I 7 x El 8 7 6 0 M F❑17 F LI F -I El F -I El F -I F1 F] F -I 9 7 18 0 Phase 8 Max2 Default Data - No Special Da; �s crammed Special Functions Page 6 of 9 Function Special Function I Special Function 2 Special Function 3 Special Function 4 Special Function 5 Special Function 6 Special Function 7 Special Function 8 I - x F -I F7 F1 ❑❑E ❑ El ❑ El ❑ 7 F -I 1-171 D F I S1 '3 7 I❑I El F -I F1 F -I SI -4 SF5 SI'6 El F -I ❑ F -I ❑F I E E]17 D ❑ ❑ LI ❑X F -I r❑I ❑ E r -I ❑ El F-1 E El SF7 D 7 E 7 F7 F7 El Sl:8 7 7 E-1 F -I F7 F -I 7 ELJ Phase Function Phase Function Map Phase I Max2 PFI PF2 PF3 PFA PF5 Pl:6 J11:7 PF8 PF9 PFIO PFI I M F7 F7 F7 F7 F -I F7 F7 71 F7 7 PF 12 El PF13 F1 PF14 F7 PF15 7 PF16 7 Phase 2 Max2 F❑I F1 F F-1 F -I 71 ❑ F7 F7 7 F -I 7 E 7 F -I Phase 3 Max2 ❑ 7EE] 7 EIF7 El 17 7 F] r7 F7 El F❑1 0 Phase 4 Max2 F❑I E F -I El 7 F -I F -I El 17 F7 El F1 F -I F F -I F -I Phase 5 Max2 E1717D7,❑ D7[:17 E I❑I F -I F7 F F -I ❑ Phase 6 Max2 F❑I F -I 7❑ 7 F] ❑ F -I 7 ❑ 7 F -I 7 F El [7 Phase 7 Max2 M F❑17 F LI F -I El F -I El F -I F1 F] F -I El F -I 0 Phase 8 Max2 F1 ❑ El F❑I F -I F -I 7 F 71 F -I F1 F1 r -I D F -I F -I F -I Phase I Phase Omit DFF❑17E=E[717\ El F -I F] El [71 F -I 7 Phase 2 Phase Omit 07F❑IE17E=E17 E ❑ F -I El 0 F -I D Phase 3 Phase Omit 7 EFIF D EJ7 El 7 1-1 7 F -I F7 El F -I El Phase 4 Phase Omit ❑ F7 F❑T-I 7 F-17 F -I F7 7 7 El 7 El ❑ 0 Phase 5 Phase Omit F1 El FIF❑I El F -I El F -I 7 ❑ F -I F -I F❑I F] D 0 Phase 6 Phase Omit F -I F7 F -I D 7 F-1 F -I 7 7 7 ❑ EJ ❑ D F -I 7 Phase 7 Phase Omit F❑I E 77 F -I El F -I El 1-1 F7 ❑ ❑ 7 F -I E [-1 Phase 8 Phase Omit El [I El 0 0 El El El El El D El 0 El D El Page 6 of 9 Dimming Data Channel Red Yellow Green Alternate ❑❑aa Default Data - No Dimming Programmed Preemption Data General Preemption Data Ring Min Grn/Walk Time 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 ,Flash = Preempt 1 Preepmt 2 = Preempt 3 Preepmt 4 Preempt 5 Preepmt 1 = Preempt 2 Preepmt 3 = Preempt 4 Preepmt 5 = Preempt 6 F Preempt Timers Non- Link to Preempt 3 Preempt 4 Preempt 5 Pcd Track Dwell Return Ped Exit Exit Locking Preempt Delay Extend Duration MaxCall Lock -Out Cleer Yel fledtrn Ped Yel Red Green Clear Yel Red I No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 O.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 2 No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 3 No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 4 No 0 0 0 0 90 0 50 0.0 0.0 0 0. 0.0 0.0 10 0 0.0 0.0 5 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4,0 2.0 10 8 4.0 20 10 8 4.0 2.0 6 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4,0 2.0 10 8 4.0 2.0 10 8 4.0 2.0 Preempt I Preempt 2 Preempt 3 Preempt 4 Preempt 5 Preempt 6 Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Max -Call Exit Exit I No Exit Exit Phase Phase Calls Phase phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls 2 Yes No 4 Yes No 2 Yes No 4 Yes No I No Yes 1 No Yes 6 Yes No 8 Yes No 6 Yes No 8 Yes No 2 No Yes 2 No Yes 0 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 3 No Yes 3 No Yes 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 6 No 4 No Yes 4 No Yes 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 5 No Yes 5 No Yes 6 No Yes 6 No Yes 7 No Yes 7 No Yes 8 No Yes 8 No Yes Priority Timers Priority Non -Locking Delay Extend Duration Dwell Max -Call Lock -Out Skip Phases I No 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 2 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 3 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 4 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 5 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases 6 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 O=Do not Skip Phases Priority I Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Exit Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Phase Phase Calls Page 7 of 9 Preempt I ^ Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph Track Dwell C) Cie Ph back Dwell Cycle Ov}p Track Dtiell Cycle I Red Green No Default Data Default Data 6 Red Green No Preempt 2 Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Vehical Phases Ph_ Track Dwell CN cle Qvlp, 'I -rack Dwell Cycie Ph Track Dwell Cvc1e 3 Red Green No Default Data Default Data g Red Green No Preempt 3 Phases Overlaps Vehical PhasesPedestrian Ph, 'Track Dwell i _ Ov}p, Track Dwell CN cle Ph 'Track Dwell Cycle 2 Red Green No Default Data Default Data 5 Red Green No Preempt 4 Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph Track Dwell Cycle Ph. Track Dwell t Qvlp. Track Dwell Cycle 4 Red Green No 2 Red Gm No 7 Red Green No Default Data Preempt 5 Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Ph. 'Track Dwell Cycle pulp, Track D%NC1I Cycle Default Data Default Data Default Data Preempt 6 Vehical Phases Pedestrian Phases Overlaps Ph Track Dwell Cvcle Ph. Track Dwell Cycle Qvlp, Track Dwell CN cle Default Data Default Data Default Data System/Detectors Data Local Critical Alarms Revert to Backup: 15 1st Phone: Local Free: No Cycle Failure: No Coord Failurc: No Conflict Flash: Yes Remote Flash: No 2nd Phone: Local Fash: No Cycle Fault: No Coord Fault: No Premption: Yes Voltage Monitor: Special Status 1: Yes Yes. P Special Status 2: Yes Special Status 3: NO Special Status 4: No Special Status 5: NO Special Status 6: NO Traffic Responsive System Detector Average Occupancy Min Queue I System Weight Queue 2 System Weight Detector Channel Veh/Hr Time(mins) Correction/10 Volume % Detectors Detectors Factor Detectors Detectors Factor Default Data Default Data Sample Interval. Queue: I Input Selection: O=Average Queue: Detector Failed Level : 0 Level Enter Queue: 2 Input Selection: O=Average Detector Failed Level : 0 Default Data Page 8 of 9 Default Data Leave Dial ! Split / Offset Vehical Detector Diagnostic Value 0 1 Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count 1 30 180 60 2 30 180 60 3 30 180 60 4 30 180 60 5 30 180 60 6 30 180 60 7 30 180 60 8 30 180 60 Pedestrian Detector Pedestrian Detector Diagnostic Value 0 Diagnostic Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count 1 5 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 6 5 0 0 7 5 0 0 8 5 0 0 Default Data - No Diag 0 Values Speed Trap Data Default Data - No Diag I Values Speed Trap: Measurement: Detector I Detector 2 Distance: Default Data Volume Detector Data Report Interval Volume Controller Detector Detector Number Channel Default Data Page 9 of 9 Vehical Detector Diagnostic Value 1 Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count 1 30 180 60 2 30 0 60 3 30 0 60 4 30 180 60 5 30 180 60 6 30 0 60 7 30 0 60 8 30 0 60 Pedestrian Detector Diagnostic Value I Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count 1 5 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 6 5 0 0 7 5 0 0 8 5 0 0 Default Data - No Diag I Values Dial/Split/Offset Default Data Special Detector Diagnostic Value 0 Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count Default Data - No Diag 0 Valu Special Detector Diagnostic Value 1 Max No Erratic Detector Presence Activity Count Default Data - No Diag I Values Speed Trap Speed Trap Low Treshold High Treshold 1401*N �1 APPENDIX C Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/1712016 2016 Exisitng Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 10�N Lane Configurations *i) TT4 r 1) ?fT r 'f'i tf r 'i ? r Traffic Volume (vph) 181 2807 253 114 1382 44 159 73 394 43 82 155 Future Volume (vph) 181 2807 253 114 1382 44 159 73 394 43 82 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50 Lane Util, Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd Flow (prot) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 136 184 177 177 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561 Travel Time (s) 25.4 22.5 28.7 12.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles 1%) 1 % 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1 % 3% 9% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 189 2924 264 119 1440 46 166 76 410 45 85 161 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 2924 264 119 1440 46 166 76 410 45 85 161 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25,0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1 Total Split (s) 27.0 88.0 88.0 17.0 78.0 78.0 18.0 37.0 37.0 18.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 16.9% 55.0% 55.0% 1U% 48.8% 48.8% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1% Maximum Green (s) 20.0 81.0 81.0 10.0 71.0 71.0 10.0 29.0 29.0 10.9 29.9 29.9 Yellow Time (s) 4,8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 All -Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 14.0 86.0 86.0 9.5 81.5 81.5 10.0 29.0 29.0 9.0 25.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 009 0.54 0.54 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.16 0,16 v/c Ratio 0.62 1.08 0.30 0.59 0.57 0.05 0.80 0.12 0.94 0.46 0.31 0.41 Control Delay 79.3 79.3 11.4 85.9 29.7 0.1 100.0 55.1 67.1 87.3 60.5 8.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2016 Exisitng Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 10�N Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016 —i ,i !' 4— 4, 4� t r' i 41 Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & ImmoKalee Ka 0l *_02 R �L03 04 ♦ 05 -�06 (R '07 t08 2016 Exisitng Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 2 Total Delay 79.3 79.3 11.4 85.9 29.7 0.1 100.0 55.1 67.1 87.3 60.5 8.3 LOS E E B F C A F E E F E A Approach Delay 74.0 33.0 74.1 35.8 Approach LOS E C E D Queue Length 50th (ft) 100 —1309 72 63 398 0 90 35 259 46 77 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 140 #1378 136 100 469 0 #151 61 #478 91 132 51 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1039 909 1182 481 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 Base Capacity(vph) 433 2705 873 210 2515 912 208 671 441 119 325 434 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 1.08 0.30 0.57 0,57 0.05 0.80 0.11 0.93 0.38 0.26 0.37 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 16 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 140 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08 Intersection Signal Delay: 61.1 Intersection LOS: E '—` Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 — Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & ImmoKalee Ka 0l *_02 R �L03 04 ♦ 05 -�06 (R '07 t08 2016 Exisitng Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016 2019 Background Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 n Lane Configurations 'i'f ttt r 'f'f ttt r Vli i t if Traffic Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174 Future Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1,00 0.97 091 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 3467 5036 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 1599 1752 1743 1553 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 136 184 177 177 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561 Travel Time (s) 25.4 22,5 28.7 12.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 150 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1 Total Split (s) 27.0 88,0 88.0 17.0 78.0 78.0 18.0 37.0 37.0 18.0 37.0 37.0 Total Split (%) 16.9% 55.0% 55.0°/% 10.6% 48.8% 48.8% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1% 11.3% 23.1% 23.1% Maximum Green (s) 20.0 81.0 81.0 10.0 71.0 71.0 10.0 29,0 29.0 10.9 29.9 29.9 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4,8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4,8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 All -Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 15.1 81.3 81.3 9.7 75.9 75.9 10.0 33.3 33.3 9.2 29.9 29.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.19 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.65 1.29 0.36 0.66 0.69 0.06 0.89 0.11 0.98 0.50 0.30 0.42 Control Delay 79.2 165.6 13.5 89.0 35.2 0.1 113.0 54.1 73.7 89.5 58.9 10.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2019 Background Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016 t % , Total Delay 79.2 165.6 13.5 89.0 35.2 0.1 113,0 54.1 73.7 89.5 58.9 10.8 LOS E F B F D A F D E F E B Approach Delay 148.9 38.2 81.4 37.0 Approach LOS F D F D Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 1599 95 71 479 0 101 39 -359 52 88 4 Queue Length 95th (ft) 155 #1657 165 110 561 0 #177 66 #598 100 147 74 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1039 909 1182 481 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 Base Capacity(vph) 433 2559 834 210 2343 862 208 751 472 119 325 434 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 1.29 0.36 0.63 0.69 0.06 0.89 0.11 0.98 0.42 0.30 0.42 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 16 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6: EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.29 Intersection Signal Delay: 106.0 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.0% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 - Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Ko 01 02 R) 03 04 f'05 -i06 (R) \W07* 7 1 08 EMEN 2019 Background Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1-1 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016 2019 Background with Improvements Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 L. z Lane Configurations 'i'i tilt r fff r 'li) ff rr 't f r Traffic Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174 Future Volume (vph) 204 3157 285 128 1555 49 179 82 443 48 92 174 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0,86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553 Flt Permitted 0.950 0,950 0.950 0.950 Satd.Flow (perm) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 169 130 252 136 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561 Travel Time (s) 25.4 22.5 28.7 12.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles (°fo) 1% 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 3289 297 133 1620 51 186 85 461 50 96 181 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13.0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1 Total Split (s) 22.0 94.0 94.0 1&0 90.0 90.0 22.9 32.5 32.5 15.5 25.1 25.1 Total Split (%) 13.8% 58.8% 58.8% 11.3% 56.3% 56.3% 14.3% 20.3% 20.3% 9,7% 15.7% 15.7% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 87.0 87.0 11.0 83.0 83.0 14.9 24.5 24.5 8.4 18.0 18.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 All -Red Time (s) 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 40 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8,0 7.1 7.1 7.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 14.3 92.9 92.9 10.8 89.4 89.4 13.4 21.9 21.9 7.9 13.8 13.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.56 0.56 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.09 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.89 0.31 0.59 0.59 0.05 0.67 0.17 0.77 0.58 0.64 0.70 Control Delay 82.5 34.0 8.6 83.0 25.1 0.1 83.1 62.0 38.9 100.2 89.2 34.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2019 Background with Improvements Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 Lanes, \/o|Umxes. Timings 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd V 7/2016 'A -� `� 't^ k °\ Splits and Phases: 3: Blvd &|mmokaleeRd 281QBackground with Improvements 3ymchm0Report LOS F C A F C A F E O F F C Approach Delay 30 28.6 52.8 00.8 Approach LOQ C C D E Queue Length 50th(ft) 112 80 61 70 407 O 88 42 125 52 AO 45 Queue Length 85th(h) 150 968 128 100 486 U 142 08 193 #106 161 130 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1030 009 1182 481 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 Base Capacity (vph) 333 3684 946 241 2761 900 310 550 649 91 198 295 Starvation Cap Roductn O 0 O O O O U O O O 0 0 SpiUbuokCap Roduo(n O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O O Storage Cap Raductn 0 O O O 0 O O U O O O O Reduced xhRatio 0.64 0.80 0.31 0.55 0.50 0.05 0.60 0.15 0.71 0.55 0.49 0.81 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 180 Actuated Cycle Length: 1G0 Offset: 10(10%). Referenced tophase 2:VYBT and 0:EBT.Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 12O Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum wtRatio�O,8Q Intersection Signal Delay: 3G.4 Intersection LOS: O ~~~ Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8% ICU Level ufSemiooE Analysis Period (min)15 # N5thpercentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may belonger. Queue shown iumaximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Blvd &|mmokaleeRd 281QBackground with Improvements 3ymchm0Report Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 6/17/2016 -A --v 4' - o '*" t i* `► 1 .r 2019 Total Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 ^ 9L", BT. WB R BL; NBT NOR I SB4 t� Lane Configurations `1 S fi11 r 'i'i ++t 'i) fT rr Vi 4 r Traffic Volume (vph) 204 3243 285 214 1555 49 272 94 443 48 103 174 Future Volume (vph) 204 3243 285 214 1555 49 272 94 443 48 103 174 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 0 Storage Lanes 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 50 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.86 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0,950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 6346 1509 3367 4940 1615 3335 3610 2814 1752 1743 1553 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 164 130 252 131 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 1119 989 1262 561 Travel Time (s) 25.4 22.5 28.7 12,8 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0,96 096 0.96 0.96 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 3% 7% 4% 5% 0% 5% 0% 1% 3% 9% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 213 3378 297 223 1620 51 283 98 461 50 107 181 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 213 3378 297 223 1620 51 283 98 461 50 107 181 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Detector Phase 1 6 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4 4 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 25.0 25.0 12.0 25.0 25.0 13,0 26.0 26.0 12.1 25.1 25.1 Total Split (s) 22.0 94.0 94.0 18.0 90.0 90.0 22.9 32.5 32.5 15.5 25.1 25.1 Total Split (%) 13.8% 58.8% 58.8% 11.3% 56.3% 56.3% 14.3% 20.3% 20.3% 9.7% 15.7% 15.7% Maximum Green (s) 15.0 87.0 87.0 11.0 83.0 83.0 14.9 24.5 245 8.4 18.0 18.0 Yellow Time (s) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 4.8 All -Red Time (s) 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None C -Max C -Max None C -Max C -Max None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 14.1 88.0 88.0 13.4 87.4 87.4 14.9 24.1 24.1 7.9 14.5 14,5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.08 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.09 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.97 0.33 0.79 0.60 0.05 0.91 0.18 0.72 0.58 0.68 0,70 Control Delay 83.5 44.1 9.5 90.7 26.2 0.1 104.0 60.9 36.2 100.2 90.9 35.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2019 Total Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 1 ^ Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 611712016 Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 01 1 '02 R *% 03 04 • 05 -*06 R '007 t08 2019 Total Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 2 , Total Delay 835 44.1 9.5 90.7 26.2 0.1 104.0 60.9 36.2 100.2 90.9 35.8 LOS F D A F C A F E D F F D Approach Delay 43.6 33.1 61.9 62.8 Approach LOS D C E E Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 977 69 119 418 0 154 48 123 52 110 50 Queue Length 95th (ft) 159 1022 131 #212 486 0 #243 78 193 #106 177 136 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1039 909 1182 481 Turn Bay Length (ft) 325 250 400 175 425 300 275 Base Capacity(vph) 328 3491 904 282 2698 941 310 583 666 91 196 290 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.97 0.33 0.79 0.60 0.05 0.91 0,17 0.69 0.55 0.55 0.62 MOMMUNCd Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 16 (10%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 150 Control Type: Actuated -Coordinated Maximum vlc Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Signal Delay: 43.9 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Logan Blvd & Immokalee Rd 01 1 '02 R *% 03 04 • 05 -*06 R '007 t08 2019 Total Synchro 9 Report PM Peak -Hour Page 2 EXHIBIT "S" PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ANALYSIS EXHIBIT S Public Facilities Impact Analysis Sanitary Sewer The subject property is located within the North Wastewater Service area. Since the final mix of commercial uses which will occupy the site is not known at this time, an estimation of the wastewater generation for the project was completed using an assumption of .125 gallons of wastewater generated for every square foot of floor area. The requested 100,000 square feet of commercial development will generate approximately 12,500 gallons of wastewater per day. Based on the 2016 Annual Inventory and Update Report sufficient capacity is available to provide wastewater disposal services to the proposed development. The project will provide a connection to the 16" sewer force main located within the Immokalee Road right-of-way at the time of site development. Potable Water n Potable water demand for the proposed commercial development is based on an estimated 350 gallons of potable water use for every 250 gallons of wastewater generated. Using this assumption, the average daily potable water demand for the development at buildout is projected to be approximately 17,500 gallons per day. Based on the 2016 Annual Inventory and Update Report, sufficient capacity is available to provide Potable Water services to the proposed development. The development will provide a connection to the 24" water main located adjacent to the property along the north side of the Immokalee Road at the time of construction. Arterial and Collector Roadways A detailed Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) has been provided as part of this application which outlines the projected traffic generated by the proposed development. The project site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, with frontage on both roadways. Access to the site is proposed to include a right-in/right-out (RI/RO) connection on Immokalee Road at the northeast corner of the site, and a full access connection on Logan Boulevard at the south west corner of the site, the latter being a shared ingress/egress connection with the adjoining nursery/landscape business immediately to the south. In addition to the shared access connection to Logan Boulevard, an internal connection to the adjoining parcel immediately to the east is being provided to satisfy the code requirements for accommodating interconnections to adjacent parcels. March 21, 2017 The proposed development of 100,000 square -feet of commercial uses will generate approximately 449 PM Peak hour trips. Based on the detailed analysis included in the TIS, the additional traffic generated by the proposed development on the adjacent roadways will not create a Level of Service standard deficiency. Drainage Prior to construction, the project will be required to obtain a permit from the South Florida Water Management District illustrating the proposed water management system with a detailed analysis showing the proposed development will have no detrimental effect on the stormwater management for the surrounding area. Solid Waste The development will utilize dumpster containers for the storage and collection of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Collier County's contract hauler, Waste Management, will collect solid waste and recycled materials generated from the proposed development. Solid waste collected will be hauled to the Collier County landfill. Using the waste generation rate of 6.1 pounds of waste per square -foot per year for commercial uses developed by Palm Beach County, Florida in the 1995 Commercial Generation Study, the development will generate approximately 610,000 pounds of waste per year. This equates to an estimated 305 tons of solid waste per year. According to the 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (Collier County Government, Public Utilities Solid Waste Management Department) the Collier County Landfill has capacity through the year 2059. Parks The proposed commercial development will have no impact on the demand for Community or Regional park facilities. Fire and Rescue Adequate Fire and Rescue protection is available to service the proposed development. The North Naples Fire and Rescue Station 42 is located approximately .37 miles west of the subject property. Additionally, Golden Gate Fire Station 73 is located 3.28miles from the subject property. 2 March 16, 2017 EXHIBIT "T" PUBLIC UTILITY AVAILABILITY LETTERS June 20, 2016 Stantec % Lisa Colburn 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105-8523 Re: GL Commercial — Naples Dear Ms. Colburn: Nlaridq Poorer & Light Company 26430 Old 41 Rd Bonita Springs, Florids 34135 This is to confirm that, at the present time, FPL has sufficient capacity to provide electric service to the above captioned property. Electric service will be supplied by FPL to the customer, based on terms and conditions outlined in the General Rules and Regulations for Electric Service as approved by the Florida Public Service Commission. FPL will require easements for your project, usually a ten -foot perimeter easement that will have to connect to internal easements. Please review your plans for the proposed preserve areas, so you may address any mitigation concerns before permitting. Please provide the final site plan, site survey and electrical load data as soon as possible so the necessary engineering can begin. Early contact with FPL is essential so that resources may be scheduled to facilitate availability of service when required. Sincerely, Jim Merriam FPL Senior Technical Specialist cc:file A NEXTera ENERGY Company A*�\ /011\ GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY 2700 N Horseshoe Dr. • Naples, FL 34104 kRKb 0Ttt Phone: (239)774-2800 Fax: (239)774-3116 Kingmcr 1s-bu4it, Fara Chi4 6/20/16 Ms. Lisa Colburn Stantec 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 Dear Ms. Colbum: This is to confirm that the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District will provide fire protection services to the following project: GL Commercial Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 774-2800. Sincerely, e pawn M. Hanson Division Chief/Fire Marshal SMH/sap Professionalism -- Inregriry — Compassion Comcast 12600 westinks Drive suite 4 Fort Myers, FI. 33913 Phone: 239.432-1805 June 20, 2016 Re: Southeast Corner of Immokalee and Logan BI. Utility Easement Approval and Letter of Availability Dear Lisa Colburn, Comcast can provide its services to the above referenced property upon the execution of Cable Television Installation and Service Agreement. You will need to contact Nikki Mello at 239-415-4775. Comcast has reviewed the proposed plat for the above referenced property and found the easements provided to be adequate for the placement of our broadband facilities. If you have any further concerns, please contact me at (239) 432-1805. Sincerely, //zi `""�'. Mark Cook, Project Coordinator 4 CenturyUnk- : � Stronger Connected 06/22/2016 Lisa Colburn Administrative Assistant Stantec Consulting services Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane Suite 200 Naples FL 34105-8523 RE: Availability of Service / GL Commercial SEC 28, TWP 48 , RNG 26 — Collier County, FL Dear Lisa: In response to your request sent to this office and dated 06/1712016 Centuryl.ink will provide communication service, upon request, to the parcel located on the SE corner of Immokalee Rd, and Logan Blvd. within Naples, Florida, as shown on your print. Communication service will be provided based on the rules and regulations covered in our Florida Local Terms of Service found at www.CenturyLink.com/tariffs. Should you have any questions, please contact me at the telephone number or email address shown above. Sincerely, t� iflalter Alvarez Engineer II Century Link Office: 239-263-6222 Fox: 239-261-0289 Stantec EXHIBIT 64U99 HISTORIC RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT "i FLORIDA DEPARTMENT�STATE r_____._______ , RICK SCOTT Governor Mr. Josh Philpott Stantec 3800 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 100 Fort Myers, Florida 33965 RE: DHR Project File No.: 2016-2628 / Received by DHR: June 20, 2016 Project: Logan /Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict County: Collier Dear Mr. Philpott: KEN DETZNER Secretary of State June 22, 2016 Our office reviewed the referenced project in accordance with the applicable Collier County ordinances, for possible adverse impact to cultural resources (any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object) listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). It is the opinion of this office that the proposed project is unlikely to affect historic properties. However, unexpected finds may occur during ground disturbing activities, and we request that the permit, if issued, should include the following special condition regarding inadvertent discoveries: If prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, projectile points, dugout canoes, metal implements, historic building materials, or any other physical remains that could be associated with Native American, early European, or American settlement are encountered at any time within the project site area, the permitted project shall cease all activities involving subsurface disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery. The applicant shall contact the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Compliance Review Section at (850)-245-6333. Project activities shall not resume without verbal and/or written authorization. In the event that unmarked human remains are encountered during permitted activities, all work shall stop immediately and the proper authorities notified in accordance with Section 872.05, Florida Statutes. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Berman, Historic Site Specialist, by email at Marv. Berman Ados.myAorida.eom, or by telephone at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278. Sincerely, !� �✓ 45� "rr 0 �r Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D., RPA Dircctor, Division of Historical Resources and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building a 500 South Bronough Street- Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850.245.6333 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) FLHeritage.com EXHIBIT "V11 COMMERCIAL MARKET ASSESSMENT Exhibit V JOHN B U S December 19, 2016 f,JEAL ESTATE CONSULTING GL Commercial Retail Market Analysis & Strategic Assessment Prepared December 19, 2016 JOHN BURNS Exhibit V REAL ESTATE CONSULTING BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 LOCATION ANALYSIS 10 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 15 RETAIL DEMAND ANALYSIS 20 CURRENT COMMERCIAL INVENTORY 34 POTENTIAL FUTURE COMMERCIAL INVENTORY 54 DEMOGRAPHIC & EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 60 LIMITING CONDITIONS $0 Prepared December 19. 2016 2 Exhibit V JOHN VBUPNS I,EAL ESTATE CONSULTING Prepared December 19, 2016 Exhibit V Background and Objectives JOHN IT• euRNs DEAL ESTATE CONSULi!NG Background GL Commercial ("GL") is petitioning to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan to allow for a retail development on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard ("Subject") In order to consider this change, Collier County requires a comprehensive market study to demonstrate the change is warranted Objective The objective of this assignment is to analyze relevant real estate market conditions and economic and demographic trends influencing the Subject site in order to determine if there is a need for additional retail development at the location. Contact Information This analysis was prepared by John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC Lesley Deutch, Principal, and Kristine Smale, Manager, co -managed the assignment. Mike Willinger (Senior Consultant) also contributed to this analysis. The internal peer review was conducted by Don Walker Follow-up questions should be directed to us at: 1900 Glades Road, Suite 205 Boca Raton, FL 33431 561.998.5814 Prepared December 19, 2016 Market Experts: Lesley Deutch Kristine Smale Mike Willinger Consulting Consulting Consulting Idautch@realestateconsulting.com ksmale@realestateconsulting.com mwillinger@realestateconsulting.com Exhibit V JOHN -'t=- BUPNS DEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Prepared December 19, 2016 Exhibit V Executive Summary: Definitions JOHN t,' auRNs f�EAL ESTATE CONSULTING The following terminology is used throughout the Market Study, and we provide definitions for ease of understanding and clarity:_ Ter nology Definition Primary Market Area (PMA) A three-mile radius from the Subject Secondary Market Area (SMA) A four -mile radius from the Subject Retail We have calculated demand for retail in the PMA and SMA as this is the use type considered for the Subject. Retail uses include the following. Food Service / Eating and Drinking Places, Food & Beverage, Clothing and Accessories, Motor Vehicle Parts, Health and Personal Care, Personal Service, Furniture and Home Furnishings, Building Materials & Garden Supplies/Equipment, Entertainment/Electronics/Appliances, Sporting Goods, Hobbies, Books, Music, Department Stores, Office Supplies, Used Merchandise & Other. We have included a small amount of ancillary office use at the Subject (financial services) for those tenants that are typically found in a retail center. Community Center A type of retail center that provides convenience goods and personal services, as well as wider range of soft lines (wearing apparel) and hard lines (hardware and appliances) Many centers are built around a junior department store, variety store, super drugstore, or discount department store as the major tenant, in addition to a supermarket Its typical size is about 150,000 square feet of gross leasable area, but in practice, it may range from 100,000 to 500,000 or more square feet. The typical size of a community center is 10+ acres with a market size radius of 3-5 miles Population We used ESRI to calculate the population within the PMA and SMA. We then used Collier County's population projections and applied that growth rate to the PMA and SMA to calculate demand in 2016 and 2021. Further detail is on page 25. Households We are using the "households" measure due to the limitations of income level data, which is supplied on a household level only and will determine future potential spending, thus retail demand, in a particular market area. As a result, we may be understating the actual retail demand within the area due to the large amount of vacant dwelling units due to seasonality (per the US Census in 2010, the occupancy rate for all of Collier County was approximately 67%, thus about 33% of dwelling units are classified as vacant) Additionally, ESRI may understate the income levels of the households in the market area due to the high prevalence of retirees that typically have a larger percentage of discretionary income. ESRI determines households by block group (as used in this report) by applying concentrated updates to the 2010 US Census. This includes a mixture of administrative records and private sources to capture change to the base Data sources include delivery counts from the US Postal Service to private sources such as Internet use and social media. Average Household Size Household population divided by total households Household Income Total income, including wage and salary earnings, interest dividends, net rents, pensions, social security income and welfare payments, child support and alimony Activity Center Per Collier County, "Mixed Use Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map Series and identified in the Future Land Use Element. These locations are based on intersections of major roads and on spacing criteria. The Mixed - Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns on commercial development, and to create focal points within the community." 6 Prepared December 19, 2076 Sources ULI Dollars and Cents, Collier County, ESRI Demand = Supply =``Retail Opportunit • We conducted a Retail Gap Analysis, which analyzes the total income in the Primary Market Area (PMA) compared to normal spending in the PMA. We determine the normal spending in the PMA by applying industry spending standards to the household incomes in the PMA. • This analysis indicates demand for approximately 894,884 square feet of additional retail in the PMA today. • Based on future population and household growth, this demand increases to approximately 1.24M SF in 2021 and 1 56M SF in 2026. • We surveyed all existing inventory and vacant commercial parcels in the PMA. • Current occupancy rates in shopping centers in the PMA range from 84% to 100%. The average occupancy across all shopping centers in the PMA is 98%. • The vacant parcels could add an additional 720,862 SF of retail (supply) to the PMA within the next several years, which has been accounted for when calculating excess demand in 2016. • We conclude that there is ample retail demand for the Subject. • The Subject is located in a rapidly -growing housing submarket, which is likely to continue to experience higher -than -average household growth. • There is insufficient current supply in the market to meet the demand today. In the future, the potential future commercial inventory will meet some, but not all, of the future projected retail demand. • We have included a small amount of ancillary office use at the Subject (financial services) for those tenants that are typically found in a retail center. Exhibit V Executive Summary JOHN 14- BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Based on the following calculation, which is detailed further in this report, there is excess demand for retail within the PMA today, This calculation accounts for the proposed development at the Subject, current vacancies in the market and potential future development on parcels that are currently zoned commercial and/or located within an Activity Center. This excess demand potential grows larger in 2021 and 2026 as additional households are added to the PMA, as demonstrated in the next slide. Total Demand in PMA (per GAP Analysis) 894,884 SF Less: Current Vacancy in PMA (3 -mile radius) (27,851) SF Less: Additional Vacancy (4 -mile radius) (19,414) SF Less: Vacant Parcels - Future Retail Development (3 -mile radius) (_720.862) SF Remaining PMA Demand 126,757 SF Less: SUBJECT Proposed Development (100.000', SF Excess Demand Potential in PMA 26,757 SF Notes; 1) Current vacancy in the PMA was calculated by totaling the square footage of all retail centers in the PMA and subtracting the current vacancies We used information from LoopNet and verified all vacancies by conducting a physical market survey Additional vacancy in the 4 -mile radius was calculated by totaling the square footage of alt retail centers in the 4 -mile radius (excluding those already accounted for in the PMA) and subtracting the current vacancies We used information from LoopNet and verified all vacancies by conducting a physical market survey. We then used 25% of existing vacancy to mirror the 25% SMA inflow factor used in the demand analysis Vacant parcels for future retail development is a JBREC estimate based on data from the Collier County Appraiser's office. We reviewed all vacant parcels in the PMA that are designated commercial use either by zoning or Activity Center inset maps For those parcels zoned commercial, we either 1) determined the maximum retail development permitted per approved county ordinances (if retail allocation was unknown, we estimated 70% of all commercial square footage allowance would be retail), or 2) Estimated total development at 10,000 SF/acre From that amount, we assumed that 70% of those vacant parcels would be developed as retail, rather than other commercial uses such as office, medical office or multifamily. We assumed a high retail development rate as most of these parcels are located along well -trafficked roads or intersections We did not consider any additional rezoning of parcels outside of the Activity Center boundaries in this analysis 2) 3) 4) Prepared December 19, 2016 Exhibit V Executive Summary The demand summaries for 2021 and 2026 are detailed below. Primary Market Area - Demand Summary (2021) Demand in PMA (per GAP Analysis) 1,240,092 SF Less: 10% Vacancy factor in PMA (3 -mile radius) (127,689) SF Less: Additional Vacancy factor (4 -mile radius) (18,661) SF Less: Vacant Parcels - Future Retail Development 3 -mile radius 720,862 SF Remaining PMA Demand 372,880 SF Less: SUBJECT Proposed Development (100.000) SF Excess Demand Potential in PMA 272,880 SF DemandPrimary Market Area - Total Demand in PMA (per GAP Analysis) 1,555,807 SF Less: 10% Vacancy factor in PMA (3 -mile radius) ( 127,689) SF Less: Additional Vacancy factor (4 -mile radius) (18,661) SF Less: Vacant Parcels - Future Retail Development (3 -mile radius) (720,862) SF Remaining PMA Demand 688,595 SF _ Less: SUBJECT Proposed Development 100,000 SF Excess Demand Potential in PMA 588,595 SF ,JOHN 14' BUPNS FZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Notes: 1) Future vacancy in the PMA was calculated by totaling the square footage of all retail centers in the PMA and applying a 10% vacancy factor. 2) Additional vacancy in the 4 -mile radius was calculated by totaling the square footage of all retail centers in the 4 -mile radius (excluding those already accounted for in the PMA) and applying a 10% vacancy factor. We then used 25% of existing vacancy to mirror the 25% SMA inflow factor used in the demand analysis 3) Vacant parcels for future retail development is a JBREC estimate based on date from the Collier County Appraiser's office We reviewed all vacant parcels in the PMA that are designated commercial use either by zoning or Activity Center inset maps. For those parcels zoned commercial, we either 1) determined the maximum retail development permitted per approved county ordinances (if retail allocation was unknown, we estimated 70% of all commercial square footage allowance would be retail), or 2) Estimated total development at 10, 000 SF/acre. From that amount, we assumed that 70% of those vacant parcels would be developed as retail, rather than other commercial uses such as office, medical office or multifamily We assumed a high retail development rate as most of these parcels are located along well -trafficked roads or intersections. 4) We did not consider any additional rezoning of parcels outside of the Activity Center boundaries in this analysis PreparedDecember 19, 2016 W /0-1k, Exhibit V JOHN ��BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Prepared December 79, 2076 10 Exhibit V Subject Location within Collier County JOHN 11j' BUPNS fZEAI ESTATE CONSULTING, The Subject is located in North Naples, just East of Interstate 75. It is approximately 10.0 miles from Downtown Naples and 5.9 miles from Bonita Springs. Source: Google Earth Prepared December 19, 2016 11 Exhibit V Subject Location - Aerial View JOHN I4• BUPNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING The Subject is located at the southeast intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard and is surrounded primarily by residential development, Royal Palm Nursery or undeveloped land. Source: Google Earth Prepared December 19, 2016 12 Exhibit V Subject Location - Parcels JOHN Ill' gur�Ns (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The Subject consists of six parcels totaling 18.6 acres We have identified those parcels, as well as the land surrounding the Subject. Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2016 Subject Parcels Parcel Acreage 1 00195040001 366 2 00195480001 3.74 3 00195440009 5 4 00194880000 5 5 00195200003 2 25 (only a portion of this parcel is included in the Sub ect) 6 00195000009 027 Adjacent Parcels Ownership t DOR Parcel Code Oakwood Park West LLC1 1 00195360008 DOR: 69 2 00195080003 Private Owner / DOR 99 3 00195600001 Oakwood Park West LLC/ DOR: 69 Royal Palm Nursery I DOR: 4 00194920009 99 Oakwood Park West LLC/ 5 00196680509 DOR: 69 Oakwood Park West LLC/ 6 00195680005 DOR: 69 Exhibit V Traffic Counts ,JOHN h� BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE. CONSULTING The Subject benefits from excellent accessibility to Interstate 75, which averages over 75,000 daily traffic counts. The Subject will have two entrances: 1) a right in, right out along Immokalee Road, which experiences nearly 22,000 daily traffic counts.. and 2) a full access point along Logan Boulevard. Source: ESR! Average Dally lraNic Volume Up to 6,000 veMcles per day 6,001 - 15,000 a. 19,001 - 30,000 ♦ 30,001 - 90,000 ♦ 60,001 - 100,000 ♦More than 100,000 per day SUE}j 21.871 16 OQ ?mber19,2016 14 Exhibit V J 0 H N _ BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Prepared December 19, 201E 15 Exhibit V Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment JOHN I4• BURNS Proposed GMPA Text Amendment Language This amendment will create a new sub -district in the Collier County GMP as follows: Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of ±18.6 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Lo an Boulevard. The Subdistrict allows those uses permitted by right and by conditional use within the C-4 General Commercial Zoning District as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance 04-41 as amended in effect as of the adoption of the Subdistrict Development within this Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with the neighboring uses This Subdistrict is intended to serve the surrounding residential uses within a convenient travel distance to the subject property. Bicycle and Pedestrian access to the adjacent properties will be pursued to the extent feasible and practical to encourage increased bicycle and pedestrian use. " he maximum development intensity allowed is 100,000 square feet of gross floor area Policy 1.1: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: B. URBAN - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4, Business Park Subdistrict 5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 6, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 9. Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 10. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 11. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 12. Logan Boulevardilmmokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Source: Stantec Exhibit V ,JOHN I*• BUPNs Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment REAL ESTATE CON�k;17Kr, FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve — Conservation Designation Map Lely Mitigation Park —Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Source: Stantec ?reaareG December �, 2076 17 Exhibit V Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment JOHN AT• BukNs FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES (CONTINUED) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map ,,--.,Davis - Radio Commercial. Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Source: Stantec PrepareO DecerrW 19. 2016 IN Proposed Site Plan The proposed site plan is illustrated below. Master Plan 12112116 Site Acreage 18.6 Building Area 100,000 SF Exhibit V ,JOHN I*, BUkNS F,EAL ESTATE CONSULTING — ----"— ------- Innnokalee Road----_----- I "It is assumed that 50% of the outparcel space will consist of restaurant uses. Other uses could include a financial /personal p j1 services /ancillary office use which fall under the C-4 General l a tJ� Commercial Zoning District. $ 11 Parking Spaces Provided 650. 1 space per 153 SF r Lakes (acres) 212 11 40% of Site Preserve (acres) 110 5 91% of site { I .•.. _ �� r Ske Da(a: s emm»c e.n.y +a�,uns[ e»• wR A v,..... nw.,u Source: Stantec Prepared December 79 2016 aa,•uu. wi 19 Exhibit V Prepared December 19, 2016 20 A Exhibit V Retail Market Map - Primary and Secondary Areas ,JOHN (j. BURNS !ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The following map depicts our retail Primary Market Area (PMA) and Secondary Market Area (SMA) The Subject is defined as a "Community Center' per ULI classifications due to the size of the development (10+ acres). The PMA boundary represents a reasonable pool of residents who would shop at the Subject. The SMA represents a larger pool of residents that may shop within the PMA, although it would be a secondary choice given locational factors and competitive retail options. Population 43,406 65,648 (ESRI) Households 18,579 28,965 (ESRI) Median Income $75,020 $73,278 (ESRI) Prepared December 19, 2016 21 Source: ESRI (References pages 3 & 22 of Appendix) Exhibit V JOHN 11• BURNS Currently Selling and Future Residential Communities FZEALESTATE CONSULTING The immediate submarket is expected to experience substantial population growth due to new housing communities currently selling and expected to enter the market. We highlight the larger existing and future residential new home supply on the map below. Although there is significant future housing growth within the PMA, we have not factored this into our analysis and have simply used population projections based on Collier County population forecasts. Prepared December 19, 2016 22 Exhibit V ,JOHN I4• BUPNs Additional Residential / Logan Boulevard Extension FZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The Subject is located along Logan Boulevard, which is a north / south road that runs through the northern portion of Collier County. Collier County and GL Homes have come to an agreement regarding Logan Boulevard's extension to Bonita Beach Road, located in Lee County. Bonita Beach Road is approximately four miles north of Immokalee Road. Under the terms of the agreement, Collier County must complete the portion from the current entrance of Stone Creek to the Lee County line by September 2017. Thereafter, GL Homes must complete the road from the Lee County line to Bonita Beach Road within one year following the 29711 certificate of occupancy at the Stonecreek residential project Based on current sales numbers, it can be reasonably assumed that the connector road will be open by the end of 2018, which will draw additional residents to the Subject site. We have highlighted the currently -selling and future residential communities in Lee County that could create additional demand for the Subject once the Logan Boulevard extension is completed Prepared December 19, 2016 23 Exhibit V Increase in Households 2016-2026 JOHN1j'BUNS rtEAl ESTATE CONSULTING We have applied Collier County population growth percentages to the PMA and SMA for the Subject. However, these do not consider the concentration of growth around the Subject site We have estimated additional population and households based on currently selling new communities within close proximity of the Subject The additional households that could affect demand at the Subject are illustrated below, but are not factored into our demand calculations Y" PS+C.—, Poi— Anncul lr><04a4a ESR. —N.. Slorw —k H.—) (GL EWIanaAe(Taylor M—ito,) Tawe: A—. New: Ranw(WCI) NS>•. BSM Cro» (CaWLMuI New: C—R.,L dnq (MSliemyl Tina a1a00o nel Olglwa( New: t...y t0A Harlon} New: La Mor—(WC11 2016' 43006 ",us 150 100 47,321 75 SD 07,9N 20 4b 50 2D12 a0,2S4 BIH 200 I. 25 TS 65 a N J2 75 2018 0.5102 .8 200 100 50 75 65 65 12 75 2019 45 909 618 W 100 25 15 G5 G5 75 2)20 4G 797 BOH too 35 65 25 2021 11605 753 !00 13 2012 4 336 ]53 100 2023 95 15I ]53 100 2D24 98900 753 50 2025 50657 ]53 202fi S1 9D9 ]53 IOTAL NO 000 100 200 200 273 N N 300 'E.— 0.— kn .'MA AdeXM1Y1 llovulMgO PgN/Ylon uu01e(a Naw Housing DNLV R —d Papa4baa 0.9] ''SH AA,iN 661 1 54D 45.794 612 1 4% Nb% 39° 030 ",us 2?5 52a 47,321 r'3 263 07,9N 100 233 M,q1 1D0 233 wAM 60,7]7 N,MO 01,N] O,T3T 4371 SourceCollier County Growth Management, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 24 Exhibit V ,JOHN f�• BUfZNS Population Calculations REAL ESTATE CONSULTING A population growth forecast is required to calculate future projected retail demand for 2021 and 2026. Collier County publishes population projections through 2030, which we used to calculate the growth for the PMA (Primary Market Area, 3 -mile radius) and SMA (Secondary Market Area, 4 -mile radius). Our methodology is detailed below. 1) We determined the population growth rate per Collier County projections for 2021 and 2026. County Pennanent PopulationCollier Radius) 2021 2026 ear 2010 2016 2021 2026 estimate Drojection projection prniection o ulation 321.520 350.514 384,744 415.144 rowth Rate 9.0% 9.8% 79% 2) We projected the population for 2021 and 2026 in the PMA per Collier County growth rates PIVIA Population (3 -Mile 2016 (Baseline) Radius) 2021 2026 Source ESRI Pro ection Prosection Population 43.406 47,645 51,409 Growth Rate 9.8% 79% Annual Increase 848 753 Persons Per HH' 2.34 2.34 2.34 Households 1 18.579 1 20.393 1 22,005 "Per ESRI 2016 Market Summary Report located in Appendix 3) We projected the population for 2021 and 2026 in the SMA per Collier County growth rates Source. John Bums Real Estate Consulting, 'Per ESRI 2016 Market Summary Report located in Appendix LLC, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Prepared December 19, 2016 25 PopulationSMA 2016 (Baseline 2021 2026 Source ESRI Projection Projection Population 65.648 72,059 77,753 Growth Rate 98% 7.9% Annual Increase 1,282 1,139 Persons Per HH` 2.27 2.27 2.27 Households 28,965 31,794 1 34,306 Source. John Bums Real Estate Consulting, 'Per ESRI 2016 Market Summary Report located in Appendix LLC, Collier County Comprehensive Planning Prepared December 19, 2016 25 Exhibit V ,JOHN 1j. BURNS Retail Gap Analysis by Category - PMA P,QAL ESTATE CONSULTING Our analysis compares total retail expenditures by residents living in the PMA with the amount of retail spending in the Primary Market Area (PMA). A positive "gap" indicates the potential need for more retail in the PMA. RETAIL GAP ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY Primary Market Area 2016 MotorVehicle Parts $13,552,320 $1,055,695 $12,496,625 92.2% Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $26,772,513 $5,798,254 $20,974,259 78.3% Electronics and Appliance Stores $36,166.483 $6,456,867 $29,709,616 82.1% Building Material, Garden Equip Stores $44,721,093 $18,739,200 $25,981,893 58.1% Food and Beverage Stores $155,405,645 $105,755,178 $49,650,467 31.9% Pru , HHealth and Personal Care Stores $53,944,347 $15,132,577 $38,811,770 71-9% Clothing arxi Clothing Accessories Stores $45,256,255 $2,377,534 $42,878,721 94.7% Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, MusicStores _ _ $20,707,847 $20.121,884 $585,963 28% General Merchandise Stores $149,572,377 $200,313,205 _ 150 74C 828} 33 9 k Miscellaneous Store Retailers $39,212,647 $9,195,799 $30,016,848 76.5% Food Service and Drinkino Places $91.612.219 $28.783.118 $62.829.101 68.6% Data Note (per ESRI)'Retail Potential estimates the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. Retail Sales estimates sales to consumers by establishments Sales to businesses are excluded. Prepared December 19, 2016 26 Exhibit V JOHN III' BURNS Retail Expenditures by Category - PMA SFA_ ESTATE cora2.L•J�Ci, We highlight retail expenditures by category and the percentage of household income attributed to each category. We determined the percentages based on the retail expenditures in the PMA (per ESRI) divided by the total per capita income in the PMA. 2016 PMA Population 43,406 2016 Per Capita Income $45,851 Persons Per Household 2.33 'Businesses are classified by their primary type of economic activity using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)- Retail establishments are classified into 27 industry groups in the Retail Trade sector, as well as four industry groups within the Food Services & Drinking subsector The 3 and 4 -digit codes represent these classifications Source: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December t. , x Note 1N4 accouMng excludes.0—dne dealers. gas sW.— and non afore relallns (e g ,.anal) 27 ?0—\ EaM"Hune CGaif Houaehoid 01.•nLAALKSIM — PannlAsav6 Tire Sion4413 ESOaadlture5151 $13,552,320 Per $312 a Incsmg 068% ire and Home Fuml Kings SI.— $26,772,513 5617 1 35% p.r.[ue :.lms+44)P 6 515028 SX1 079% Home fumish�y Slays M22 $11.10048,5 5256 05696 nl sanMApPha Me Slores4M 4 536,166,483 $833 182% Appl,ancao, Ns, Elect— Slacs-44311 GanPWer aM S,6 — Slones44312 Camera aM Phdograp- EWM,N Slnre.44313 q Maledal, Garden Equip Silo— 4M $44,72/,093 $1,030 225% 9..w Mat— — $(4017 "a-1-1 $39 569 926 5912 199% L.— Garden Equpmed Gu0-61ones4442 55132166 silo 026% 1M Beverage Slow 5 $155,405,645 $3,M0 761% Grocery 5-4451 SISI 212597 141f" 589% S:,,Ity Foes S—A452 $11 141 BBS $258 056% Seer —an4 I,—slnesi 58995180 5161 035% and Personal Care Sbrt446 S53,BM,347 51,253 271% Phalmarx:nrs and Drug Stores44611 C...": 9,-, $Lpo— P.Anne Stores44612 0/A-1 floods SIare544613 i7a-1— a,1a peafu4t Cap.. S14roa4 % iq and MIN gA—sordes Slores446 148,268,255 51,053 227•A Cblin, SI --81 $32,246.523 S/43 162% sMe Slores4482 SB J 512 5124. 027% .k..ab1 Lu{pay L --C dl 9yea 4463 51.1 219 5175 038% r8 Good% Hobby, Book, Music Stores451 $20,707,847 5477 10`1% Spod:ng Go— Hobby Musa! Inst 6lone.4511 $15086683 $348 076% 8— Penod— Music SI—A512 55.621.163 5130 026% It M—ndlss Slores452 $149,572,377 S3,4,16 7.52% Depan—d Slays Excl Laased Depls4521 5106962.831 52,510 547% 0lher General Men5-4529 WWO 546 $936 204% ne a 9u5Seere R4ta11tn4b5 $39,212,667 5909 1.97% Flo, -4531 $1726,%0 $40 003% 08ce Supplies .751.1—Y 5lnren4532 57 533 937 5174 0 38% Used MerohaMrse Smrea-4533 53 WS 010 $63 016% Olney M-0— $tore Helmiena 4539 526,345.662 5607 132% Mee and 6binaing PI -722 $91,612,219 $2,111 460% FW.S—Aasl—nls-7221 551642614 51190 259% lnmldsw—Ein,, Place. -7222 533054614 57M 170% Sp,,ml Foedaences 7223 $1 429.673 $33 007% 0an, Places Alcohdc Bewr". 7224 SA69'-318 $100 024% Source: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December t. , x Note 1N4 accouMng excludes.0—dne dealers. gas sW.— and non afore relallns (e g ,.anal) 27 ?0—\ Exhibit V JOHN III' BURNS Retail Gap Analysis by Category - SMA P9AL ESTATE CONSULTING We highlight the retail gap analysis in the Secondary Market Area (SMA), which contains a larger percentage of retail stores. The model shows sufficient spending in Miscellaneous Store Retailers but opportunities in many other categories, such as Food Service and Drinking Places and Food and Beverage Stores. We use the SMA Gap Analysis only to calculate the potential inflow of spending from the SMA to the PMA. ?O�1 RETAIL GAP ANALYSIS BY CATEGORY Secondary Market Area 2016 Retail Categories Potential GAP Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $21.601,462 $1,374.288 $20.227.174 93 6% Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $42,712.345 $34.456.119 80.7% Electronics and Appliance Stores $57,638,905 _$8,256,226 $13,467,983 $44,170_922 76.6% Buildina Material, Garden Equip Stores $71,821,057 $35,214,875 $36,606,182 51.0% Food and Beverage Stores _ $247,366,088 $187,293.241 $60,072,847 24.3% D r4,Health and Personal Care Stores _ $86,164,693 _ $35,284,728 $50,879,965 59.0% Clo hn8 and Clothing Accessories Stores $72,079,224 $7,621,988 $64,457,236 89.4% Sporting Goods. Hobby. Book, Music Stores $32,983.621 $22,619,068 $10,364,553 General Merchandise Stores $238,232,272 $206,571,921 $31,660,351 13.3% Miscellaneous Store Retailers $62,578.750 $435,302,284 ($372.723.534) -595.6% Food Service and Drinkinq Places $145,964,005 $51,868,115 $94.095.890 64.5% Total $1,079,142,422 i0• Data Note (per ESRI): Retail Potential estimates the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments Retail Sales estimates sales to consumers by establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. Prepared December 19: 2016 28 /0 -*N Exhibit V IOHN h- BURNS SMA Inflow Calculation FZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING We highlight retail expenditures by category for the SMA and the percentage of household income attributed to each category. The SMA has similar income characteristics to the PMA. Secondary Market Area 2016 SMA Population 65,648 2016 Per Capita Income $47,360 Persons Per Household 2.26 'Businesses are classified by their primary type of economic activity usinc the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Retail establishments are classified into 27 industry groups in the Retail Trade sector, as well as four industry groups within the Food Services & Drinkini subsector. The 3 and 4 -digit codes represent these classifications nouve PartsrAcesm. Tire Storesd413 lura and Home Furnishings Slores4a2 Furonure Slomsi421 Home Futmshing SI—A422 9nica and Appliance Stores443 Applances TVs Electronics Slues44311 Compular and Sea— Stores -04312 Camera and PNnlegmph c E-p,,enl Stoles 44313 Ing Malarial, Garden Equip Stares 444 Bdiding Malenal and Supp"y Dea1ers1441 Lavn.. Garden Equpmerl Suppies Slaves -4142 and Beverage Stores -"S Grocery Stores4451 Spociely Food S!—A452 Beer, wmc any LIq.Icr Stores 4453 h and Personal Care Stonm446 Phannanclss and Uma 8lpms14611 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies Peme Store54a612 Opbcal Gpc ds Slues -04613 Other Healh and Personal Care Stores -04619 Ing and Clotldng Accessories SWrea448 Clothing SI-4461Shue St -4482 Jevmhy Luggage Leather Goods Slores4483 fog Goods. Hobby, Book, Music Stores451 crim Spg Goods. Hobby, M..sical Inst Slares-4511 Bode Penodeal Musle 51ores-0512 ,at Merchandiae Sloree4S2 Dapartmenl Stores Fxcl Leased Depts4521 Other General Merch Stares4529 dlanaoua Store Relsliers453 Flcnsts-4531 C'T' de Supplies and stationary StoresAs3 Used Merchamkse Stores4533 Other M s-1—pus Stare Relailersd539 Mr,AM and Drinking Plac-722 Full-Semce Reslaumnis-7221 LimitetlSerslce Eabn9 Places -7222 Special Feadaena—s-7223 Drm9mg Places N.coholie B—ges-7224 $66,164.693 51,313 277% $72,079,224 Expenditure IWuadhotd E—ndd,res 151 Per Capita lamm€ S21,601.462 $329 069% $42,772,345 $651 1.37% 525011698 $381 083% 51,701246 $270 657% $57,638,905 3574 1 85% $71,821,057 $1.094 231% 563,622,010 5959 205% SB. 199.046 $125 026%. $247,366,088 $3,766 796% $218.382 894 S3327 7 C2% 517.814 022 S271 057% x'1169172 $170 036% $66,164.693 51,313 277% $72,079,224 $1,096 2 32% 551.333669 $782 165% 58,587,586 $131 028% $12.157.468 Sias C39% $32,983,621 $502 105% S24 M3.396 5366 077% S6 930 235 5136 029% $238,232,272 $3,629 766% 5173 602 054 52,644 5581% S64,630219 $9114 208% $62.578,750 $953 2.01% 52,762959 $42 009% S72.01A.9Bi 5183 039% S5,742,728 S67 018% 542,054,162 5841 135% $145.96005 $2.223 4.69% 582274730 $1,253 265% S51955 128 $622 1 74% $2269314 S35 007% 57,464.834 S114 029% Source: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared DecMfteF4*0(ir s excludes amomothe dealers gas slahons and non -store retailers m g, a-mML) 29 Exhibit V Retail Gap Analysis: 2016 ,JOHN 14� BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Our gap analysis indicates demand for approximately 182,000 square feet of space at the Subject, depending on the estimated 20% capture rate. JBREC GAP ANALYSIS (20161 Expenditure Cate ries PMA Retail Potential Esttreted Retail Sales PMN Gap Gap (% of PMA Ex ndflures) SMA Inflow Factor SMA Spending Propensity by Use SMA (3) PMA ReconcRation (Irdlow+Outflow) Food SenicelEahng and Drinking Places $91,612,219 $91,612,219 528,783,118 $62,829,101 666% 1350% 135% 57,344,513 570,173,614 Food and Beverage Stores $155,405,645 $105,755,178 $49,650,467 31 9% 3400% 22.9% $31,347,474 $80,997,941 Clothing and Accessories Stores $45,256,255 $2,377,534 $42,678,721 947% 225% 6.7% 5604,472 543,483,193 Motor Vehicle Pans $13,552,320 $1,055,695 $12,496,625 922% 335% 20% 5269,719 $12,766,344 ifealth and Personal Care Stores $53,944,347 $15,132,577 $38,811,770 719% 1190% 80% $3,821,728 542,633,498 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores S26,772,513 $5,798,254 $20,974,259 783% 930% 40% S1,480,539 $22,454,798 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip & Supply Stores 544,721.093 $18,739.200 $25,981,893 561% 1750% 67% $4684,609 $30,666,502 Enterlainment/Electronics!Appliances $36,166,483 $6,456,667 $29,709,616 821% 750% 53% $1,611,241 $31,320,857 Sporhng Goods/HobbylBcok/Muslc $20,707,847 520,121,884 $565,963 28% 4090% 31% $5.028,114 $5,614,077 Department Store $149,572,377 $200,313,205 (550.740.828; 20,730 57000/. 221% $50,612,631 8I28 197) Office Supolies/Gilts/Used Merchandisel0ther $39,212,647 $9,195,799 $30,016,848 7651j� 10001/ 58% 52.332.439 I 532.349287 Tota! $676,923,746 $413,729,311 $263,194,435 36.9% 18.84% 100% $109,137,478 f3M.331,913 The SMA inflow is a calculation of the total population of the h.. PrrA rT tad Deman. is a caft,� ation of th , total he gap I vN ..gates resident likely ha,e Secondary Market Area (per ESRI), multiplied by the per capita Eo Mahon of !he P! marl Market Area muBihiied o; the per more income ±o spend income (per ESRI), to equal total income for the SMA After zapita ncome (per ESRD malrp',ed oy the spendin3 end in the sperld"Id PMA than ?hey are curl y subtracting PMA total income (to isolate only the SMA), we propensity for va. sous retail use, iper ESRb - < multiply the SMA total income by spending propensity for various retail uses (per ESRI) and use an Inflow factor to keep total SMP. Inflow to approximately 25%, per ULI OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPACE AT SUBJECT SITE IPER JRRFC GAP ANAI YCICi pares December 19. 2016 01 SUBJECT PROJECT CAPTURE PMI( Reconciliation Revenue PMA °YK FJAh (irmow+ Outflow) Per SF Avg Reconciliation Subject Site Subject Site Expenditure Categories Opportunity SF re Demand ISM Centime Demand SF Food SerocelEahng and Drinking Places $70.173,614 $378 185,777 15 00k 27,667 25 0°-'- 46,444 Food and Beverage Stores $80,997,941 $559 144,887 20 e9 -c 28,977 25 36,222 Clothing and Accessories Stores $43,483,193 $416 104,852 15 C`l 15,698 25 C'✓: 26,163 Motor Vehicle Parts $12,766,344 $270 47,316 15 050 7,097 250% 11,829 Health and Personal Care Stores $42,633,498 S558 76,409 15 0°, 11,461 25 0% 19,102 Furniture and Florae Furnishings Stores S22,454,798 $486 46,236 15 04%� 6,935 25 0',;, 11,559 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip & Supply Stores $30,666,502 $486 63,145 15 0% 9,472 25 0% 15,786 EntertainmenUElectronicalAppliances $31,320,857 $378 82,918 15 C% 12,438 25 C!'/ 20,730 Sporting Goods/Hobby/BooklMusic $5,614,077 $237 23,645 15 0% 3,547 250% 5,911 Department Store _5:26,197 $430 0 156 n 0 25 0 Office Su lies/GifislUsed MerchendiselOther 532.349,287 $270 119.898 15 c`c.. 17 985 25 0% 29,974 Total $372,331,913 $406 894,884 141,47T 223,721 AVERAGE SUPPORTABLE SIZE FOR THE SUBJECT SITE SF); 182,699 pares December 19. 2016 01 Exhibit V Retail Gap Analysis: 2021 JOHN 14• BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Utilizing Collier County's population forecast, which we applied to the PMA, our gap analysis for 2021 shows an opportunity of over 248,000 square feet at the Subject site. F^ -R JBREC GAP ANALYSIS (2021) SUBJECT PROJECT CAPTURE _ -- PMA Eslmated PMAGap Optimistic SMA SMA Spending Revenue PMA Reconciliation Retail Retail Gap (%of PMA Inflow Propensity SMA (inrlow+Outflow) Expenditure Categories Potemial Sales Expenditure Caliegories Expenditures) Factor by Use Inflow f Demand SF Food Service/Ealing and Drinking Places $113,162,868 531,012,702 S62,150,166 726% 1350% 135% 511,807,616 $93,957,782 Food and Beverage Stores $191962,914 5113,947,136 $78,015,777 406% 3400% 229% 550,439,177 5126,454,954 Clothing and Accessories Stores S55,902,233 $2,561,701 $53,340,532 954% 2 25% 67% $972,836 $54,313,368 Motor Vehicle Parrs $16,740,337 $1,137,471 $15,602,866 932% 335% 20% 5433,891 $16,036,757 Health and Personal Care Stores $66,634,092 $16,304,770 $50,329,322 755% 11 90% 80% $6,141,646 $56.470,966 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 533,070,418 $6,247,396 526,823,022 81 1% 930% 40% $2,380,972 529,203,995 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip & Supply Stores S55,241,101 $20,190,767 $35,050,414 634% 17 50% 6 7% $7,585,825 $42,636,239 Entertain ent/EleclroMcs/Appliances $44,674,204 56,957,026 $37,717,178 844% 750% 53% $2,593,014 $40,310,192 Sporting GoodelHobby/Book/Music 525,579,114 $21,680,556 $3,898,558 152% 4090% 31% 58,127,132 $12,025,689 Department Store 5184,757,441 5215,829,773 531 p72, 332':. '538 '.EE 5700°/ 221% $81,481.865 $50,409,533 Office Su ies/GtnslLised Me 548 436.940 59 908.120 526.621 795% 1000% 58% S3 765 552 S42294403 Total $836,161,741 $445,777,418 $310.384,323 46.7% 18.84% 100% $175.729,567 5566.113,680 Sources. ESRI, ULI Dollars & Cents The SMA Inflov: IS a talc:,We Dn of the total. population of the Secondary Market .Area (per ESRI), multiplied by the per capita he PA, etas r w. asoc. ; ,ol=i income (per ESRI)_ tc equal total <ncome for the SMA Aher of z 85 c P t F U e he per subtracting PMA total income (lo Isolate only the SMA), we n utr n re.: y f la �� J=oy ome r sn-n^ �r i pVl 'ha r _ _ rntl, ,p_r, multiply the SMA total income by spending propensity for various s.n to a ,x reto e -r E< relai'. uses (per c'SRI) and use an nfow factor to keep total SMA ' , pe[ ULI OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPACE AT SUBJECT SITE (PER JBREC GAP ANALYSIS) Sources ESRI, ULI Dollars & Cents Sources: ESRI, ULI Dollars & Cents Prepared December 19, 2016 31 SUBJECT PROJECT CAPTURE PMA Conservative Optimistic Reconciliation Revenue (Inflow+ Outflow) Per SF Avg PMA Reconciliation Subject Site Subject Site Expenditure Caliegories Opportunity SF Capture Demand SF Capture Demand (SF) Food Service/Eating and Drinking Places 893,957,782 $411 228,612 15 Om 34,292 25 Obo 57,153 Food and Beverage Stores $128,454,954 $608 211,181 1501, 31,677 25 52,795 Clothing and Accessories Stores $54,313,368 $452 120,138 15044: 18,021 250`:k 30,034 Motor Vehicle Parts $16,036,757 $294 54,627 1504" 8,194 2509: 13,657 Health and Personal Care Stores $56,470,968 $607 93,018 15 O°.b 13,953 25 0% 23,255 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $29,203,995 $528 55,267 15 0S+, 8,290 250% 13,817 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip & Supply Stores $42,636,239 $528 80,686 l5 O=s: 12,103 250% 20,172 EnlertainmenVEleclmnies/Appliances $40,310,192 S411 98,080 15 O"-: 14,712 25 Ohd 24,520 Sporting GoodslHobbylBooWMusic $12,025,689 $258 46,550 150 6,983 2101, 11,638 Department Store $50,409,533 $467 107,861 1,. _ C„ 16,179 2- 26,965 Office Supplies/Gifts/Used MerchandiselOther S42 294.403 S294 144 071 1 21 611 1 36.018 Total $566,113,880 $442 1,240,092 186,014 310,023 AVERAGE SUPPORTABLE SIZE FOR THE SUBJECT SITE (SF): 248,078 Sources ESRI, ULI Dollars & Cents Sources: ESRI, ULI Dollars & Cents Prepared December 19, 2016 31 Exhibit V Retail Gap Analysis: 2026 JOHN 14, BUPNs 1ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING By 2026, with expected strong population growth the estimated demand for the Subject grows to over 311,000 square feet. L JBREC GAP ANALYSIS (2026) SUBJECT PROJECT CAPTURE Reconciliation PMA Estimated PMA Gap SMA SMA Spending PMA Reconciliation Expenditure Cats oriel Retail Potential Retail Sales Gap (% of PMA Inflow Propensity SMA (Inflow + Outflow) Subject Site Expenditure Categories Expenditures) Factor by Use Inflow S Demand SF Food Service/Eating and Drinking Places $136,195,711 $33,403,984 $104,791,728 758% 1350% 135% S14,438.552 $119.230,280 Food and Beverage Stores $234,427,175 $122,733,202 5111,693,973 476% 3400% 229% 561,677,875 $173,371,848 Clothing and Accessories Stores S68.268,406 52,759,225 565,509,183 950% 225% 67% $1,169,600 566,698,783 Motor Vehicle Parts $20,443,479 $1,225,177 $19,218,302 940% 335% 20% $530,570 $19,748,872 Health and Personal Care Stores $81,374,270 517,561,973 $63,812,296 784% 1190% 80% $7,510,108 $71,322,404 Furniture and Home Fumishings Stores $40,385,950 $6,729,110 $33,656.839 833% 930% 40% $2,911,493 $36,568,333 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip & Supply Stores $67,461,124 $21,747,607 $45.713.517 678% 1750% 67% $9,276,075 554.989,592 EnlertainmenVElectronlcs/Appliances $54,556.618 S7,493,458 $47,063,160 863% 750% 53% $3,170,781 $50,233,941 Sporting Goods/Hobby/BooklMusic $31,237489 $23,352,268 $7,885,221 252% 4090% 31% $9,937,993 $17,823,214 Department Store $225,627,774 $232,471,652 Sc.R4:. 878- -304-� 5700% 221% $99,637,397 592,793,519 Office Supplies/Gifts/Used Merchandise/Other 559 151 713 510.672.100 548 479.612 B10% 10.io4o% 5.8% $4.604.617 553 084 229 Total c...,...e� cin =1,021,129,710 $480,149,756 �_ $540,979,964 53.0% 18.114% 100% $214,885,062 5755,865,016 The SMA Inflow is a calculation of the total population of the ! I Secondary Markel Area (per ESRI, multiplied by the per capita The PMA Retail Demand Is a calculation o,` the total i income (per ESRI), to equal total income for the SMA After ,pulalion of the Primary Markel Area; multiplied by the per Outflow leakage is positive, which indicates the need for more subtracting PMA total income (lo isolate only the SMA), we capita income (per SSRI), multiplied by the spending retail in 2026 as the populalion in the PMA increases multiply the SMA total income by spending propensity for various propensity .or various retail uses (per ESRI) retail uses (per ESRI) and use an inflow factor to keep total SMA t I Inflow to approbmately 25%, per ULI OPPORTUNITY FOR AOOITIOMAI RPTAu ¢RACE AT cL Io ICCT SITE ,'EE ESRI, Du Dollars & cents "'�'�"'Ithte In 2026 Dollars (Projected) Prepared December 19, 2016 32 SUBJECT PROJECT CAPTURE Reconciliation (inflow+ Revenue PMA Conservativg Optimistic Outflow) Per SF Avg Reconciliation Subject Site Subject Site Expenditure Categories Opporil (SF)Capture Demand SF Capture Demand SF Food Service/Eating and Drinking Places $119,230,280 $436 273,331 150% 41,000 25 017. 68,333 Food and Beverage Stores 5173,371,848 $646 268,546 15 OL 40,282 250% 67,137 Clothing and Accessories Stores $66,698,783 $480 139,004 15 0% 20,851 250% 34,751 Motor Vehicle Parts 519.748.872 $312 63,383 15 09/, 9,507 25 01Y, 15,846 Health and Personal Care Stores $71,322,404 $644 110,689 15 11% 16,603 25 0°1r 27,672 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores $36,568,333 $561 65,202 15 0% 9,780 250% 16,301 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip & Supply Stores $54,989,592 $561 98.048 1501/1, 14,707 260% 24,512 EntertainmengElectronics/Appliances $50,233,941 $436 115,159 16c% 17.274 25 0% 28,790 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Book/Music $17,823,214 $274 65,003 5 _ ,. 9,750 250% 16,251 Department Store $92,793,519 5496 187,070 28,061 256/- 46,768 Office Supplies/Gifts/Used Merchandise/Other 553,084,229 $312 170 371 ^ i� 25 556 25 044 42.593 Total $766,866,016 $469 1,655,807 - 233 368,952 AVERAGE SUPPORTABLE SIZE FOR THE SUBJECT SITE (SF): 311,161 ESRI, Du Dollars & cents "'�'�"'Ithte In 2026 Dollars (Projected) Prepared December 19, 2016 32 A Exhibit V Hypothetical Retail Center at Subject (2016) ,JOHN Jill- BUFZNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Based on anticipated demand of retail stores in the PMA as measured by the income gap, we provide a hypothetical retail center at the Subject today. The conservative size of a retail center is approximately 144,000 square feet while the optimistic size of a retail center is just below 229,000 square feet. Note: The projected demand at the Subject is larger than the actual plans for the Subject, which includes no more than 100,000 square feet of leasable space. Hypothetical Retail Center Demand by Supportable SF - 2016 JBREC Conservative JBREC Optimistic Tenant Type Supportable SF (2016) Supportable SF (2016) Department Store/ General Merchandise 0 0 Supermarket (Food and Drug) 34,708 45,773 Grocery 28,977 36,222 Drugs/Pharmacy 5,731 9,551 Food Service 27,867 46,444 Telephone Store/ Electronics 12,438 20,730 Home Improvement/ Furniture/ Garden 16,407 27,345 Clothing and Accessories 15,698 26,163 Sporting Goods/ Hobby / Book/ Music/ Other 3,547 5,911 Auto Parts/ Accessories/ Tire Stores 7,097 11,829 Office Supplies/Gifts/Used Merchandise/Other 17,985 29,974 Personal Service 5,731 9,551 RETAIL,;$UOTOTAL 141,477 223,721 Other - Bank, Financial' 2,500 5,000 TOTAL 143,977 228,721 `JBREC has made accommodations for a small office use at the site, such as a financial services business, as these tenants typically locate themselves in retail centers Prepared December 19, 2016 33 Exhibit V Prepared December 19, 2016 34 Exhibit V Commercial Inventory - Primary Market Area ,JOHN (i• BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The following map illustrates the commercial parcels within the Primary Market Area of the Subject (3 -mile radius). We have also considered those properties within a 4 -mile radius that may or may not affect the Subject. ?0"-\ E<ist ng Inventory Parce Project Boundary C33 m Boundary 4 m Boundary Collier County Activity Center Source: Stantec Prepared December 19, 2016 35 Exhibit V Commercial- Inventory - Primary Market Area JOHN (41 BUFZNS PEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The following map illustrates the existing retail centers within the Primary Market Area of the Subject. These centers are well -occupied with an average vacancy of 98%. E, Ova (erd" r•a:,k: rwrns rnuw�_,.c rrNw S7an, 1, PUD Sam: cavo smvw 0� P�twer,,;, Sources: ESpatial Prepared December 19 2016 36 Exhibit V ,JOHN I,- BUFZNS ( Commercial Inventory Summary — Primary Markely Area REAL ESTATE CONSULTING The following summary illustrates all retail centers within the Primary Market Area, or a 3 -mile radius, of the Subject The total occupancy for the PMA is 98%, indicating a strong retail market that could absorb additional space. Source LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19 2076 37 Center Address 1,,Proximity'o ublect (mile. 20 GLA 1 Cameron Commons 88551rior ee Road 6100 0 1007 Starbucks, Mattress Firm CRE Consultants 25118010103 31 382 1 726 9444. Pelican Larrys 25118010080 Instants Center 7765 Preserve Lane 07 7361 2146 71% Dunkin Donuts TCG Comm ercial 66391446182 0ouga nvi Fez Center 7770 Preserve Lane 0 7 8.534 0 100% Zookie's Sports Pub & Grill, Waves of Wonder Montes sore, School CRE Ccns ullanL= 68391446166 68391446108 7740 preserve Lane 7-71)-00 1,672 94°/ q Quail 11 PUD 4550 Executive Orme 10 1,221. 1 366 1 100% 650 1867 0 1915 2 181 Office condo buildings currently leased to urgent care, nail salon, hot bagels I N/A 76999500027 76999506343 76999500069 7R1f99500085 76999500108 75999500124 5 NoMbrooke Playa 2520-2545 Northbrooke Plaza Drive 1 2 2d930 0 100% 7-11 Gas Staboo Equity, Inc IRIS RealtyGroup 63WO00640 63944000721 10875 0 100% Reed Orthodontist 5,307 0 100% Bob Evans 63944000763 63944000615 6,146 0 100% Sherwin W iliams 6d94400D90Q 1,334 537 1,784 ,875 22% 1.784 1694 Barber Physical Therapy, Pisa, Vet 63948000028 63948000044 63948DDDD86 63948000109 63948000125 6 Tarpon Bay Plaza 2415 Tarpon Bay Boulevard 12 64,344 2,807 97% World Market Staples, Panera Bread, Chili's. Builder King. City Mattress Kia Realty 24745000545 175.337 0 100% Target 247450010655 3069 0 100% AmSouth Bank 24745001663 6,225 0 100% Chdhs 2474[5002022 2,810 0 100% FaslFood 24745002048 11465 0 100% Cit Menress 24745002064 7Pelican Strand 5610 Strand Boulevard 1 7 66,267 0 100% Publix, SuperCuts, Bank of America, McDonald's, FiRhrrhird Bank, Wells Fargo Cushman & Wakefield 66679700047 56679700241 66679700843 66679700869 66679700885 66679700908 Source LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19 2076 37 Exhibit V Commercial Inventory Summar Primary Market Area Cont'd JOHN 14, BURNS / ) REAL ESTATE CONSULTING SourceLoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2076 38 8 Wal -Klan Anchored Center 5420 Juliet Boulevard 17 14,308 0 100 Venznn WreleSs 204. 1 67 Wal-Mart Leasing broker Parcalsincluded 00196760008_ N/A 00199283000 9 10 Gaspar Staten Sam's Club 5344 Immokalee Road1 7 1 5 4 930 0 100% Express Car Wash WA N/A 34595{]02123 53501mmokaiee Road 25541mmokalee Road 4.223 0 100!_ Chase Rank 132 692 0 100% Sam's Club 1x1 345950028 0016,woo04 11 Oakes Farms 48351mmokalee Road 20 Dunkin Donuts is anchor tenant: 65,000 0 100% Commercial building under rehabilitation/demolition for future Seed to Tabakes Parms N/A 25540000668 12 Uptown Center 27001mmokatee Road 30 70,422 11.624 83% Jason's Deli, CiCi's Pima Premier Comm erba l 78569500028 12.700 0 100% Mediical Offices 78569500044 785Eg5r10{�(j 5647 0 100% Tire Choice 13 Mssion Hills Shopping Center 14267 Collier Boulevard 47 84,474 2r858 97% VNnn Dive, Anytime Fitgess, Subway, AT&T Mayhugh Realty 60204200044 2,171 0 100% Dunkin Donuts 60204200060 4,074 0 100% 7-11 60204200280 6,864 0 100% Goodyear 60204200329 5,100 0 100% Tuffy 60204200361 6503 0 100% Suncoasi Credit Union 60204200400 3 981 0 100% Dentist 60204200442 60204200523 4 154 0 100% Fifth Third 14 PebbiebrookeCenter 15235 Collier Boulevard 19 59,244 1,141 98% Chnslie's Rower,Msc Retail Walsh Companies 66261900022 3,863 0 100% Wells Fargo 66285901029 4,368 0 100% Suntrust Bank 66261901225 66261901429 4 863 0 100% Aank of Ara 15 Shoppes of Pebblebrooke 15289 Collier Boulevard 19 14,066 0 100% Walgreens Regency Centers 66263000027 4,078 0 100% McConalds 66263000069 66263000085 80496 0 10D% Publix Totals: Primary Market Area 1,276.893 27.851 98% SourceLoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2076 38 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 1) Cameron Commons JOHN I j -E Rr I S FEA_ ES1tirL w=�r�, Sources: Loop Net, Collier County Property Appraiser CRE Consultants Prepared December 79, 2076 39 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area JOHN 14- BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING 2) Insignia Center 3) Bougainvillea Center — - - nVTM711- Sources. LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser, TCG Commercial Prepared December 19, 2016 40 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 4) Quail 11 PUD ,JOHN 14' BUPNS FZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING PUD allows for 184,000 SF of commercial space of which 89,598 is developed according to county records All of the development within the PUD has been office use to -date, including the above detailed building which is an office condominium with retail uses Sources: LoopNel, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2016 41 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 5) Northbrooke Plaza ,JOHN 14. BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Sources. LoopNet. Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2016 42 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 6) Tarpon Bay Plaza ,JOHN (j' BUR -NS SEAL ESTATE CONSUL-ING Sources: t_oopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19 201E 43 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 7) Pelican Strand ,JOHN 1j. BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING 8) Wal-Mart Anchored Center Sources. Loo Net, CoNrer County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19 2046 44 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area Gaspar Station PUD ,JOHN (j• BUPNS IfAL ESTATE CONSULTING 10) Sam's Club Sam's Club I 25541mmokalee Road Sources. LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser 1 5 ( 132,692 ( 0 1 100% Prepared December 19, 2016 Sam's Club I tVA 1 00165640004 45 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 11) Oakes Farms ,JOHN Jill- BUZNS F�EAL ESTATE CONSULTING This property is zoned commercial and is owned by Oakes Farms, Inc There is an existing Dunkin Donuts building on an outparcel and the previous commercial building is under construction with plans for a Seed to Table store, which will open November 2016. Plans call for a 65,000 square foot store with a variety of retail service departments, including a market, food court, an outdoor cafe and a smoothie, juice and wine bar. Sources: LoopNet, Naples Daily News Prepared December 19, 2016 46 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 12) Uptown Center JOHN 14. BU(Z,'S PEAL ESTATE CONS -11 w6 13) Mission Hills Shopping Center Sources: Loop Net, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepa,eo December 79, 2076 4; Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 14) Pebblebrooke Center ,JOHN 14• BUfZNS HEAL ESTATE CONSULTING 15) Shoppes of Pebblebrooke Sources: LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2016 48 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14' BuRNS Commercial Inventory - Secondary Market Areas PEAL ESTATE CONSULTING In order to make reasonable assumptions regarding the demand for retail at the Subject, we also surveyed commercial properties within a 4 -mile radius of the Subject. These centers also have a high occupancy rate of 90% with 77,657 SF of available space. We accounted for 25% of this vacancy in our supply calculations, which is consistent with the 25% SMA inflow factor in our demand calculation. Source: ESpatisl Prepared December 79, 2016 49 Exhibit V Commercial Inventory Summary (4 -mile Radius) JOHN REAL ESTATE ATE auFZNs CONSULTING The following summary chart details the current inventory within a 4 -mile radius of the Subject. In order to ensure reasonable assumptions regarding the current supply in the marketplace, we have factored 25% of this vacancy, or 19,414 SF, into the supply calculation for 2016. For 2021 and 2026, we assumed a 10% vacancy factor, of which 25% was applied to the Subject. Sources: LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2016 50 Anchor Tenants 7,810 90% Publix Hallmark Leasmg Broker TCG Parcels Included 63518000`26 1 Naples Walk 2450 Vanderbilt Beach Road IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi-77,805 37 20,020 0 100% Inline retail 63518000571 20,216 0 100% Inline retail 63518000623 4,297 0 100% SuntrusI 63518000063 3,106 0 100% WashoHa 63516000102 5494 0 100% Chase Bank 63518000144 63518000186 3.168 0 100% 7-11 2 Galleria Shops at Vanderbilt 2355 Vanderbilt Beach Road 3 7 212,504 49,148 77% Pei Wei, Starbucks, Naples Family Flhless Galleria Shopper al Vanderbilt 34569500020 11,200 0 100% CVS 34569500127 34569500169 8106 0 100% Florida Community Bank 3 Pipers Crossing 1201 Piper Boulevard 32 47,800 1,775 96% Restaurants, Zoom Tan Jack Cnfasi 67954000021. 67954000047, 67954000063, 67954000089, 67954000102, 67954000128, 67954000144, 67954000351 4 Greentree Center 2302 Immokalee Road 32 161,897 12 924 92% CVS, NCH Healthcare Jack Crifasi 46690000403 54216 0 100% Credit Union 46690000102 2,322 0 100% Taco Bell 46690000209 2,963 0 100% Wendys 46690000306 167480000 840 0 100% 7-11 5 Fountain Park 7947 Airport Road '... 37 3,934 0 100% Firm Third Bank Private Owner 33157000069 Sushi Thai, Pancake House, Stonewood 72,000 6,000 92% Tavem 33157000043 33157000065 6 Olympia Park Totels� 2400 Vanderbilt Road 4 -mil. Radius 37 15,264 0 100% Walgreens Private Owner 00236320004 12,165 0 100% AT&T 64630000021 0 0 NtA Cell Tower 64630000063 24,481 0 100% Alamo Shooting Range 64630000089 6,810 0 100% Agave Grill 64630000102 4,587 0 100% Encore Bank 64630000128- 483000012620226 20,2260 100% Bounce Naples 64630000144 746.433 77,657 90111 Sources: LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2016 50 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area ,JOHN 14' BUF�NS RZ AL ESTATE CONSU_- NG 2) Galleria Shops at Vanderbilt Sources LoopNet, Collier County Property Appraiser Prepa+ed December ?9 20?6 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area �1 3) Piper's Crossing 4) Greentree Center Sources: LoopNet, ColpbrCounty Property Appraiser Prepared December 19, 2016 JOHN 14' BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSUITINf 52 Exhibit V Local Retail Properties: Primary Market Area 5) Fountain Park ,JOHN 14• BUPNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING 6) Olympia Park Sources: Loop Net, Collier County Property Appraiser prepared December 19, 2016 53 Exhibit V Prepared December 19, 2016 54 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14' BURNS Potential Commercial Inventory — Primary Market Areas FEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The following map illustrates the vacant parcels within the 3 -mile Primary Market Area of the Subject. We have reviewed all of these parcels to determine the potential future retail supply given the Collier County Future Land Use plan and designated Activity Centers. Prepared December 19, 2016 55 Source: Stantec, Collier County Property Appraiser Exhibit V Potential Commercial Invento JOHN 1j' BuRNs ry -Primary Market Areas R=;.;� ESTATTEE ri.,.=_L, N;, The following chart is a summary of the vacant parcel analysis within the 3 -mile Primary Market Area, as well as our estimate of potential future retail supply. For those parcels that are vacant but are in an Activity Center, we estimated 10,000 SF of developable retail space per acre. Since other uses, such as office, medical office or multifamily housing would be allowed in these activity centers, we discounted the total retail potential by 30% to arrive at the total estimated retail development (estimated amounts in red text). Some parcels have an approved PUD (Planned Unit Development), and we reflect the approved retail square footage (or estimated remaining square footage) in the table below. Parcel Name Acreage Total Estimated Retail Develo ent Notes 49860084469 Cameron V__ 8 1,64 51,072 Total retail development For Cameron Commons Is 108,000 SF A 32,000 SF retail strip center, 13,DIp SF CVS and 6.000 SF oulpamel (Starbucks & Mattress Firm) are already completed. We also xcluded an estimated 5,928 SF Race Trac store which will be developed (parcel 49660084524), and a parcel ownded by Fifth Third Bank (parcel 25118010064 - did not exclude any SF from master talc.). 49660084465 Cameron Partners II 1 42 49660084508 Cameron Partners II 1 35 49660084524 Race Trac 1 74 49660064540 Piedmont (Development 1,01 49560084566 Piedmont Development 1 49660064582 Cameron Partners II 1 49650084605 Cameron Partners II 0,95 25118010064 Filh Third Bank 1„01 0019292M Mae Plateau 3255 227 850 No PILO. within ActiiAty Center. 00188040005 Tree Farm of SW FL LLC 14,5 84,000 Tree Farm PUD allows for 120,000 SF of commercial uses We assumed 70%potential retail deVelopmem with Owremalndlr*Mc*. 180200007 Creekside West 73. 49,000 Addie's Comer MPUD allows for'Up to 135,000 square feet of commercial development, and/or a retirement commumly/group housing at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0 60, and/or a hotel/motel at an intensity or 26 units per acre for the +23.33 acre parcel” Ownendeveloper has submitted for a PUD Amendment to allow for up to 350 multi -family residential units and up to 75,000 SF of commercial development. We assumed 70% potential retail development of the developer planned commercial allowance as potential retail development, 00188380002 Creekside West 4.56 00190040802 Creekside West 10 00203280OD9 Voila If LLC 15,97 84,000 Sonoma Oaks MPUD which allows 114 units of Residential, 456 units ofALF & a variety of commercial uses up to 120,000 SF We assumed 70%potential retail development with the remainder office. 00203660007 Voile 11 LLC 8 71 00204520001 Voila If LIC 7.35 Mission HAIL Station LLC 0.64 1 1,4K Mission. Hills PUD Outparcels 60204200248 TtfiM MYt 1.03 :218 79271800167 Vanderbilt Commons 1.35 �'� Commons (Carolina Village MPUD) is a mixed-use commercial project allowing up to 90,000 SF of retail & 60,000 SF of office 79271800183 Varxfer611t Commons 1 16 79271800125 Vanderbilt Commons 3.43Vanderbilt 79271600141 M' SOS 2.37 79271800109 VandetWll Commons 1.51 79271800066 Vanderbilt Commons 1.59 60204200484 AWozone 1 49 N/A Auto Zone currently under construction. 34595001027 Gaspar Station 6.07 123,250 Remaining developable Retail & Senices square feet in PUD after subtracting existing uses (Chase Bank & Car Wash) - per brokerage package. PUO also includes 265K SF or office and 460 -unit hotel Totals 27.82 720 882 , Source: Collier County Property Appraiser, Collier County Planning Department Prepared December i9 2016 /� 56 Exhibit V p p ,JOHN (,• BURNS Potential Commercial Inventory — Immokalee & Collier Blvd. FZAIESTATE CONSULTING The intersection of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard has a high concentration of vacant parcels and is identified as "Activity Center 3" by Collier County. We have accounted for these vacant parcels below. Map Parcel Name Acreage Total Estimated Retail Disielopment Notes 49880004469 Cameron Partners It 1 64 49660084485 Cameron Partners h 1 42 49660084508 Cameron Partners II 1 35 Total retail development for Cameron Commons is 108,000 SF A 32,000 SF retail strip center, 13,000 SF CVS and 6,000 SF 1 49660084524 Race Trac 1 74 outparcel (Starbucks 8 Mattress Finn) are already completed We also excluded an estimated 5,928 SF Race Trac store 49660084540 Piedmont Dew1opment 101 51,072 (parcel 496584524), and a parcel ownded by Fifth Third Bank (parcel 25118010064 - did not exclude which will be developed00 49660084566 Piedmont Development 1 any SF from master call ) 49660084562 Cameron Partners II 1 49660054605 125118010W I Cameron Partners II Fifth Third Bank 0 95 1 Ot 2 3 00192920001 Tree Plateau 3255 __ - No PUD. within Acti*y Censer. 4 00188040005 Tree Farm of SW FL LLC 145 84,000 Tree Farm PUD allows for 120,000 SF of commercial uses Within Actwty Center 00188200007 Creekside West 7.3 Addie's Comer MPUD allows for "up to 135,000 square feet of commercia(deveiopmenl, and/or a retirement community/group housing at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0 60. andfor a holelimotei at an intensity of 26 units per acre for the tr23 33 acre 5 00158360002 Creekside West 4 58 gg,000 parcel" Owner has submitted for a PUD Amendment to allow for up to 350 multi -family residential units and up to 75,000 SF of commercial development We assumed 113 of the orginal commercial deoelopment Within Actidty Center. 00190040802 Creekside West 10 Prepared December 19, 2016 57 SourcerloopNef, Collier Appraiser Exhibit V ,JOHN 14' BURNS Potential Commercial Inventory - Vanderbilt Beach Road & Collier Blvd._ REAL ESTATE CONSULTING The intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard has several vacant parcels, as well as the Sonoma Oaks MPUD. This area is not a designated Activity Center. The accounting of these parcels is detailed below. Map Parcel Name Acreage Total Estimated Retail Develonmenl Vacant Parcels summary Notes 1 00203280009 Voila II LLC 15 97 000 Sonoma Oaks MPUD which allows 114 units of Residential, 456 units of ALF & a u nety of commercial uses up to 120,000 SF We assumed 112 of this use would ibe retail with the remainder office. 00203680007 Voila II LLC 8 7184 00204520001 Voda II LLC 735 2 60204200345 Mission Hills Station LLC 0 64 Mission Hills PUD Oulparcels 3 60204200248 Tri•Manaciement 1 03 4 79271800167 Vanderbilt Commons 1,35 90000SF Vanderbilt Commons (Carolina Village MPUD) is a mixed-use commercial project allowing up to 90,000 SF of retail & 60,000 of office 79271800163 Vanderbilt Commons 1 16 79271800125 Vanderbilt Commons 343 79271800141 Midgard Self Storage Naples 2 37 79271800109 Vanderbilt Commons 1 51 79271800086 Vanderbilt Commons 1 59 5 60204200484 Autozone 149 N/A Auto Zone currently under construction Prepared December 19, 2016 58 Source: LoopNet, Collier Appraiser Exhibit V Potential Commercial Inventory - Other ,JOHN I4 BURN- S REAL ESTATE CONSULTING The final vacant potential inventory is the remaining retail for development at Gaspar Station, a PUD across from the Wal-Mart Supercenter. We have detailed the potential inventory below. Parcel Name Acreage Vacant Parcels Summary Total Estimated Retail Notes Development Remaining developable Retail & Services SF in PUD after subtracting existing 34595001027 Gaspar Station 6.07 123,250 uses (Chase Bank & Car Wash) - per brokerage package. PUD also includes 265K SF of office and 460 -unit hotel Prepared December 19, 2016 59 Source: Investment Properties Corporation, Collier County Property Appraiser Exhibit V JOHN��Bu�s REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Prepared December 19, 2016 60 Exhibit V ,JOHN I,` BURNS Naples MSA - Employment IZEAIESTATE CONSULTING The Naples MSA has been adding jobs since 2011, with approximately 3,000 jobs currently being added (year -over -year) Job growth is expected to continue through 2018, with an average of 1,500 jobs to be added per year from 2016 through 2018. 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 -2,000 -4,000 -6,000 -8,000 -10,000 -12,000 Annual Employment Growth vs. Unemployment: Naples, FL 14% N M 9 to 8 r,- WM O r N M O In �p r- O O O oo M O � N M v to b O O a a a. t1 O O O M O M O O O O 111,200 114,900 118,700 CO N- Co 6) O O O O O O 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 3,700 3,800 4,600 6:600 r 2,500 1,500 r r N N. N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0000 3.3% 3 9% 54% 4 0% 2.2% .Annual Job Growth (left axis) -Unemployment (right axis) U N N N N Sources: BLS: John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC 7.1% 6.0% 5.2% 4.1% Prepared December 19, 2016 M 2009 2010 2011 2012r i14 2015 Cturent 2016Pr r r Payroll Survey Total 111,300 111,200 114,900 118,700 123,300 129,900 135.100 140,300 137,600 139,100 139,600 139,100 1 -Year Change -10,200 -100 3,700 3,800 4,600 6:600 5,200 3,000 2,500 1,500 500 -500 1 -Year Growth Rate -8.4% -0.1% 3.3% 3.3% 3 9% 54% 4 0% 2.2% 1.9% 1 1% 0.4% -0.4% Unemployment Rate 11.1% 11.6% 102% 6.5% 7.1% 6.0% 5.2% 4.1% Prepared December 19, 2016 M Exhibit V Naples MSA - Employment Sectors JOHN kEAL ESTATE BURNS CONSULTING High income sectors inclusive of Professional and Business Services, Financial Activities, and Information account for a no net job losses or gains in the Naples MSA in the 12 month period between May 2015 and May 2016. Job growth over the past 12 months has been heavily supported by Construction and Leisure & Hospitality industries Prepared December 79, 2096 62 Current YOY Growth in High -Paying vs. Other Sectors: Naples, FL 1,400 Financial Activities (FA) 1,200 Information (info) Professional & Business Seances (PBS) High Income Construction (Cons) 1,000 .Sectors 900 Education & Health Services (EHS) Government (Gov) Leisure S. Hospitality (LH) Manufacturing (Mfg) OJlO til 0 Other Services (OS) Trade. 'ransp and Utilities (TTU) 600 400 400 300 300 [270] 200 11 M g 0 -200 -100 -400 -300 o co LJ. C M N O U) > c� � J c� /0 U W 6— `! F_ Sources: BLS; John Burns Real Estate consulting, LLC Prepared December 79, 2096 62 Exhibit V Naples MSA - Top Private Employers ,JOHN 14- BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Top private employers for the Naples MSA are displayed below Naples Community Hospital is the largest employer in the area, employing approximately 4,000 individuals 1 Company Naples Community Hospital EmployeesRank 4,000 2 Ritz-Carlton Naples 1,110 3 Garquillo, Inc 1 110 4 Arthrex Inc 1,056 5 Collier County's Sherriffs Office 1,029 6 Home Team Inspection Service 900 7 Publix Super Markets 800 8 Marriott 700 9 Naples Grande Beach Resort 700 10 Downing Frye Realty 550 11 Gulf Bay Group Cc 500 12 Moor'ngs Park — Home Health 500 13 Continental Transportation Service 500 14 Bentley Village 470 15 John R Wood Realtor 400 Source: Colliergov net Prepared December 19, 2016 63 16 Company US Post Office EmployeesRank 380 17 Finnegan Team 375 18 Naples Beach Hotel & Golf Club 350 19 Walmart 325 20 Cemex 301 21 Home Depot 300 22 Naples Lake Country Club 300 23 Nordstrom 300 24 Seminal Casino Immokalee 300 25 Commercial Concrete System 290 Source: Colliergov net Prepared December 19, 2016 63 Exhibit V Demographic Analysis JOHN I,• BUNs REAL ESTATE CONSULTING We closely analyzed the demographic characteristics in the PMA. SMA, and Collier County, to further determine the potential for the Subject The PMA has a total of 41,765 residents, which represents approximately 12% of Collier County total. Sources. ESRI, John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 Population (2016) 354,203 65,648 43,406 64 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14' BUR -NS Population Density 2016 (ZEAL ESTATE CCNSU1 T114G The population density* in the PMA and SMA is relatively high when compared to Collier County, which is a positive attribute for future retail demand. *Population density refers to the amount of people by Census Tract per ESRI as of 2016. Prepared December 19.. 2016 Sources: ESRI, John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC Exhibit V Population Comparison - 2016 JOHN (,• Bul�NC, REAL ESTATE CONSULTING PMA represents approximately 12% of total residents in Collier County, while the SMA represents nearly 19% Population Comparison (2016) 400,000 354,203 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 65,648 50,000 43,406 0 Collier County 4.0 -Mile Radius 3.0 -Mile Radius Sources: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 66 Exhibit V Population Growth 2016-2021 ,JOHN 14' BURNS kEAL ESTATE CONSULTING According to ESRI, the PMA (3 -mile radius) population is forecasted to grow at 2.4% annually through 2021. This is higher than the population growth rate in Collier County, which is forecast to grow 2 1% annually through 2016. Sources: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2076 67 Expected Annual Population Growth (2016 to 20211 2.5% 30,000 2.4% 2.4% 25,000 2.3% 2.3% 20,000 2.2% 15,000 2.1% 2.1% 10,000 7■Annual % Increase 7,286 2.0% 5,000 1.9% 1,488 1,033 0LK 1.8% Collier County 4.0 -Mille Radius 3.0 -Mile Radius Sources: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2076 67 Exhibit V HJOHN I,. BURNS ouseholds 2016 DEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The Census Tracts in the PMA benefit from a strong concentration of households' relative to the county, owing to its residential developments and growing popularity The large amount of households is an indicator of strong demand for retail in the PMA. *"Households" refers to the amount of households by Census Tract per ESRI as of 2016 Sources: ESRI, John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 B8 Exhibit V ,JOHN Ili BUPNs Households - 2016 REAL ESTATE CONSULTING There are over 18,000 households within the PMA (3 -mile radius), which is approximately 12.7% of all households in Collier County. Household Comparison (2016) 160,000 - 146,525 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 — 40,000 28,965 18,579 20,000 0 Collier County 4.0 -Mile Radius 3.0 -Mile Radius Sources: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 69 Exhibit V Household Growth 2016-2021 JOHN 14' auiZNs F?„FAL ESTATE CONSULTING The following chart illustrates projected household growth in Collier County, the SMA (4 -mile radius) and the PMA (3 -mile radius of the Subject). The highest concentration of growth is within the PMA, where households are projected to grow at a 2.4% annual rate through 2021. Expected Annual Household Growth (2016 to 2021) 3,500 --- 3,009 2.4% 2.5% 3,000 2.4% 2.500 2.3% 2.000 2.2% 1,500 _.___ 2.1% --o-Annual % Increase 2.1% 1,000 -- 2.00/6 664 500 - - 450 1.90/0 0 - 1.8% Collier County 4.0 -Mile Radius 3.0 -Mile Radius Sources: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 70 /0�\ Exhibit V Median Age - 2016 ,JOHN(j' BUPNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING The median age in a 3 -mile radius surrounding the Subject is 50 2 years, which is slightly higher than the median for Collier County of 49.3, and significantly higher than the US average of 37.9, reflecting the large number of retirees in the surrounding area. Median Atte (2016) 60.0 — 52.7 49.3 50 2 50.0 40.0 37.9 ! 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 United States Collier County 4.0 -Mile Radius 3.0 -Mile Radius Source ESRI, John Burns Real Estate Consulting Exhibit V Population Distribution by Age - 2016 ,JOHN 14• BURNS iZAL ESTATE CONSULTING Collier County has a large portion of older residents compared to the population distribution of the U.S. Nearly 43% of the PMA is comprised of those aged 55 or older, which reflects the region's popularity with retirees Prepared December 19, 2016 Poaulation Distribution By Alae (2016) 25% I 20% 15% i 10% 5% S (i f � R i 0% 05 (Children) 15-24 25.34 35.44 45.54 55-64 65+ (Apartment (1st Home (Move -Up Home (2nd Move -Up (Pre -Retirees) (Retirees) Renters) Buyers) Buyers) Home Buyers) ■United States ■Collier County 04.0 -Mile Radius 03.0 -Mile Radius Source. ESRI, John Burns Rea! Estate Consulting Prepared December 19, 2016 Exhibit V Income Trends ,JOHN 14' BUF�NS PEAL ESTATE CONSULT4NG The median household income in the PMA is high at $75,020. The Subject benefits from its location within one of the highest income areas in Collier County. Median Household Income (20161 $80,000 '__ __- $73,278 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 United States Collier County 4.0 -Mile Radius 3.0 -Mile Radius Sources: ESRI, John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 79, 2016 73 Exhibit V Income Growth Trends JOHN (0' BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Due to a national trend of wage increases and the increase of high -paying jobs in Collier County, a majority of the household growth in the PMA is projected to be in high-income brackets of $100,000 and above Household Growth by Income (2016 to 2021) 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% f -3.0% v <$25K $25K -$34K $35K -$49K $50K -$74K $75K -$99K $100K -$149K $150K -$199K $200K+ •United States ■Collier County 84.0 -Mile Radius ■3.0 -Mile Radius Sources: ESRI, John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 74 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14` BURNS Median Household Income - 2016 PEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The median household income within the PMA is $75,020, which is higher than the national average of $53,217 and indicates a high level of ourchasino power, The map below depicts median household income by Census Tract in 2016 per ESRI. Sources: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 75 Exhibit V Median Net Worth JOHNlj" BUF�NS kEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The median net worth in the PMA of $225,504 is higher than the Collier County average of $164,303 in 2016. The net worth in the region is significantly higher than the national average of $84,518 Sources: ESRI, John Burns Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 19, 2016 76 Exhibit V Median Net Worth JOHN 14- BURNS EAL ESTATE CONSULTING The median net worth in the PMA, or within a 3 -mile radius of the Subject, is $225,504, which illustrates the wealthy retirement population in the area. The map below depicts median net worth by Census Tract in 2016 per ESRI Sources: ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC Prepared December 79, 2016 77 Exhibit V Tapestry JOHN Ii' BUPNS FZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Tapestry segmentation provides an accurate, detailed description of America's neighborhoods—U S. residential areas are divided into 67 distinctive segments based on their socioeconomic and demographic composition—then further classifies the segments into LifeMode and Urbanization Groups. LifeMode groups are markets that share a similar experience, such as year of birth, or demographic trait, such as affluence Urbanization Groups are distinguished based on location only. The LifeMode Groups of the Subject's PMA include a large percentage of "Senior Styles" (63.6%) and "Cozy Country Living" (15.3%) households. Sources ESRI, John Bums Real Estate Consulting, LLC LifeMode Groups Highest Affluent Estates: Established wealth - educated, Income well -traveled married couples Upscale Avenues: Prosperous, married couples in higher density neighborhoods Uptown Individuals: Younger, urban singles on the move Family Landscapes: Successful younger families in newer housing GenXurban: Gen X in middle age, families with fewer kids and =9222 •Cozy Country Living: Empty nesters in bucolic settings Middle n c enclaves: 1:90lisged 3sversity—young, Income Hispanic homeowners with families Prepared December 19, 2016 78 Middle Ground: Lifestyles of thirty -somethings lieSenior Styles: Senior lifestyles reveal the effects of saving for retirement Rustic Outposts: Country life with older families, older home Midtown Singles: Miilennials on the move; single, diverse, and urban Hometown: Growing up and staying close to home; single householders •Next Wave: Urban denizens; young, diverse, hardworking families Lowest Scholars and Patriots: College campuses and Income military neighborhoods Prepared December 19, 2016 78 /0�1 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14• BUfZNS Tapestry Segmentation - Clusters PEAL ESTATE CONSULTING The 67 distinctive segments of Tapestry are also known as "Clusters'. The primary cluster groups of the Subject are "Silver & Gold" and "Golden Years", both which are included in the "Senior Styles' LifeMode Group. Source: ESRI Almost the oldest senior market (second to The Elders), the difference of 10 years in median age reveals a socioeconomic difference: This is the most affluent senior market and is still growing The affluence of Silver and Gold has afforded the opportunity to retire to sunnier climates that feature exclusive communities and vacation homes. These consumers have the free time, stamina, and resources to enjoy the good life. Prepared December 19, 2016 Independent, active seniors nearing the end of their careers or already in retirement best describes Golden Years residents. This market is primarily singles living alone or empty nesters. Those still active in the labor force are employed in professional occupations; however, these consumers are actively pursuing a variety of leisure interests—travel, sports, dining out, museums, and concerts They are involved, focused on physical fitness, and enjoying their lives This market is smaller, but growing, and financially secure 79 /10—N Exhibit V Limiting Conditions JOHN I*- BUkNS SEAL ESTATE CONSU; TING The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our analysis of the information available to us from our own research and from the client as of the date of this report. We assume that the information is correct and reliable and that we have been informed about any issues that would affect project marketability or success potential. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on current and expected performance of the national, and/or local economy and real estate market. Given that economic conditions can change and real estate markets are cyclical, it is critical to monitor the economy and real estate market continuously, and to revisit key project assumptions periodically to ensure that they are still justified. The future is difficult to predict, particularly given that the economy and housing markets can be cyclical, as well as subject to changing consumer and market psychology. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the differences may be material. We do not express any form of assurance on the achievability of any pricing or absorption estimates or reasonableness of the underlying assumptions. In general, for projects out in the future, we are assuming "normal" real estate market conditions, and not a condition of either prolonged n"boom" or "bust" market conditions. We do assume that economic, employment, and household growth will occur more or less in accordance with current expectations. We are not taking into account major shifts in the level of consumer confidence; in the ability of developers to secure needed project entitlements; in the cost of development or construction; in tax laws that favor or disfavor real estate markets; or in the availability and/or cost of capital and mortgage financing for real estate developers, owners and buyers. Should there be such major shifts affecting real estate markets, this analysis should be updated, with the conclusions and recommendations summarized herein reviewed and reevaluated under a potential range of build -out scenarios reflecting changed market conditions. We have no responsibility to update our analysis for events and circumstances occurring after the date of our report. This analysis represents just one resource that the client should consider when assessing this development opportunity. Prepared aecemoa, 19. 2076 80 Exhibit V Depth and Breadth of Experience CONSULTING • Strategic Direction & Planning • Home Builder Operations Assessment • Demand Analysis • Consumer Research & Focus Groups • Economic Analysis & Forecasting • Litigation Support & Expert Witness • Financial Modeling • Project &Product Positioning [� , DENVER RESEARCH • Exclusive Access to our Research & 1RY18 • • Consulting Executives • SAN olEGO '1► • • Metro Analysis & Forecast • • Regional Analysis & Forecast • Home Builder Analysis & Forecast • Apartment Analysis & Forecast • Exclusive Client Events • Public Builder Call Summaries • Weekly Insight • CONSULTING B RESEARCH • Presentations & Webinars 0 CONSULTING • Consumer Research RESEARCH • Proprietary Surveys r• 4'_ JSREC REGIONAL OFFICES ,JOHN 14' BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING �WISCONSiN NEW ENANU .Y • ' Y WASHINGTON, OC N •1 • 00, • • i • • i INAAL C'?'E FT4ANTA • DALLAS +, @OCA RATON Prepared December 19, 2016 81 Exhibit V Appendix JOHN 14, BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULT NG Market Profile Exhibit V 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 3 mile radii Prepared by Esri 3 miles Population Summary 2000 Total Population 15,836 2010 Total Population 37,262 2016 Total Population 43,406 2016 Group Quarters 143 2020 Total Population 48,569 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2.27% Household Summary 2000 Households 6,487 2000 Average Household Size 2.43 2010 Households 15,957 2010 Average Household Size 2.33 2016 Households 18,579 2015 Average Household Size 2.33 2021 Households 20,827 2021 Average Household Size 2.33 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2.31% 2010 Families 11,196 2010 Average Family Size 2.75 2016 Families 12,928 2016 Average Family Size 2.76 2021 Families 14,413 2021 Average Family Size 2.76 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2.20% Housing Unit Summary 2000 Housing Units 8,271 Owner Occupied Housing Units 67.5% Renter Occupied Housing Units 10.9% Vacant Housing Units 21.60!c 2010 Housing Units 21,418 Owner Occupied Housing Units 54.3% Renter Occupied Housing Units 20.2% Vacant Housing Units 25.5% 2016 Housing Units 24,507 Owner Occupied Housing Units 52.3% Renter Occupied Housing Units 23.5% Vacant Housing Units 24.2% 2021 Housing Units 27,238 Owner Occupied Housing Units 52.3% Renter Occupied Housing Units 24.2% Vacant Housing Units 23.5% Median Household Income 2016 $75,020 2021 $84,866 Median Home Value 2016 $398,595 2021 $412,877 Per Capita Income 2016 $45,851 2021 $51,598 Median Age 2010 47.0 2016 50.2 2021 52.4 Data Note: Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household population divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1, Esr forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14• BURNS R ,EAL ESTATE CONSULTING Market 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 3 mile radii 3 miles 2016 Households by Income Household Income Base 18,579 <$15,000 6.8% $15,000 - $24,999 6.5% $25,000 - $34,999 9.8%v $35,000 - $49,999 12.0% $50,000 - $74,999 14.9% $75,000 - $99,999 12.5% $100,000 - $149,999 21 $150,000 - $199,999 5.6% $200,000+ 11.6% Average Household Income $107,248 2021 Households by Income Household Income Base 20,827 <$15,000 6.2% $15,000 - $24,999 7.2% $25,000 - $34,999 5.5% $35,000 - $49,999 7.5% $50,000 - $74,999 17.2% $75,000 - $99,999 13.5% $100,000 - $149,999 22.5% $150,000 - $199,999 7.0% $200,000+ 13.2% Average Household Income $120,581 2016 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 12,814 <$50,000 1.6% $50,000 - $99,999 1.1% $100,000 - $149,999 3.4% $150,000 - $199,999 4.7% $200,000 - $249,999 10.2% $250,000 - $299,999 7.4% $300,000 - $399,999 21.9% $400,000 - $499,999 14.8% $500,000 - $749,999 20.5% $750,000 - $999,999 6.9% $1,000,000 + 7.6% Average Home Value $482,846 2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 14,239 <$50,000 0.6% $50,000 - $99,999 0.5% $100,000- $149,999 2.0% $150,000 - $199,999 3.7% $200,000 - $249,999 11.2% $250,000 - $299,999 9.7% $300,000 - $399,999 20.5% $400,000 - $499,999 14.7% $500,000 - $749,999 21.4% $750,000 - $999,999 8.0% $1,000,000 + 7.7% Average Home Value $500,119 Data Note: Income represents the preceding year, expressed in current dollars. Household income includes wage and salary earnings, interest dividends, net rents, pensions, SSI and welfare payments, child support, and alimony. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1, 1 forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14' BURNS kEAL ESTATE CONSULTING 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 3 mile radii 3 miles 2010 Population by Age Total 37,264 0 - 4 4.6% 5- 9 5.8% 10 -14 6.1% 15 - 24 10.0% 25-34 8.9% 35-44 11.8% 45-54 13.5% 55-64 14.1% 65-74 15.1% 75- 84 7.9% 85 + 2.2% 18 + 79.5% 2016 Population by Age Total 43,405 0-4 4.1% 5- 9 5.1% 10- 14 5.6% 15 - 24 9.7% 25- 34 8.8% 35-44 10.6% 45 -54 12.1% 55-64 14.8% 65-74 17.1% 75-84 9.2% 85+ 2.8% 18+ 81.9% 2021 Population by Age Total 48,567 0 - 4 3.9% 5 - 9 4.7% 10- 14 5.2% 15-24 8.9% 25-34 8.7% 35-44 10.6% 45-54 10.8% 55-64 14.9% 65-74 18.9% 75-84 10.3% 85+ 3.0% 18 + 83.0% 2010 Population by Sex Males 17,799 Females 19,463 2016 Population by Sex Males 20,743 Females 22,663 2021 Population by Sex Males 23,296 Females 25,273 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 oata into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 1j' BURNS PEAL ESTATE CONSULTING MarketProfile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 3 mile radii Prepared by Esri 3 miles 2010 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 37,261 White Alone 91.3% Black Alone 3.2% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 1.8% Pacific Islander Alone 0.00/0 Some Other Race Alone 2.1% Two or More Races 1.4% Hispanic Origin 14.2% Diversity Index 36.9 2016 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 43,407 White Alone 89.70/. Black Alone 3.7% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 2.2% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 2.4% Two or More Races 1.7% Hispanic Origin 16.4% Diversity Index 41.3 2021 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 48,569 White Alone 88.3% Black Alone 4.3% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 2.7% Pacific Islander Alone 0.1% Some Other Race Alone 2.7% Two or More Races 1.9% Hispanic Origin 18.5% Diversity Index 45.4 2010 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 37,262 In Households 99.6% In Family Households 84.0% Householder 29.8% Spouse 25.0% Child 25.0% Other relative 2.7% Nonrelative 1.5% In Nonfamily Households 15.6% In Group Quarters 0.4% Institutionalized Population 0.0% Noninstitutionalized Population 0.4% Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The Diversity Index measures the probability that two people from the same area will be from different race,! �-� ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Cersus 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 1j' BUkNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING 1 Market 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 3 mile radii Prepared by Esri 3 miles 2016 Population 25+ by Educational Attainment Tota 1 32,768 Less than 9th Grade 2.4% 9th - 12th Grade, No Diploma 2.7% High School Graduate 20.3% GED/Alternative Credential 2.1% Some College, No Degree 18.6% Associate Degree 9.5% Bachelor's Degree 27.6% Graduate/Professional Degree 16.9% 2016 Population 15+ by Marital Status Total 36,995 Never Married 23.8% Married 58.5% Widowed 6.8% Divorced 10.9% 2016 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force Civilian Employed 94.9% Civilian Unemployed 5.1% 2016 Employed Population 16+ by Industry Total 17,218 Agriculture/Mining 0.6% Construction 7.2% Manufacturing 2.5% Wholesale Trade 3.0% Retail Trade 11.7% Transportation/Utilities 3.3% Information 1.5% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8.8% Services 59.1% Public Administration 2.4% 2016 Employed Population 16+ by Occupation Total 17,219 White Collar 68.6% Management/Business/Financial 22.2% Professional 19.9% Sales 12.9% Administrative Support 13.50/c Services 21.2% Blue Collar 10.3% Farming/Forestry/Fishing 0.2% Construction/Extraction 3.7% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 1.5% Production 1.7% Transportation/Material Moving 3.2% 2010 Population By Urban/ Rural Status Total Population 37,262 Population Inside Urbanized Area 94.9% Population Inside Urbanized Cluster 0.3% Rural Population 4.7% r� Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14• BURNS DEAL ESTATE CONSULTING MarketProfile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 3 mile radii 3 miles 2010 Households by Type Total 15,957 Households with 1 Person 24.0% Households with 2+ People 76.0% Family Households 70.2% Husband -wife Families 58.7% With Related Children 18.6% Other Family (No Spouse Present) 11.4% Other Family with Male Householder 3.1% With Related Children 1.9% Other Family with Female Householder 8.4% With Related Children 5.9% Nonfamily Households 5.9% All Households with Children 26.7% Multigenerational Households 2.2% Unmarried Partner Households 5.4% Male-female 4.7% Same-sex 0.7% 2010 Households by Size Total 15,957 1 Person Household 24.0% 2 Person Household 45.5% 3 Person Household 13.0% ^ 4 Person Household 10.7% 5 Person Household 4.6% 6 Person Household 1.6% 7 + Person Household 0.6% 2010 Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 15,957 Owner Occupied 72.9% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 48.3% Owned Free and Clear 24.5% Renter Occupied 27.1% 2010 Housing Units By Urban/ Rural Status Total Housing Units 21,418 Housing Units Inside Urbanized Area 94.5% Housing Units Inside Urbanized Cluster 0.3% Rural Housing Units 5.2% Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent- child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder. Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data, which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography_ June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14• BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 3 mile radii 3 miles Top 3 Tapestry Segments 1. Silver & Gold (9A) 2. Golden Years (913) 3. Green Acres (6A) 2016 Consumer Spending Apparel & Services: Total $ $50,066,754 Average Spent $2,694.80 Spending Potential Index 134 Education: Total $ $35,155,959 Average Spent $1,892.24 Spending Potential Index 134 Entertainment/Recreation: Total $ $75,355,746 Average Spent $4,055.96 Spending Potential Index 139 Food at Home: Total $ $124,802,064 Average Spent $6,717.37 Spending Potential Index 135 Food Away from Home: Total $ $77,801,932 Average Spent $4,187.63 Spending Potential Index 135 Health Care: Total $ $143,658,226 Average Spent $7,732.29 Spending Potential Index 146 HH Furnishings & Equipment: Total $ $45,815,471 Average Spent $2,465.98 Spending Potential Index 140 Personal Care Products & Services: Total $ $19,490,157 Average Spent $1,049.04 Spending Potential Index 143 Shelter: Total $ $398,349,187 Average Spent $21,440.83 Spending Potential Index 138 Support Payments/Cash Contributions/Gifts in Kind: Total $ $65,047,739 Average Spent $3,501.14 Spending Potential Index 151 Travel: Total $ $50,398,605 Average Spent $2,712.67 Spending Potential Index 146 Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs: Total $ $26,767,621 Average Spent $1,440.75 Spending Potential Index 139 Data Note: Consumer spending shows the amount spent on a variety of goods and services by households that reside in the area. Expenditures are shown by broad budget categories that are not mutually exclusive. Consumer spending does not equal business revenue. Total and Average Amount Spent Per Household represent annual figures. The Spending Potential Index represents the amount spent in the area relative to a national average of 100, Source: Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Esh. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V -- ,JOHN li. BUFF househ• • Income Profile (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULT 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius 2016-2021 2016-2021 Summary 2016 2021 Change Annual Rate Population 43,406 48,569 5,163 2.27% Households 18,579 20,827 2,248 2.31% Median Age 50.2 52.4 2.2 0.86% Average Household Size 2.33 2.33 0.00 0.00% 2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household 18,579 100% 20,827 100% <$15,000 1,257 6.8% 1,295 6.2% $15,000-$24,999 1,207 6.5% 1,505 7.2% $25,000-$34,999 1,818 915% 1,147 5.5% $35,000-$49,999 2,229 12.0% 1,571 7.5% $50,000-$74,999 2,776 14.910 3,590 17.2% $75,000-$99,999 2,321 12.5% 2,815 13.5% $100,000-$149,999 3,781 20.4% 4,695 22.5% $150,000-$199,999 1,040 5.6% 1,457 7.0% $200,000+ 2,150 11.6% 2,750 13.2% Median Household Income $75,020 $84,866 Average Household Income $107,248 $120,581 Per Capita Income $45,851 $51,598 ^ Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN i!. BU Household_ Profile REAL ESTATE CONSULT ,a 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius 2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 446 1,762 2,397 2,866 3,459 4,237 3,410 <$15,000 53 155 141 141 248 188 332 $15,000-$24,999 31 10B 120 132 155 323 337 $25,000-$34,999 70 202 228 227 239 308 545 $35,000-$49,999 72 279 312 287 293 438 548 $50,000-$74,999 77 294 347 396 433 679 550 $75,000-$99,999 39 245 362 396 500 549 229 $100,000-$149,999 78 331 488 682 771 883 549 $150,000-$199,999 12 69 158 228 239 227 107 $200,000+ 14 79 241 377 582 642 215 Median HH Income $49,154 $59,382 $77,648 $89,116 $91,616 $81,835 $47,967 Average HH Income $69,823 $80,435 $104,416 $118,968 $128,693 $121,255 $79,046 Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% <$15,000 11.9% 8.8% S.9% 4.9% 7.2% 4.4% 9.7% $15,000-$24,999 7.0% 6.1% 5.0% 4.6% 4.5% 7.6% 9.9% $25,000-$34,999 15.7% 11.5% 9.S% 7.9% 6.9% 7.3% 16.0% $35,000-$49,999 16.1% 15.8% 13.0% 10.0% 8.5% 10.3% 16.1% $50,000-$74,999 17.3% 16.7% 14.5% 13.8% 12.5% 16.0% 16.1% $75,000-$99,999 8.7% 13.9% 15.1% 13.8% 14.5% 13.0% 6.7% $100,000-$149,999 17.5% 18.8% 20.4% 23.8% 22.3% 20.8% 16.1% $150,000-$199,999 2.7% 3.9% 6.6% 8.0% 6.9% 5.4% 3.10/6 $200,000+ 3.1% 4.5% 10.1% 13.2% 16.8% 15.2% 6.3% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. 3une 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN lt. BUFW ^,ud Income Profile (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTr 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius Prepared by Esri ^ Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esn Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 447 1,896 2,613 2,805 3,810 5,137 4,117 <$15,000 60 167 138 125 230 204 371 $15,000-$24,999 44 148 143 141 177 405 448 $25,000-$34,999 48 134 129 119 133 200 385 $35,000-$49,999 46 188 201 168 194 327 447 $50,000-$74,999 86 370 449 427 525 928 805 $75,000-$99,999 45 301 442 425 583 689 329 $100,000-$149,999 88 397 588 707 929 1,158 828 $150,000-$199,999 15 95 224 277 327 343 178 $200,000+ 16 99 299 416 710 883 326 Median HH Income $55,570 $69,720 $87,003 $99,807 $1.02,052 $91,900 $60,180 Average HH Income $75,963 $89,493 $118,043 $132,584 $143,339 $135,438 $93,589 Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1.00% <$15,000 13.4% 8.8% 5.3% 4.5% 6.0% 4.0% 9.0% $15,000-$24,999 9.8% 7.8% 5.5% 5.0% 4.6% 7.9% 10.9% $25,000-$34,999 10.7% 7.1% 4.9% 4.2% 3.5% 3.9% 9.4% $35,000-$49,999 10.3% 9.9% 7.7% 6.0% 5.:1% 6.4% 10.9% $50,000-$74,999 19.2% 19.50/0 17.2% 15.2% 13.8% 18.1% 19.6% $75,000-$99,999 10.1% 15.9% 16.9% 15.2% 15.3% 13.4% 8.0% $100,000-$149,999 19.7% 20.9% 22.5% 25.2% 24.4% 22.5% 20.1% $150,000-$199,999 3.4% 5.0% 8.6% 9.9% 8.6% 6.7% 4.3% $200,000+ 3.6% 5.2% 11.4% 14.8% 18.6% 17.2% 7.9% ^ Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esn Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V 14l BU 0-*-, ,JOHN _ Worth. o _ REAL ESTATE CONSULTri mom 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius 2016-2021 2016-2021 Summary Census 2010 2016 2021 Change Annual Rate Population 37,262 43,406 48,569 5,163 2.27% Median Age 47.0 50.2 52.4 2.2 0.86% Households 15,957 18,579 20,827 2,248 2.31% Average Household Size 2.33 2.33 2.33 0.00 0.00% 2016 Households by Net Worth Number Percent Total 18,579 100.0% <$15,000 3,291 17.7% $15,000-$34,999 1,038 5.6% $35,000-$49,999 544 2.9% $50,000-$74,999 953 5.1% $75,000-$99,999 713 3.80/b $100,000-$149,999 1,266 6.8% $150,000-$249,999 1,827 9.8% $250,000-$500,000 2,731 14.7% $500,000+ 6,217 33.5% Median Net Worth $225,504 Average Net Worth $1,418,016 Number of Households 2016 Net Worth by Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 63-74 75+ Total 446 1,762 2,397 2,866 3,459 4,237 3,410 <$15,000 225 922 732 531 474 177 230 $15,000-$34,999 108 249 239 199 126 44 73 $35,000-$49,999 15 129 133 92 85 52 37 $50,000-$99,999 38 183 451 327 205 202 260 $100,000-$149,999 21 79 186 264 244 295 177 $150,000-$249,999 20 87 205 296 362 402 455 $250,000+ 19 114 451 1,159 1,964 3,065 2,178 Median Net Worth $14,867 $14,341 $56,524 $154,979 $250,001 $250,001 $250,001 Average Net Worth $74,236 $108,415 $455,690 $840,187 $1,733,392 $2,724,829 $1,489,740 Data Note: Net Worth is total household wealth minus debt, secured and unsecured. Net worth includes home equity, equity in pension plans, net equity in vehicles, IRAs and Keogh accounts, business equity, interest-earning assets and mutual fund shares, stock=_, etc. Examples of secured debt include home mortgages and vehicle loans; examples of unsecured debt include credit card debt, certain bank loans, and other outstanding bills. Forecasts of net worth are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Board. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esd Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN I1+ BUKCRetail r ace Profile (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULT 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring; 3 mile radius Summary Demographics 2016 Population 43,406 2016 Households 18,579 2016 Median Disposable Income $59,338 2016 Per Capita Income $45,851 NAICS Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of Industry Summary (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink 44-45,722 $945,844,573 $420,892,257 $524,9S2,316 38.4 133 Total Retail Trade 44-45 $854,232,354 $392,109,139 $462,-23,215 37.1 91 Total Food & Drink 722 $91,612,219 $28,783,118 562,829,101 52.2 42 NAICS Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of Industry Group (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 441 $203,782,764 $4,819,011 $198,963,753 95.4 4 Automobile Dealers 4411 $160,303,025 $1,141,304 $159,161,721 96.6 1 Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 4412 $29,927,418 $2,622,011 $27,305,407 83.9 1 Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores 4413 $13,552,320 $1,055,695 $12,496,625 8 5. 5) 2 Furniture & Horne Furnishings Stores 442 $26,772,513 $5,798,254 120,974,259 64.4 6 Furniture Stores 4421 $15,672,028 $4,722,707 $10,949,321 53.7 2 Home Furnishings Stores 4422 $11,100,485 $1,075,547 $10,024,938 82.3 4 Electronics & Appliance Stores 443 $36,166,483 $6,456,867 $29,709,616 69.7 8 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores 444 $44,721,093 $18,739,200 $25,981,893 40.9 12 Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 $39,588,926 $11,524,792 $28,064,134 54.9 7 Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 4442 $5,132,166 $7,214,408 -$2,082,242 -16.9 5 Food & Beverage Stores 445 $155,405,645 $105,755,178 $49,650,467 1910 11 Grocery Stores 4451 $137,212,580 $101,749,796 $35,462,784 14.6 7 Specialty Food Stores 4452 $11,197,885 $2,005,564 $9,192,321 69.6 2 Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 4453 $6,995,180 $1,999,818 $4,995,362 55.5 2 Health & Personal Care Stores 446,4461 $53,944,347 $15,132,577 $38,811,770 56.2 11 Gasoline Stations 447,4471 $57,412,715 $0 $57,412,715 100.0 0 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 448 $45,256,255 $2,377,534 $42,878,721 90.0 6 Clothing Stores 4481 $32,246,523 $2,253,043 $29,993,480 86.9 6 Shoe Stores 4482 $5,398,512 $0 $5,398,512 100.0 0 Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods Stores 4483 $7,611,219 $0 57,611,219 100.0 0 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 451 $20,707,847 $20,121,884 $585,963 1.4 9 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr Stores 4511 $15,086,683 $19,183,642 -$4,096,959 -12.0 6 Book, Periodical & Music Stores 4512 $5,621,163 $938,243 $4,682,920 71.4 3 General Merchandise Stores 452 $149,572,377 $200,313,205 -$SC,740,828 -14.5 6 Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts. 4521 $108,962,831 $123,463,717 -$14,500,886 -6.2 4 Other General Merchandise Stores 4529 $40,609,546 $76,849,487 -$36,239,941 -30.9 2 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 453 $39,212,647 $9,195,799 $30,016,848 62.0 14 Florists 4531 $1,726,950 $880,799 $84(5,151 32.4 3 Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores 4532 $7,533,997 $3,942,932 63,591,065 31.3 3 Used Merchandise Stores 4533 $3,605,018 $277,969 $3:327,049 85.7 3 Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 4539 $26,346,682 $4,094,098 $22,252,584 73.1 4 Nonstore Retailers 454 $21,277,670 $2,850,127 $18;427,543 76.4 3 Electronic Shopping & Mail -Order Houses 4541 $16,871,457 $2,764,596 $14,1D6,861 71.8 3 Vending Machine Operators 4542 $492,255 $0 $492,255 100.0 0 Direct Selling Establishments 4543 $3,913,958 $0 $3,913,958 100.0 0 Food Services & Drinking Places 722 $91,612,219 $28,783,118 $62,829,101 52.2 42 Full -Service Restaurants 7221 $51,642,614 $17,352,688 $34,289,926 49.7 25 Limited -Service Eating Places 7222 $33,854,614 $10,927,748 $22,926,866 51.2 14 Special Food Services 7223 $1,429,673 $98,035 $1,331,638 87.2 1 Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages 7224 $4,665,318 $404,646 $4,280,672 84.1 2 Data Note: Supply (retail sales) estimates sales to consumers by establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. Demand (retail potential) estimates the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. Supply and demand estimates are in current dollars. The Leakage/Surplus Factor presents a snapshot of retail opportunity. This is a measure of the relationship between supply and demand that ranges from +100 (total leakage) to -100 (total surplus). A positive value represents 'leakage' of retail opportunity outside the trade area. A negative value represents a surplus of retail sales, a market where customers are drawn in from outside the trade area. The Retail Gap represents the difference between Retail Potential and Retail Sales. Esri uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify businesses by their primary type of economic activity. Retail establishments are classified into 27 industry groups in the Retail Trade sector, as well as four industry groups within the Food Services & Drinking Establishments subsector. For more information on the Retail MarketPlace data, please click the link below to view the Methodology Statement. http://www.esri,com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/esri-data-retail-marketplace.pdf Source: Esri and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release 1 (2015 data in 2016 geography) Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN,j-' Ri;p,e--t�'jj -Marketplace Profile (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTnu 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Subsector Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores Food & Beverage Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores General Merchandise Stores Miscellaneous Store Retailers Nonstore Retailers Food Services & Drinking Places Prepared by Esri 0 20 40 60 80 100 Leakage/Surplus Factor Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Group Automobile Dealers Other Motor Vehicle Dealers Auto Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores Furniture Stores Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Building Material and Supplies Dealers Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores Grocery Stores Specialty Food Stores Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing Stores Shoe Stores Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores Book, Periodical, and Music Stores Department Stores (Excluding Leased Depts.) Other General Merchandise Stores Florists Office Supplies, Stationery, and Gift Stores Used Merchandise Stores Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers Electronic Shopping and Mail -Order Houses Vending Machine Operators Direct Selling Establishments Full -Service Restaurants Limited -Service Eating Places Special Food Services Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Leakage/Surplus Factor Source: Esn and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release 1 (2015 data in 2016 geography) Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 1j, BUF�NS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING TapestrySegmentationArea 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius Top Twenty Tapestry Segments 2016 Households 2016 U.S. Households Cumulative Cumulative Rank Tapestry Segment Percent Percent Percent Percent Index 1 Silver & Gold (9A) 34.5% 34.5% 0.8% 0.8% 4545 2 Golden Years (913; 28.6% 63.1% 1.3% 2.1% 2,131 3 Green Acres (6A) 11.2% 74.3% 3.2% 5.3% 351 4 Old and Newcomers (8F) 9.5% 83.8% 2.3% 7.60/D 407 5 Ir Style (58) 5.5% 89.3% 2.3 O/D 9.9% 243 Subtotal 89.3% 9.90/0 6 The Great Outdoors (6C) 5.1% 94.4% 1.6% 11.50/0 330 7 Middleburg (4C) 3.0% 97.4% 2.8% 14.3% 107 8 Exurbanites (1E) 2.6% 100.00/0 1190/0 16.2% 135 Subtotal 10.7% 6.30/0 Total 100.00/0 16.2% Top Ten Tapestry Segments Site vs. U.S. Exurbanites (1E) Middleburg (4C) The Great Outdoors (6C) In Style (56) Old and Newcomers (8F) Green Acres (6A) Golden Years (9B) Silver & Gold (9A) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percent of Households by Tapestry Segment ■ Site ■ U.S. 617 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood, The Index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 4 Exhibit V ,JOHN BUkNS Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius 2016 Tapestry Indexes by Households Index 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 4 C E v v7 CL FSO 2016 Tapestry Indexes by Total Population 18+ Index 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Des the socWWbnomic quality of the immediate neighborhood, The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 16+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ In the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source; Esri June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 14, BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Tapestry Segmentation• Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius Prepared by Esri Tapestry LifeMode Groups 2016 Households 2016 Adult Population Number Percent Index Number Percent Index Total: 18,579 100.0% 35,544 100.00/0 1. Affluent Estates 489 2.69/6 27 1,020 2.90/0 28 Top Tier (1A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Professional Pride (16) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Boomburbs (1C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Savvy Suburbanites (1D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Exurbanites (1E) 489 2.6% 135 1,020 2.9% 147 2. Upscale Avenues 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Urban Chic (2A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Pleasantville (28) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Pacific Heights (2C) 0 0101/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Enterprising Professionals (2D) 0 01011/0 0 0 0.0% 0 3. Uptown Individuals 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Laptops and Lattes (3A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Metro Renters (3B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Trendsetters (3C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 4. Family Landscapes 564 3.0% 41 1,132 3.20/6 41 Soccer Moms (4A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.00/0 0 �oom,,� Home Improvement (4B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Middleburg (4C) 564 3,00/6 107 1,132 3.2% 113 5. GenXurban 1,019 5.5% 47 1,966 5.50/0 s0 Comfortable Empty Nesters (5A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 In Style (5B) 1,019 5.5% 243 1,966 5.5% 263 Parks and Rec (5C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rustbelt Traditions (5D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Midlife Constants (5E) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 6. Cozy Country Living 3,035 16.3% 134 6,193 17.4% 146 Green Acres (6A) 2,083 11.2% 351 4,398 12.4% 375 Salt of the Earth (68) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.00/0 0 The Great Outdoors (6C) 952 5.10/0 330 1,795 5.1% 332 Prairie Living (6D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rural Resort Dwellers (6E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Heartland Communities (6F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 7. Ethnic Enclaves 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Up and Coming Families (7A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Urban Villages (7B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 American Dreamers (7C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Barrios Urbanos (7D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Valley Growers (7E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Southwestern Families (7F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index Is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ In the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by �\ segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 14, BUF�NS REaL ESTATE CGNSjL- NG Tapestry'• • 1 ' • Pr* Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the a -ea, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent or households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esh June 23, 2016 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius Tapestry LifeMode Groups 2016 Households 2016 Adult Population Number Percent Index Number Percent Index Total: 18,579 100,0% 35,544 100.0% S. Middle Ground 1,758 9.5% 86 3,036 8.5% 84 C=ty Lights ,;8A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Emerald City (813) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Bright Young Professionals (RC) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Downtown Melting Pot (81D) 0 010% 0 0 0.0% 0 Frcn+ For, -,es "8E' 0 010% 0 0 0.00/0 0 vi ono ',,c ors , 8F) 1,758 9.50/0 407 3,036 8.50/0 425 Harosaatr;ie Road (8C 0 0.00/0 0 0 0100/0 0 9. Senior Styles 11,714 63.0% 1085 22,197 62.40/a 1249 Silver, 6,407 34.5% 4,545 11,625 32.7% 4,748 ueid�n fears r95 5,307 28,6% 2,131 10,572 29.7% 2,504 The Eloet-s (9C) 0 OA°/a 0 0 0.00/0 0 Scmcr Escapes 9D 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Ret iemert Comr;u'-itcS :c�E'': 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Social Security Set (91F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 10. Rustic Outposts 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Southe!-ri Satellites ('_OA) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Rooted Rural (IOB) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Diners & Miners (10C) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Dowr the Road (10D) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Rural Bypasses (10E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.00/0 0 11. Midtown Singles 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Strivers (11A) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Young and Restless (11B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.00/0 0 Metro Fusion (11C) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.011/0 0 Set to Impress (11D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Commons (11E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 12. Hometown 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Family Foundations (12A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Traditional Living (12B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Small Tcwr Simplicity (12C) 0 OA% 0 0 0.00/0 0 Modest Income Homes (12D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 13. Next Wave 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Inte-naConal Marketplace (13A) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Las Casas (13B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Newest Residents (13C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Fresh Ambitions (13D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 High Rise Renters (13E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 14. Scholars and Patriots 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Military Proximity (14A) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 College Towns (14B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Dorms to Diplomas (14C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Unclassified (15) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the a -ea, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent or households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esh June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14- BURNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Tapestry• Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokaiee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 3 mile radius Tapestry Urbanization Groups 2016 Households 2016 Adult Population Number Percent Index Number Percent Index Total: 18,579 100.0% 35,544 100.0% 1. Principal Urban Center 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Laptops and Lattes (3A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Metro Renters (3B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Trendsetters (3C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Downtown Melting Pot (81)) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.00/0 0 City Strivers (11A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 NeWest Residents (13C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Fresh Ambitions (13D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 High Rise Renters (13E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 2. Urban Periphery 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Pacific Heights (2C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rustbelt Traditions (5D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Urban Villages (78) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 American Dreamers (7C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Barrios Urbanos (7D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Southwestern Families (717) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Lights (8A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Bright Young Professionals (8C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Metro Fusion (11C)' 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Family Foundations (12A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Modest Income Homes (12D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 International Marketplace (13A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Las Casas (13B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 3. Metro Cities 2,777 14.9% 81 5,002 14.1% 83 In Style (513) 1,019 5.5% 243 1,966 5.5% 263 Emerald City (813) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Front Porches (8E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Old and Newcomers (8F) 1,758 9.5% 407 3,036 8.5% 425 Hardscrabble Road (8G) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Retirement Communities (9E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Social Security Set (9F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Young and Restless (11B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Set to Impress (11D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Commons (11E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Traditional Living (12B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 College Towns (148) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Dorms to Diplomas (14C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esrl June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN - Tapestry Segmentation Area Profile 6. Rural 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 16.3% 95 Prepared by Esri 17.40/a 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Green Acres (6A) 2,083 11.2% 351 4,398 Ring: 3 mile radius 375 Salt of the Earth (6B) 0 0.00/0 0 Tapestry Urbanization Groups 2016 Households 0 2016 Adult Population 952 5.1% Number Percent Index Number Percent Index Total: 18,579 100.0% 0.0% 35,544 100.0% 0 4. Suburban Periphery 12,203 65.7% 207 23,217 65.3% 203 Top Tier (1A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Professional Pride (1B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Boomburbs (1C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Savvy Suburbanites (1D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Exurbanites (1E) 489 2.6% 135 1,020 2.9% 147 Urbar Chic (2A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Pleasantville (2B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Enterprising Professionals (2D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Soccer Moms (4A) 0 0.0% 0 0 010% 0 Home Improvement (4B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Comfortable Empty Nesters (5A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Parks and Rec (5C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Midlife Constants (5E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Up and Coming Families (7A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Silver & Gold (9A) 6,407 34.5% 4,545 11,625 32.7% 4,748 Golden Years (9B) 5,307 28.6% 2,131 10,572 29.7% 2,504 The Elders (9C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Military Proximity (14A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 S. Semirural 564 3.0% 32 1,132 3.2% 35 Middleburg (4C) 564 3.0% 107 1,132 3.2% 113 Heartland Communities (6F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Valley Growers (7E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.00/0 0 Senior Escapes (9D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Down the Road (10D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Small Town Simplicity (12C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 6. Rural 3,035 16.3% 95 6,193 17.40/a 103 Green Acres (6A) 2,083 11.2% 351 4,398 12.4% 375 Salt of the Earth (6B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 The Great Outdoors (6C) 952 5.1% 330 1,795 5.1% 332 Prairie Living (6D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rural Resort Dwellers (6E) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Southern Satellites (10A) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Rooted Rural (10B) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Dirers & Miners JOC) 0 0.0% 0 0 00/0 0 Rural Bypasses (10E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Unclassified (15) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison. of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 1j' BUkNS SEAL ESTATE C£iN51LTl%G Market Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 4 mile radii Prepared by Esri 4 miles Population Summary 2000 Total Population 29,966 2010 Total Population 56,333 2016 Total Population 65,648 2016 Group Quarters 292 2020 Total Population 73,086 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2,17% Household Summary 2000 Households 12,663 2000 Average Household Size 2.34 2010 Households 24,975 2010 Average Household Size 2,24 2016 Households 28,965 2016 Average Household Size 2,26 2021 Households 32,285 2021 Average Household Size 2.25 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2,19% 2010 Families 17,198 2010 Average Family Size 2,67 2016 Families 19,848 2016 Average Family Size 2,69 2021 Families 22,034 2021 Average Family Size 2,69 2016-2021 Annual Rate 2.11% Housing Unit Summary 2000 Housing Units 16,818 Owner Occupied Housing Units 64.5% Renter Occupied Housing Units 10.8% Vacant Housing Units 24.7% 2010 Housing Units 34,555 Owner Occupied Housing Units 54.8% Renter Occupied Housing Units 17.5% Vacant Housing Units 27.7% 2016 Housing Units 39,312 Owner Occupied Housing Units 53.0% Renter Occupied Housing Units 20.7% Vacant Housing Units 26.3% 2021 Housing Units 43,484 Owner Occupied Housing Units 53.0% Renter Occupied Housing Units 21.21/o Vacant Housing Units 25.8% Median Household Income 2016 $73,278 2021 $83,537 Median Home Value 2016 $389,349 2021 $400,712 Per Capita Income 2016 $47,360 2021 $53,324 Median Ape 2010 50.1 2016 52.7 2021 55.2 Data Note; Household population includes persons not residing in group quarters. Average Household Size is the household populatior divided by total households. Persons in families include the householder and persons related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. Per Capita Income represents the income received by all persons aged 15 years and over divided by the total population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 ,JOHN 1j• BUF�NS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Market Profile Exhibit V 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 4 mile radii Prepared by Esri 4 miles 2016 Households by Income Household Income Base 28,965 <$15,000 7.0% $15,000 - $24,999 6.2% $25,000 - $34,999 9.4% $35,000 - $49,999 12.1% $50,000 - $74,999 16.10% $75,000 - $99,999 12.8% $100,000 - $149,999 18.7% $150,000 - $199,999 5.9% $200,000+ 11.8% Average Household Income $107,728 2021 Households by Income Household Income Base 32,285 <$15,000 6.4% $15,000 - $24,999 6.8% $25,000 - $34,999 5.3% $35,000 - $49,999 7.7% $50,000 - $74,999 18.0% $75,000 - $99,999 13.8% $100,000 - $149,999 21.0% $150,000 - $199,999 7.3% $200,000+ 13.5% Average Household Income $121,356 2016 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 20,837 <$50,000 1.9% $50,000 - $99,999 1.9% $100,000 - $149,999 4.0% $150,000 - $199,999 5.5% $200,000 - $249,999 10.5% $250,000- $299,999 7.6% $300,000 - $399,999 21.0% $400,000 - $499,999 13.9% $500,000 - $749,999 19.2% $750,000 - $999,999 6.6% $1,000,000 + 8.1% Average Home Value $475,491 2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 23,067 <$50,000 0.7% $50,000 - $99,999 0.8% $100,000 - $149,999 2.4% $150,000 - $199,999 4.4% $200,000 - $249,999 11.8% $250,000 - $299,999 10.0% $300,000 - $399,999 19.7% $400,000 - $499,999 14.0% $500,000 - $749,999 20.2% $750,000 - $999,999 7.7% $1,000,000 + 8.2% Average Home Value $494,008 Data Note: Income represents the preceding year, expressed in current dollars, Household income includes wage and salary earnings, interest dividends, net rents, pensions, SSI and welfare payments, child support, and alimony. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri torecasts for 2016 and 2021 Est converted Cercus 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,- JOHN 14, BUFNS REAL ESTATE CONSULTING Market 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 4 mile radii Prepared by Esri 4 miles 2010 Population by Age Total 56,333 0 - 4 4.1% 5 - 9 5.2% 10 - 14 5.5% 15- 24 9.2% 25-34 8.2% 35 -44 10.9% 45 - 54 13.6% 55- 64 15.4% 65 - 74 16.3% 75 - 84 9.1% 85+ 2.7% 18 + 81.6% 2016 Population by Age Total 65,649 0 - `; 3.8% 5- 9 4.6% 10- 14 5.0% IS- 24 9.2% 25- 34 8.3% 35-44 9.9% 45- 54 12.1% 55- 64 15.8% i1 65-74 18.0% 75- 84 10.0% 85 + 3.2% 18+ 83.5% 2021 Population by Age Total 73,085 0- 4 3.6% 5- 9 4.3% 10- 14 4.7% 15-24 8.2% 25- 34 8.4% 35-44 9.8% 45-54 10,7% 55-64 15.7% 65-74 19.7% 75-84 11.2% 85+ 3.6% 18 + 84.5% 2010 Population by Sex Males 26,794 Females 29,539 2016 Population by Sex Males 31,321 Females 34,327 2021 Population by Sex Males 34,956 Females 38,130 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esrl converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 JOHN I*- BURNS R,FAL ESTATE CONSULTING Exhibit V Market Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 4 mile radii 4 miles 2010 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 56,333 White Alone 92.6% Black Alone 2.5% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 1.6% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 1.9% Two or More Races 1.3% Hispanic Origin 12.2% Diversity Index 32.6 2016 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 65,649 White Alone 91.1% Black Alone 3.0% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 1.9% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 2.2% Two or More Races 1.6% Hispanic Origin 14.8% Diversity Index 37.8 2021 Population by Race/Ethnicity Total 73,087 White Alone 89.8% Black Alone 3.5% American Indian Alone 0.1% Asian Alone 2.3% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% Some Other Race Alone 2.5% Two or More Races 1.8% Hispanic Origin 16.8% Diversity Index 41.9 2010 Population by Relationship and Household Type Total 56,333 In Households 99.5% In Family Households 82.8% Householder 30.3% Spouse 25.6% Child 23.0% Other relative 2.6% Nonrelative 1.4% In Nonfamily Households 16.7% In Group Quarters 0.5% Institutionalized Population 0.1% Noninstitutionalized Population 0.4% Data Note: Persons of Hispanic Origin may be of any race. The Diversity Index measures the probability that two people from the same area will be from different race/ ethnic groups. 1'1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14• BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Market 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 4 mile radii Prepared by Esri 4 miles 2016 Population 25+ by Educational Attainment Total 50,825 Less than 9th Grade 2.3% 9th - 12th Grade, No Diploma 2.8% High School Graduate 20.8% GED/Alternative Credential 2.0% Some College, No Degree 19.1% Associate Degree 9.7% Bachelor's Degree 26.7% Graduate/Professional Degree 16.5% 2016 Population 15+ by Marital Status Total 56,850 Never Married 21.9% Married 58,8% Widowed 7.8% Divorced 11.5% 2016 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force Civilian Employed 95.0% Civilian Unemployed 5.0% 2016 Employed Population 16+ by Industry Total 26,277 Agriculture/Mining 0.6% Construction 7.8% Manufacturing 3.2% Wholesale Trade 2.5% Retail Trade 11.6% Transportation/Utilities 3.2% Information 1.4% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 9.0% Services 58,4% Public Administration 2.3% 2016 Employed Population 16+ by Occupation Total 26,275 White Collar 68,8% Management/Business/Financial 21.6% Professional 19.5% Sales 13.9% Administrative Support 13.9% Services 19,8% Blue Collar 11.3% Farming/Forestry/Fishing 0.3% Construction/Extraction 4.3% Installation/Maintenance/Repair 1.5% Production 1.9% Transportation/Material Moving 3.4% 2010 Population By Urban/ Rural Status Total Population 56,333 Population Inside Urbanized Area 94.0% Population Inside Urbanized Cluster 0.3% Rural Population 5.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 JOHN 1j' BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Market Profile Exhibit V 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 4 mile radii 4 miles 2010 Households by Type Total 24,975 Households with 1 Person 25.3% Households with 2+ People 74.70/. Family Households 68.9% Husband -wife Families 58.2% With Related Children 16.5% Other Family (No Spouse Present) 10.6% Other Family with Male Householder 2.8% With Related Children 1.6% Other Family with Female Householder 7.8% With Related Children 5.2% Nonfamily Households 5.8% All Households with Children 23.6% Multigenerational Households 2.1% Unmarried Partner Households 5.3% Male-female 4.6% Same-sex 0.7% 2010 Households by Size Total 24,975 1 Person Household 25.3% 2 Person Household 46.9% 3 Person Household 12.2% 4 Person Household 9.6% 5 Person Household 4.0% 6 Person Household 1.3% 7 + Person Household 0.5% 2010 Households by Tenure and Mortgage Status Total 24,975 Owner Occupied 75.8% Owned with a Mortgage/Loan 48.8% Owned Free and Clear 27.0% Renter Occupied 24.2% 2010 Housing Units By Urban/ Rural Status Total Housing Units 34,555 Housing Units Inside Urbanized Area 93.0% Housing Units Inside Urbanized Cluster 0.3% Rural Housing Units 6.7% Data Note: Households with children include any households with people under age 18, related or not. Multigenerational households are families with 3 or more parent- child relationships. Unmarried partner households are usually classified as nonfamily households unless there is another member of the household related to the householder, Multigenerational and unmarried partner households are reported only to the tract level. Esri estimated block group data; which is used to estimate polygons or non-standard geography. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 cata into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 1j" BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Market Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Rings: 4 mile radii Prepared by Esri 4 miles Top 3 Tapestry Segments 1• Silver & Gold (9A) 2• Golden Years (9B) 3. Green Acres (6A) 2016 Consumer Spending Apparel & Services: Total $ $78,270,835 Average Spent $2,702.26 Spending Potential Index 134 Education: Total $ $54,707,490 Average Spent $1,888.74 Spending Potential Index 134 Entertainment/Recreation: Total $ $118,004,625 Average Spent $4,074.04 Spending Potential Index 140 Food at Home: Total $ $194,978,997 Average Spent $6,731.54 Spending Potential Index 135 Food Away from Home: Total $ $121,727,707 Average Spent $4,202.58 Spending Potential Index 136 Health Care: Total $ $225,383,432 Average Spent $7,781.23 Spending Potential Index 147 HH Furnishings & Equipment: Total $ $71,768,888 Average Spent $2,477,78 Spending Potential Index 140 Personal Care Products & Services: Total $ $30,565,420 Average Spent $1,055.25 Spending Potential Index 144 Shelter: Total $ $622,628,766 Average Spent $21,495.90 Spending Potential Index 138 Support Payments/Cash Contributions/Gifts in Kind: Total $ $102,224,423 Average Spent $3,529.24 Spending Potential Index 152 Travel: Total $ $79,087,561 Average Spent $2,730.45 Spending Potential Index 147 Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs: Total $ $41,908,165 Average Spent $1,446.86 Spending Potential Index 140 Data Note: Consumer spending shows the amount spent on a variety of goods and services by households that reside In the area. Expenditures are shown by broad budget categories that are not mutually exclusive. Consumer spending does not equal business revenue. Total and Average Amount Spent Per Household represent annual figures. The Spending Potential Index represents the amount spent in the area relative to a national average of 100. Source: Consumer Spending data are Cerived from the 2013 and 2014 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Esn. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri forecasts for 2016 and 2021 Esri converted Census 2000 data Into 2010 geography. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 14, BU REAL ESTATE CONSUL' - Household Income- Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Prepared by Esri 2016-2021 2016-2021 Summary 2016 2021 Change Annual Rate Population 65,648 73,086 7,438 2.17% Households 28,965 32,285 3,320 2.19% Median Age 52.7 55.2 2.5 0.93% Average Household Size 2.26 2.25 -0.01 -0.09% 2016 2021 Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Household 28,965 1000/0 32,285 100% <$15,000 2,036 7.0% 2,073 6.4% $15,000-$24,999 1,800 6.2% 2,206 6.8% $25,000-$34,999 2,728 9.4% 1,727 5.3% $35,000-$49,999 3,500 12.1% 2,494 7.7% $50,000-$74,999 4,651 16.1% 5,818 18.0% $75,000-$99,999 3,699 12.8% 4,466 13.8% $100,000-$149,999 5,426 18.7% 6,765 21.0% $150,000-$199,999 1,695 5.9% 2,372 7.3% $200,000+ 3,430 11.8% 4,364 13.5% Median Household Income $73,278 $83,537 Average Household Income $107,728 $121,356 Per Capita Income $47,360 $53,324 Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. ^� Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V -- JOHN 1j. BU (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULT Household Income Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Prepared by Esri 2016 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 580 2,472 3,374 4,369 5,654 6,766 5,750 <$15,000 64 210 203 212 403 331 612 $15,000-$24,999 37 137 156 184 242 487 557 $25,000-$34,999 88 271 306 317 366 S03 877 $35,000-$49,999 94 37D 418 416 467 733 1,002 $50,000-$74,999 116 457 534 666 791 1,140 947 $75,000-$99,999 54 365 533 651 836 851 408 $100,D00-$149,999 93 433 635 962 1,174 1,317 812 $150,000-$199,999 17 107 228 360 412 387 184 $200,000+ 18 120 361 601 963 1,016 350 Median HH Income $51,059 $61,101 $77,466 $88,179 $90,034 $79,424 $46,602 Average HH Income $70,349 $82,353 $106,248 $121,065 $129,497 $120,228 $77,028 Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% ICO% 100% 100% <$15,000 11.0% 8.5% 6.0% 4.9% 7.1% 4.9% 10.6% $15,000-$24,999 6.4% 5.S% 4.6% 4.2% 4.3% 7.2% 9.7% $25,000-$34,999 15.2% 11.0% 9.1% 7.3% 6.5% 7.4% 15.3% $35,000-$49,999 16.2% 15.0% 12.4% 9.5% 8.3% 10.8% 17.4% $50,000-$74,999 20.0% 18.5% 15.8% 15.2% 14.0% 16.8% 16.5% $75,000-$99,999 9.3% 14.8% 15.8% 14.9% 14.8% 12.6% 7.1% $100,000-$149,999 16.0% 17.5% 18.8% 22.0% 20.8% 19.5% 14.1% $150,000-$199,999 2.9% 4.3% 6.8% 8.2% 7.3% 5.7% 3.2% $200,000+ 3.1% 4.9% 10.7% 13.8% 17.0% 15.0% 6.1% ^ Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. Source: J.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 141 BUILI P\71 f\EAL ESTATE CONSULT Household Income Profile : iz, 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius ^ Prepared by Esri 2021 Households by Income and Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 573 2,706 3,667 4,204 6,100 8,053 6,982 <$15,000 71 227 198 179 362 346 691 $15,000-$24,999 50 181 181 183 266 597 748 $25,000-$34,999 55 174 174 162 203 325 634 $35,000-$49,999 60 254 266 238 305 540 830 $50,000-$74,999 127 574 661 676 905 1,495 1,379 $75,000-$99,999 63 458 650 684 946 1,061 604 $100,000-$149,999 106 532 771 1,003 1,395 1,717 1,240 $150,000-$199,999 20 153 318 428 551 584 318 $200,000+ 21 152 448 650 1,168 1,388 538 Median HH Income $57,466 $71,484 $86,599 $99,013 $101,416 $90,518 $58,265 Average HH Income $77,220 $92,257 $120,205 $135,140 $145,180 $135,517 $91,414 Percent Distribution <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ HH Income Base 100% 100% 100% 100% 100'/% 100% 100% <$15,000 12.4% 8.4% 5.4% 4.3% 5.9% 4.3% 9.90/0 $15,000-$24,999 8.7% 6.7% 4.9% 4.4% 4.4% 7.4% 10.7% $25,000-$34,999 9.6% 6.4% 4.7% 3.9% 3.3% 4,0% 9.10/0 $35,000-$49,999 10.5% 9.4% 7.3% S.7% 5.0% 6.7% 11.90/0 $50,000-$74,999 22.2% 21.2% 18.0% 16.1% 14.8% 18.6% 19.8% $75,000-$99,999 11.0% 16.9% 17.7% 16.3% 15.5% 13.2% 8.7% $100,000-$149,999 18.5% 19.7% 21.0% 23.9% 22.9% 21.3% 17.8% $150,000-$199,999 3.S% 5.7% 8.7% 10.2% 9.0% 7.3% 4.6% $200,000+ 3.7% 5.6% 12.2% 15.5% 19.1% 17.2% 7.7% Data Note: Income reported for July 1, 2021 represents annual income for the preceding year, expressed in current (2019) dollars, including an adjustment for inflation. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1, Esri Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 ,JOHN rj" BUS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULT Exhibit V 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Prepared by Esri Data Note: Net Worth is total household wealth minus debt, secured and unsecured. Net worth includes home equity, equity in pension plans, net equity in vehicles, IRAs and Keogh accounts, business equity, interest-earning assets and mutual fund shares, stocks, etc. Examples of secured debt include home mortgages and vehicle loans; examples of unsecured debt include credit card debt, certain bank; loans, and other outstanding bills. Forecasts of net worth are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Board. Source: U,S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 2016-2021 2016-2021 Summary Census 2010 2016 2021 Change Annual Rate Population 56,333 65,648 73,086 7,438 2.17% Median Age 50.1 52.7 55.2 2.5 0.9311/6 Households 24,975 28,965 32,285 3,320 2,19% Average Household Size 2.24 2.26 2.25 -0.01 -0.09% 2016 Households by Net Worth Number Percent Total 28,965 100.0% <$15,000 4,719 16.30/a $15,000-$34,999 1,487 5.1% $35,000-$49,999 819 2.8% $50,000-$74,999 1,444 5.0% $75,000-$99,999 1,110 3.8% $100,000-$149,999 11915 6.6% $150,000-$249,999 2,870 9.9% $250,000-$500,000 4,545 15.7% $500,000+ 10,055 34.7% Median Net Worth $253,799 Average Net Worth $1,486,526 Number of Households 2016 Net Worth by Age of Householder <25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Total 580 2,472 3,374 4,369 5,654 6,766 5,750 <$15,000 284 1,190 995 768 755 305 422 $15,000-$34,999 134 357 332 278 192 70 124 $35,000-$49,999 25 177 189 141 135 86 66 $50,000-$99,999 54 289 615 488 342 317 450 $100,000-$149,999 27 134 266 352 381 450 305 $150,000-$249,999 31 129 314 482 571 636 707 $250,000+ 27 196 662 1,860 3,279 4,901 3,675 Median Net Worth $15,514 $16,493 $59,026 $175,032 $250,001 $250,001 $250,001 Average Net Worth $72,591 $130,991 $503,267 $895,452 $1,794,482 $2,723,531 $1,479,588 Data Note: Net Worth is total household wealth minus debt, secured and unsecured. Net worth includes home equity, equity in pension plans, net equity in vehicles, IRAs and Keogh accounts, business equity, interest-earning assets and mutual fund shares, stocks, etc. Examples of secured debt include home mortgages and vehicle loans; examples of unsecured debt include credit card debt, certain bank; loans, and other outstanding bills. Forecasts of net worth are based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Board. Source: U,S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. Esri Forecasts for 2016 and 2021. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN lja BUT - . MarketPlace Profile REAL ESTATE CONSULT 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Prepared by Esri Summary Demographics 2016 Population 65,648 2016 Households 28,965 2016 Median Disposable Income $58,680 2016 Per Capita Income $47,360 NAILS Demand Supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of Industry Summary (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink 44-45,722 $1,508,132,217 $1,031,247,437 $476,E84,73' 18.8 271 Total Retail Trade 44-45 $1,362,168,211 $979,379,322 5382,788,889 36.3 179 Total Food & Drink 722 $145,964,005 $51,868,115 594,095,896 47.6 92 NAICS Demand supply Retail Gap Leakage/Surplus Number of Industry Group (Retail Potential) (Retail Sales) Factor Businesses Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 441 $325,260,501 $15,220,422 $-1 91,1 D1, 8 Automobile Dealers 4411 $255,682,299 $8,160,304 $247,.;21,995 93.8 2 Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 4412 $47,976,740 $5,685,829 $42,290,911 78.8 4 Auto Parts, Accessories & Tire Stores 4413 $21,601,462 $1,374,288 520,227,174 88.0 2 Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores 442 $42,712,345 $8,256,226 $34,456,119 67,6 13 Furniture Stores 4421 $25,011,098 $5,277,083 519,734,015 65.2 3 Home Furnishings Stores 4422 $17,701,246 $2,979,143 514,722,103 71.2 10 Electronics & Appliance Stares 443 $57,638,905 $13,467,983 $,44,17^,922 62.1 13 Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores 444 $71,821,057 $35,214,875 536,606,182 34.2 23 Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers 4441 $63,622,010 $26,739,461 $36,882,549 40,8 15 Lawn & Garden Equip & Supply Stores 4442 $8,199,046 $8,475,415 -5276,369 1 i.7 8 Food & Beverage Stores 445 $247,366,088 $187,293,241 $60,072,84,7 13.8 22 Grocery Stores 4451 $218,382,894 $178,607,098 539,775,796 10.0 11 Specialty Food Stores 4452 $17,814,022 $5,170,035 $12,643,967 55.0 7 Beer, Wine & Liquor Stores 4453 $11,169,172 $3,516,108 _<,7,653,J64 521 3 Health & Personal Care Stores 446,4461 $86,164,693 $35,284,728 $50,879,965 41.9 21 1'0'� Gasoline Stations 447,4471 $91,437,181 $5,992,267 $85,444,914 87.7 2 Clothing & Clothing Accessories Stores 448 $72,079,224 $7,621,988 $64,457,235 80.9 19 Clothing Stores 4481 $51,333,669 $5,174,921 $46,158,748 81.7 16 Shoe Stores 4482 $8,587,588 $885,833 $7,701,755 81.3 2 Jewelry, Luggage & Leather Goods Stores 4483 $12,157,968 $1,561,234 s-iO,596e731 77.2 2 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book & Music Stores 451 $32,983,621 $22,619,068 5.10,364,553 18 6 15 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Musical Instr Stores 4511 $24,053,386 $21,543,333 $2,510,053 515 12 Book, Periodical & Music Stores 4512 $8,930,235 $1,075,735 57,854.500 78.5 3 General Merchandise Stores 452 $238,232,272 $206,571,921 $31,660,351 7.1 10 Department Stores Excluding Leased Depts. 4521 $173,602,054 $123,600,677 $50,001,377 16.8 4 Other General Merchandise Stores 4529 $64,630,219 $82,971,244 018,341,025 -12.4 6 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 453 $62,578,750 $435,302,284 -$372,723,534 -74.9 24 Florists 4531 $2,762,859 $1,559,057 $1,203,802 27,9 4 Office Supplies, Stationery & Gift Stores 4532 $12,018,981 $5,126,884 56,892,097 40.2 8 Used Merchandise Stores 4533 $5,742,728 $850,342 54,892,386 74,2 6 Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 4539 $42,054,182 $427,766,000 -$385,711,818 -82.1 6 Nonstore Retailers 454 $33,893,575 $6,534,318 527,359,257 67.7 8 Electronic Shopping & Mail -Order Houses 4541 $26,934,206 $5,290,966 $21,643,240 67.2 5 Vending Machine Operators 4542 $783,392 $0 $783,392 100.0 0 Direct Selling Establishments 4543 $6,175,977 $1,241,618 $4,934,359 665 2 Food Services & Drinking Places 722 $145,964,005 $51,868,115 594,095,890 47,6 92 Full -Service Restaurants 7221 $82,274,730 $32,951,038 549,323,692 42.8 61 Limited -Service Eating Places 7222 $53,955,128 $18,271,663 535,683,465 49.4 28 Special Food Services 7223 $2,269,314 $110,724 52,158,590 90.7 1 Drinking Places - Alcoholic Beverages 7224 $7,464,834 $534,691 $6,930,143 56.6 3 Data Note: Supply (retail sales) estimates sales to consumers by establishments. Sales to businesses are excluded. Demand (retail potential) estimates the expected amount spent by consumers at retail establishments. Supply and demand estimates are In current dollars. The Leakage/Surplus Factor presents a snapshot of retail opportunity. This is a measure of the relationship between supply and demand that ranges from +100 (total leakage) to -100 (total surplus). A positive value represents 'leakage' of retail opportunity outside the trade area. A negative value represents a surplus of retail sales, a market where customers are drawn in from outside the trade area. The Retail Gap represents the difference between Retail Potential and Retail Sales. Fsri uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to classify businesses by their primary type of economic activity. Retail establishments are classified into 27 industry groups in the Retail Trade sector, as well as four industry groups within the Food Services & Drinking Establishments subsector. For more information on the Retail MarketPlace data, please click the link below to view the Methodology Statement. http: //www.esri. corn/I ibra ry/whitepa pers/pdfs/esri-data-retal I -marketplace. pdf 110� Source: Esh and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release 1 (2015 data in 2016 geography) Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. June 23, 2016 JOHN 14, BURt REAL ESTATE CONSULT Exhibit V 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Subsector Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers Fumiture & Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Bldg Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply Stores Food & Beverage Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores General Merchandise Stores Miscellaneous Store Retailers Nonstore Retailers Food Services & Drinking Places Prepared by Esri -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Leakage/Surplus Factor Leakage/Surplus Factor by Industry Group Automobile Dealers Other Motor Vehicle Dealers Auto Parts, Accessories, and Tire Stores Furniture Stores Home Furnishings Stores Electronics & Appliance Stores Building Material and Supplies Dealers Lawn and Garden Equipment and Supplies Stores Grocery Stores Specialty Food Stores Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Health & Personal Care Stores Gasoline Stations Clothing Stores Shoe Stores Jewelry, Luggage, and Leather Goods Stores Book, Periodical, and Music Stores Department Stores (Excluding Leased Depts.) Other General Merchandise Stores Florists Office Supplies, Stationery, and Gift Stores Used Merchandise Stores Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers Electronic Shopping and Mail -Order Houses Vending Machine Operators Direct Selling Establishments Full -Service Restaurants Limited -Service Eating Places Special Food Services Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Leakage/Surplus Factor Source: Esri and Infogroup. Retail MarketPlace 2016 Release 1 (2015 data in 2016 geography) Copyright 2016 Infogroup, Inc. All rights reserved. June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 14, BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Tapestry _g•o Area Po_ 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Top Twenty Tapestry Segments Rank Tapestry Segment 1 Silver & Gold (9A) 2 Golden Years (913 3 Green Acres (6A) 4 Old and Newcorne-s (8F) 5 Middleburg (4C) Subtotal 6 Exurbanites (1E) 7 The Great Outdoors (6C) 8 In Style (56) 9 Bright Young Professionals (8C) 10 Retirement Communities (9E) 86.2% Subtotal 11 Rural Resort Dwellers (6E) 12 Home Improvement (46) Subtotal Total Top Ten Tapestry Segments Site vs. U.S. Retirement Communities (9E) Bright Young Professionals (8C) In Style (56) The Great Outdoors (6C) Exurbanites (1E) Middleburg (4C) Old and Newcomers (8F) Green Acres (6A) Golden Years (9B) Silver & Gold (9A) 0 5 2016 Households Cumulative Percent Percent 36.8% 36.8% 28.0% 64.8% 10.7% 75.5% 6.1% 81.6% 4.6% 86.2% 86.2% 2.3% 4.1% 90.3% 3.9% 94.2% 3.S% 97.7% 1.2% 98.9% 0.6% 99.5% 13.3% 2.2% 0.5% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.5% 100.0°/a 2016 U.S. Households Cumulative Percent Percent 0.8% 0.81/a 1.3% 2.1% 3.2% 5.3% 2.3% 7.6% 2.8% 10.4% 10.4% 1.9% 12.3% 1.6% 13.9% 2.3% 16.2% 2.2% 18.4% 1.2% 19.6% 9.2% 1.0% 20.6% 1.7% 22.3% 2.7% 22.4% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Percent of Households by Tapestry Segment Index 4851 2,090 334 261 163 ■ Site ■ U.S. 210 252 156 53 46 49 3 447 Data Note: This report Identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 Exhibit V ,JOHN 14, BURNS (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Tapestry SegmentationArea Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius 2016 Tapestry Indexes by Households Index 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 C a E C V 2 t a C F oat"ate: I his report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esn 2016 Tapestry Indexes by Total Population 18+ Index 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 1j• BUF�NS _ mentation _ Profile (ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Tapestry ' 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Tapestry LifeMode Groups Total: 1. Affluent Estates Top Tier (1A) Professional Pride (113) Boomburbs (1C) Savvy Suburbanites (1D) Exurbanites (1E) 2. Upscale Avenues Urban Chic (2A) Pleasantville (26) Pacific Heights (2C) Enterprising Professionals (2D) 3. Uptown Individuals Laptops and Lattes (3A) Metro Renters (313) Trendsetters (3C) 4. Family Landscapes Soccer Morns (4A) Home Improvement (4B) Middleburg (4C) 5. GenXurban Comfortable Empty Nesters (SA) In Style (56) Parks and Rec (5C) Rustbelt Traditions (5D) Midlife Constants (5E) 6. Cozy Country Living Green Acres (6A) Salt of the Earth (6B) The Great Outdoors (6C) Prairie Living (61)) Rural Resort Dwellers (6E) Heartland Communities (61F) 7. Ethnic Enclaves Up and Coming Families (7A) Urban Villages (713) American Dreamers (7C) Barrios Urbanos (71)) Valley Growers (7E) Southwestern Families (7F) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,350 0 13 1,337 1,019 0 1,019 0 0 0 4,374 3,095 0 1,134 0 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00/6 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 3.5% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 10.7% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2016 Households Number Percent 28,965 100.0% 1,184 4.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,184 4.1% O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,350 0 13 1,337 1,019 0 1,019 0 0 0 4,374 3,095 0 1,134 0 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00/6 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 3.5% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 10.7% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 2016 Adult Population Index Number Percent Index 54,821 100.0% 41 2,423 4.4% 43 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 210 2,423 4.4% 227 0 0 0.00/0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 63 2,625 4.80/6 62 0 0 0.0% 0 3 31 0.1% 3 163 2,594 4.7% 168 30 1,966 3.60/a 33 0 0 0.0% 0 156 1,966 3.6% 170 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 123 8,901 16.20/6 136 334 6,584 12.0%u 364 0 0 0.0% 0 252 2,085 3.8% 250 0 0 0.0% 0 49 232 0.4% 45 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.00/0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 OA% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 Exhibit V -� JOHN 14• BURNS _ _ REAL ESTATE CONSULTING • • Area Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Tapestry LifeMode Groups 2016 Households 2016 Adult Population Number Percent Index Number Percent Index Total: 28,965 100.0% 54,821 100.0% 8. Middle Ground 2,099 7.2% 66 3,689 6.7% 66 City Lights (8A) 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.0% 0 Emerald City (88) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Bright Young Professionals (8C) 341 1.2% 53 653 1.2% 59 Downtown Melting Pot (8D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Front Porches (8E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Old and Newcomers (8F) 1,758 6.1% 261 3,036 5.5% 275 Hardscrabble Road (8G) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 9. Senior Styles 18,939 65.4% 1125 35,217 64.2% 1285 Silver & Gold (9A) 10,663 36.8% 4,851 19,463 35.5% 5,154 Golden Years (98) 8,114 28.0% 2,090 15,467 28.2% 2,375 The Elders (9C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Senior Escapes (9D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Retirement Communities (9E) 162 0.6% 46 287 0.5% 51 Social Security Set (9F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 10. Rustic Outposts 0 0.0% O 0 0.0% a Southern Satellites (10A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rooted Rural (10B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Diners & Miners (IOC) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Down the Road (10D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rural Bypasses (10E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 11. Midtown Singles 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Strivers (11A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Young and Restless (11B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Metro Fusion (11C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Set to Impress (I1D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Commons (11E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 12. Hometown 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Family Foundations (12A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Traditional Living (12B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Small Town Simplicity (12C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Modest Income Homes (12D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 13. Next Wave 0 0.06/0 0 O 0.0% 0 International Marketplace (13A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Las Casas (13B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Newest Residents (13C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Fresh Ambitions (13D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 High Rise Renters (13E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 14. Scholars and Patriots 0 0.0% 0 O 0.0% 0 Military Proximity (14A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 College Towns (14B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Dorms to Diplomas (14C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Unclassified (15) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN It, BURNS {ZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING _ • 8 Segmentation Area Profile 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Tapestry Urbanization Groups 2016 Households 2016 Adult Population Number Percent Index Number Percent Index Total: 28,965 100.00/0 54,821 100.0% 1. Principal Urban Center 0 0.00/0 0 0 0.00/0 0 Laptops and Lattes (3A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Metro Renters (313) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Trendsetters (3C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Downtown Melting Pot (8D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Strivers (11A) 0 0.00/0 0 0 1 0 NeWest Residents (13C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Fresh Ambitions 1 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 High Rise Renters (13F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 2. Urban Periphery 341 1.2% 7 653 1.20/6 7 Pacific Heights (2C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rustbelt Traditions (5D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Urban villages (713) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 American Dreamers (7C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Barrios Urbanos (7D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Southwestern Families (7F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Lights (8A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Bright Young Professionals (8C) 341 1.2% 53 653 1.2% 59 Metro Fusion (11C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Family Foundations (12A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 �1 Modest Ircome Homes (12D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 International Marketplace (13A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Las Casas (13B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 3. Metro Cities 2,939 10.10/0 55 5,289 9.601c 57 In Style (513) 1,019 3.5% 156 1,966 3.6% 170 Emerald City (8B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Front Porches (8E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Old and Newcomers (8F) 1,758 6.1% 261 3,036 5.5% 275 Hardscrabble Road (8G) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Retirement Communities (9E) 162 0.6% 46 287 0.5% 51 Social Security Set (9F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Yourg and Restless (11B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Set to Impress (11D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 City Commons (11E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Traditional Living (12B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 College Towns (14B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Dorms to Diplomas (14C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments in the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by �\ segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esri June 23, 2016 Exhibit V JOHN 14, BURNS FZEAL ESTATE CONSULTING Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments it the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esh June 23, 2016 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34.119 9 Prepared by Esri 7165 Immokalee Rd, Naples, Florida, 34119 Ring: 4 mile radius Tapestry Urbanization Groups 2016 Households 2016 Adult Population Number Percent Index Number Percent Index Total: 28,965 100.0% 54,821 100.0% 4. Suburban Periphery 19,974 69.0% 217 37,384 68.2% 212 Top Tier (1A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Professional Pride (16) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Boomburbs (1C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Savvy Suburbanites (SD) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Exurbanites (1E) 1,184 4.1% 210 2,423 4.4% 227 Urban Chic (2A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Pleasantville (2B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Enterprising Professionals (2D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Soccer Moms (4A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Home Improvement (4B) 13 0.0% 3 31 0.1% 3 Comfortable Empty Nesters (5A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Parks and Rec (5C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Midlife Constants (SE) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Up and Comirg Families (7A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Silver & Gold (9A) 10,663 36.8% 4,851 19,463 35.5% 5,154 Golden Years (98) 8,114 28.0% 2,090 15,467 28.2% 2,375 The Elders (9C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Military Proximity (14A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 S. Semirural 1,337 4.6% 49 2,594 4.7% 52 Middleburg (4C) 1,337 4.6% 163 2,594 4.7% 168 Heartland Communities (6F) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Valley Growers (7E1, 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Senior Escapes (9D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Down the Road (10D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Small Town Simplicity (12C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 6. Rural 4,374 15.10/0 88 8,901 16.20/a 96 Green Acres (6A) 3,095 10.7% 334 6,584 12.0% 364 Salt of the Earth (6B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 The Great Outdoors (6C) 1,134 3.9% 252 2,085 3.8% 250 Prairie Living (6D) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rural Resort Dwellers (6E) 145 0.50/0 49 232 0.4% 45 Southern Satellites (10A) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Rooted Rural (10B) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Diners & Miners (10C) 0 0.0% 0 0 0% 0 Rural Bypasses (10E) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.00/0 0 Unclassified (15) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 Data Note: This report identifies neighborhood segments it the area, and describes the socioeconomic quality of the immediate neighborhood. The index is a comparison of the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the area, by Tapestry segment, to the percent of households or Total Population 18+ in the United States, by segment. An index of 100 is the US average. Source: Esh June 23, 2016 Exhibit V Exhibit V Copyright C 2016 Esri All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. The information contained in this document is the exclusive property of F,sri. This work is protected under United States copyright law and other international copyright treaties and conventions. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means. electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording. or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as expressly permitted in writing by Esri. All requests should be sent to Attention: Contracts and Legal Services Manager, Esri, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100 USA. The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. Esri, the Esri globe logo, esri.com, and (U)esri.com are trademarks, service marks, or registered marks of Esri in the United States, the European Community, or certain other jurisdictions. Other companies and products or services mentioned herein may be trademarks, service marks, or registered marks of their respective mark owners. Exhibit V Methodology Statement: 2016/2021 Esri US Demographic Updates An Esri White Paper Contents Page SummaryTotals.................................................................................... I Estimating Demographic Characteristics .............................................. 4 Population and Household Characteristics ........................................... 4 Housing................................................................................................. 6 LaborForce........................................................................................... 7 Income................................................................................................... 8 2016 Geography.................................................................................... 9 Useof Projections................................................................................. 10 Exhibit V Exhibit V Methodology Statement: 2016/2021 Esri US Demographic Updates F,sri presents the 2016/2021 demographic forecasts, including population; age by sex; race by Hispanic origin; age by sex, race, and Hispanic origin; households and families; housing by occupancy; tenure and home value; labor force and employment by industry and occupation; marital status; education; and income—including household income distributions, household income by age of householder, and per capita income. Updates of household income are also extended to provide after-tax (disposable) income and a measure of household wealth and net worth. The demographic updates are point estimates, representing July 1 of the current and forecast years. Forecasts are prepared initially for counties and block groups (BGs). From the county database, forecasts are aggregated to Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), states, or higher levels. From the block group database, forecasts can be retrieved for census tracts; places; county subdivisions; ZIP codes; congressional districts (the 114th Congress); designated market areas (DMA); or any user -defined site.. circle, or polygon. Summary Totals The change in total population is a function of changes in household population and the population in group quarters, which are subject to different trends. The addition of a prison, for example, produces a sudden increase in the group quarters' population that is unlikely to yield an attendant change in the household population or the projected population growth of a county. The group quarters' population is the Census 2010 count of group quarters, with updates culled from a variety of federal, state, and local sources. Forecasting change in the size and distribution of the household population begins at the county level with several sources of data. Esri begins with earlier county estimates from the US Census Bureau.' Because testing has revealed improvement in accuracy by using a variety of different sources to track county population trends, Esri also employs a time series of county -to -county migration data from the Internal Revenue Service, building permits and housing starts, plus residential postal delivery counts. Finally, local data sources that tested well against Census 2010 are reviewed. The end result balances the measures of growth from a variety of data series. Measuring the change in population or households at the county level is facilitated by the array of data reported for counties. Unfortunately, there is no current data reported specifically for block groups. Past trends can be calculated from previous census counts; the American Community Survey (ACS) provides five-year averages. But these sources The latest estimates available at the time were 2014 population estimates from the Census Bureau, CO-EST2014-AI Idata.txt Exhibit V are not recent. To measure current population change by block group, Esri models the change in households from three primary sources: Experian; the US Postal Service (USPS); and Metrostudy, a Hanley Wood company, in addition to several ancillary sources. The US Postal Service publishes monthly counts of residential deliveries for every US postal carrier route. This represents the most comprehensive and current information available for small, subcounty geographic areas. The USPS establishes carrier routes to enable efficient mail delivery. Carrier routes are a fluid geographic construct that is redefined continuously to incorporate real changes in the housing inventory and occupancy plus administrative changes in staffing and budgets of local post offices. These frequent changes in the carrier routes are not the only difficulty. Converting delivery statistics from postal carrier routes to census block groups is a complex challenge. Carrier routes are defined to deliver the mail, while block groups are constructed to collect and report census data. Comparing two different areas that are defined for wholly different purposes provides one significant conversion issue. Carrier routes commonly overlap multiple block groups. In many cases, a carrier route encompasses disjointed areas that can be distant from each other, but block groups are rarely divided into multiple polygons. These overlaps require an effective method of allocating the postal delivery counts across multiple block groups. Esri has developed a technique to link a carrier route to the correct block group(s)—using the actual locations of mail deliveries. Its proprietary Address Based Allocation (ABA) was developed in 2005 to solve the complex challenge of converting delivery counts from carrier routes to block groups. This allocation method assigns carrier routes using household addresses that are geocoded at the block level to serve as the Ibundation for the conversion. The approach is unbounded by geographic borders or arbitrary assumptions about the distribution of households or postal deliveries. ABA results have been tested extensively against Census 2010 counts, including an independent evaluation that included data from four other vendors. This test confirmed the accuracy of Esri's ABA allocation method .2 To track new housing developments, especially in previously unpopulated areas. Esri licensed a new data source in 2006 from Metrostudy—new and planned residential construction in the top US housing markets. This database identifies individual construction projects by location. The construction information includes ■ Total number of units planned. ■ Inventory of units under construction, sold, and/or closed. ■ Type of housing --detached homes, town homes, condominiums, etc. ■ Target markets --families, seniors, empty nesters, etc. The 2016/2021 updates also include an additional database from Metrostudy that more than doubles Esri's geographic coverage and the number of units planned and completed. 2 For test results, see esn contttlatulesri clataldemogra hie.-nverviewl- mediar't�ile PdrsJjib�n /brochures/pdfs/vendor-accuracy-study pdf. Exhibit V n The addition of this database gives the housing unit update a finer level of granularity and insight into smaller housing markets across the nation. Tracking residential development since 2010 with Esri's enhanced demographic and spatial analysis tools also provides better information for the five-year forecasts than past trends. A revised housing unit methodology applies the change in households estimated from address counts, delivery counts. and new housing construction to update household population by block group. The best techniques are derived from a combination of models and data sources. Discrepant trends are checked extensively against independent sources and Esri's imagery data. Finally, totals for block groups are controlled to the county totals. Despite the appeal of microtorecasting, there is simply more inibrmation available to track population change by county than by household. Ignoring the advantage of county -level data is throwing away information. The integration of demographic and spatial analysis has not only enabled the development of more accurate block group totals, it has also provided the opportunity to update block totals. Blocks are the lowest common denominator in the geographic hierarchy that progresses to block groups, tracts, counties, and states. Blocks are most useful in the estimation of data for polygons, which can be any area outside the geographic hierarchy, from places to ZIP codes to user -defined polygons (including circles and drive -time polygons). For most areas, the application provides a good estimate for the polygon. If the relationship between the blocks and the block group has changed significantly since 2010, then the estimate cannot incorporate that change unless both e1_111 blocks and block groups are updated. Exhibit V Estimating Measuring demographic characteristics is more challenging since 2010. Census 2010 was Demographic a game changer in the development of small area data because it collected no sample Characteristics data—variables like income. education, employment, home value. and marital status. The American Community Survey is the replacement for sample data. The differences between it and the census sample data are significant. Census sample surveys were collected during the decennial censuses. The sample sizes were large enough to provide a solid base and to represent a single point in time, April 1. ACS sample sizes are much smaller than a census survey taken once every 10 years. To represent the smallest sample areas—block groups --data must be collected over 60 months. Even one-year ACS data is actually a 12 -month average rather than a single point in time, April 1. The American Community Survey represents period estimates with a series of monthly surveys whose collective sample size is still less than the sample from the last census sample survey, in 2000. How do these differences affect Esri's annual demographic updates? Change must be estimated differently now. Successive 12 -month averages, or the one-year ACS data, can measure annual change, although it is geographically limited to areas with at least 65,000 people. The 60 -month averages, ACS's five-year data, do not provide a similar measure of change. Five years tend to smooth out the trend lines. /01*N However, F.sri has been using a variety of data sources for years to update small areas like block groups, beginning with the latest base, then adding a mixture of administrative records and private sources to capture change to the base. The good news is the proliferation of data sources, ranging from administrative records like delivery counts from the US Postal Service—to private data sources. The private sector has been pioneering the indirect collection of data from a host of sources, including Internet use and social media. The bad news is the fluidity of ACS as a base. Shifting the base every year to the latest release of ACS data incorporates real change with sampling error. To establish a more stable base, Esri has built estimate bases for key variables like income, labor force, and home value. The estimate bases combine the best data from ACS with other sources and enable better measures of change than are possible with ACS alone. Periodic changes to the estimate bases are necessary to collect current change. Base changes impact comparability of the annual data but provide more reliable estimates. Demographic updates must incorporate both traditional and new data sources to remain current. While ACS retains the appearance of past sample data, it represents the changing future of data collection. Population and Esri's population and household characteristics include the population by age and sex, Household race and Hispanic origin, race and Hispanic origin by age and sex, and household type. Characteristics Population by age includes estimates by five-year age groups and by single years from less than 1 year to 84 years. The population by age and sex is projected via a cohort survival model that separately calculates the components of population change by age and sex. Applying survival rates specific to the cohort carries the 2010 population forward. Changes in the population by age and sex diverge at the household level. For example, an area that is losing population can age more rapidly with the loss of population in prime migrant ages, 20-34 years— Exhibit V unless there is a college nearby. Neighborhoods near colleges sustain high turnover from student populations but retain their youthful age distributions. To capture these variations, F,sri's model first separates the group quarters' population from the household population and. second, keys the calculations to the size and characteristics of the population. This stratification identifies several different patterns of change by age and sex that can be applied in a cohort survival model. The changing profile of the US population requires measuring population change by race and Hispanic origin. The American identity is shaped by diversity. Tracking the changing patterns of race and ethnicity provide a current portrait of our society. Historical trends in race and ethnicity combined with the most current data sources by race and Hispanic origin, including population estimates by county and state from the Census Bureau and survey data from the ACS. are analyzed to establish county population by race and Hispanic origin. Forecasts by block group combine local changes in the distributions by race and projected change for counties. 'The last step controls block group distributions to county totals by race and Hispanic origin. The changing face of our nation is evident in Esri's Diversity Index, which summarizes racial and ethnic diversity in an area. This measure shows the likelihood that two persons, chosen at random from the same area, belong to different races or ethnic groups. The index ranges from 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). Esri's Diversity Index has risen from 60.6 in 2010 to 63.5 in 2016, with a forecast to 66 in five years. Diversity describes the composition of American households too. Husband -wife families remain the dominant household type, but their share of all households continues to slip— from 52 percent in 2000 to 48 percent in 2010. From 2000 to 2010, the real increase in family households was in single -parent families, up by 22 percent, and multigenerational households, up by 30 percent. Husband -wife families increased by less than 4 percent in 10 years, and husband -wife families with children declined. All family households increased by 8 percent from 2000 to 2010; nonfamily households, by 16 percent. The fastest-growing nonfamily households, however, are unmarried partners opposite sex partners, by 40 percent, and same-sex partners by 52 percent from 2000 to 2010. Single -person households retain the highest proportion of nonfamily households (80 percent), but the increase was less than 15 percent in the past decade. Nontraditional family types are the fastest growing segments of households. The attendant change in average household size is nominal from 2000 to 2010, 2.59 to 2.58, with a slight increase to 2.59 in 2016. The gradual change in household size has made it uniquely suitable to forecasting the change in household population from the change in households. Average household size is traditionally one of the most stable and predictable components of the forecasts. Household forecasts are predicated on local patterns of change, which are controlled to the more constant trends for states and counties. Few block groups represent a cross-section of US households. For example, in areas that gain population from immigration, the trend in average household size is an increase. To distinguish local variation, Esri's model is keyed to the characteristics of households at the block group level. This stratification identifies several different patterns of change by Ird-a- 01 Exhibit V household type that are applied to forecast trends in the characteristics of households— both family composition and tenure. Local change is emphasized in the 2016/2021 forecasts of households and families for counties and block groups. National and state trends are monitored with sources such as the Current Population Survey (CPS) and American Community Survey from the Census Bureau and then applied as controls. A mixed model approach is used to forecast 2016 educational attainment and marital status, combining higher level and timelier single -year ACS data with five-year lower level ACS data. Adjustments are factored for changes to the base population's characteristics including changes to group quarters. Forecast distributions are applied to Esri's 2016 population aged 15 years and older. Similarly, educational attainment is updated for the population aged 25 years and older. Housing Esri's housing updates include total housing units, occupancy, tenure, and home value. Total housing unit updates are created from recorded changes in the housing inventory and estimated changes in occupancy rates since April 2010, applied to Census 2010 base data. Recorded change in the housing inventory is culled from several data sources, including multiple construction data inputs from Metrosludy. data for new manufactured homes placed by state from the Census Bureau, and building permits for permit -issuing places and counties. As of 2010, only half of the counties had complete coverage with building permits. Numerous independent sources are leveraged to obtain detailed information on housing development data where no building permits exist. Independent estimates of change in occupancy are calculated from USPS residential lists, the American Community Survey, and various state and local data sources. Additionally_. data from the Current Population Survey and the Housing Vacancy Survey from the Census Bureau is used to model trends in occupancy. Data for tenure represents owner- and renter -occupied housing units. Together, the two components sum to total households, or total occupied housing units. A time series model based on data from the Housing Vacancy Survey combined with changes in the Current Population Survey, the American Community Survey, and intercensal data guide tenure forecasts. With a blend of top-down and bottom-up techniques, the forecasts take advantage of the latest information from survey data at higher levels of geography while employing local characteristics at the lower levels. The data from the lower levels of geography are controlled to the higher levels to produce the tenure updates. Changes in owner -versus -renter occupancy are forecasted independently and then controlled to the total households. Esri tracks the change in home value using several different sources, including the House Price Index (HPI) from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and annual estimates from ACS. The HPI is designed to monitor changes in average home prices based on repeat sales or refinancing of the same properties. The index is derived from mortgage loans purchased or securitized by Fannie Mac or Freddie Mac. FHFA affirms the "significant advantages" of the HPI over Commerce Department surveys or other data collections based on snapshots of sales figures. Employing the repeat -sales methodology renders the index less susceptible to compositional effects, especially with data for smaller geographic areas. If a higher proportion of lower -end homes are sold in the current period than in an earlier period, survey data can underestimate home prices. Exhibit V n Beginning with the 2016 update. Esri's model emphasizes the importance of a good, stable forecast base. Employing both the American Community Survey's historical five- year estimates and household survey data. Esri has implemented sophisticated new techniques to establish a mid -decade base. Though this does preclude comparisons to past updates, the base provides a strong foundation to measure change. Local estimates of home value change incorporate supply -demand characteristics, the socioeconomic traits of householders in the area, and trends assessed for larger markets. Labor Force Esri forecasts the civilian labor force (employment and unemployment) and employment by industry and occupation for 2016.3 The US labor market continues to improve in many aspects amid an economy growing at a stubbornly slow postrecession pace. Since 2010, the economy added 12.2 million jobs, raising the total workforce to 151.4 million. Estimates of the civilian labor force integrate recent change in the supply and demand for labor from the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LADS), Occupational Employment Statistics (OES), and Current Employment Statistics (CES) programs of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as well as the American Community Survey and Current Population Survey from the US Census Bureau. Federal statistical surveys are the principal sources for labor force trends. The LAUS program is the premier resource for current and local economic conditions. The 2016 employment and unemployment estimates are developed from a block group base constructed from one- and five-year ACS labor force tables and current sources. New in 2016, the ACS -derived base has been updated to take advantage of the latest survey data to generate more current labor force profiles for small areas. Consequently, comparisons to Esri's prior year labor force estimates are not advised since this change creates a break in the data. Esri's updated employment by industry and occupation captures temporal change from the federal statistical sources: the ACS and CPS from the Census Bureau and the CES and OES programs from the BI,S. National and state industry distributions are updated using trends from the CES. The latest industry -occupation matrix from the OES is applied to allocate employment change by industry to the related occupations. 3 It is important to remind data users that Esri's civilian labor force estimates represent seasonally unadjusted totals as of July I to stay consistent with the forecast base. While press releases of labor force statistics produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics report seasonally adjusted change each month, removing such calendar influences, Esri's totals reflect actual estimated levels. As a result, Esri estimates and measures of change can yield differences when compared to these official government statistics. Exhibit V Income To estimate income for households. Esri evaluates an extensive list of sources for household income trends that includes both federal and proprietary sources. The review of national surveys includes the American Community Survey (both one-year and five- year estimates). Bureau of Economic Analysis' local personal income series, the Current Population Survey, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index. in 2016, Esri developed a new forecast base that capitalizes on historical ACS five -_year estimates and household surveys. In any sample -based data source. both sampling and nonsampling error contribute to the instability of time series data for small areas. Esri has designed parameters to quantify and normalize instability in its sources, producing a robust base on which to measure income change. This does, however, mark a break in the time series for household income and the related variables: age by income, disposable income, and net worth. After forecasting the state income distributions, household income is estimated for counties and then block groups. F.sri's income forecasts are uniquely designed to distinguish local variation, changes in income inequality, and urbanicity as differentiators of income growth. The model correlates the characteristics of households at the block group level with changes in income. This stratification identities several different patterns of change by household type that are applied to forecast trends in income. Modeling links the current income change to all households with similar socioeconomic characteristics. Areas with small household bases or missing base data, where the model is unable to capture the local variation, are forecast with another level of modeling to capture the change in income by strata (a group of areas classified by their sociodemographic characteristics). Separate forecasts of the change in income by strata are aggregated to compose the income distributions. Household income reported by age of householder is updated to be consistent with the 2016/2021 distributions of household income and age of householder. To update the age distribution of householders, the ratio of householders by age to the population by age in 2010 is updated to 2016/2021 and, taking into account the change in group quarters population, applied to the current age distributions. After the targets are set, the base distributions of household income by age of householder at the block group level are fitted to current distributions of households by income and age of householder. Esri uses the definition of money income used by the Census Bureau. For each person 15 years of age or older, money income received in the preceding calendar year is summed from earnings, unemployment compensation, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, public assistance, veterans' payments, survivor benefits, disability benefits, pension or retirement income, interest, dividends, rent, royalties, estates and trusts, educational assistance, alimony, child support, financial assistance from outside the household, and other income. Data for consumer income collected by the Census Bureau covers money income received (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, Social Security, union dues. Medicare deductions, etc. Disposable income represents money income after taxes an estimate of a household's purchasing power. The proportion of household income left after taxes is estimated from special studies conducted by the Census Bureau to simulate household taxes. Esri's 2015 Exhibit V disposable income incorporates data from the 2015 Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (ASEC). Starting with the 2011 ASEC release; the Census Bureau introduced a new technique to accommodate disclosure avoidance. Previously, high dollar values were capped or top -coded; rank proximity swapping is employed currently. Four types of taxes arc deducted: federal individual income taxes, state individual income taxes, FICA (Social Security) and federal retirement payroll taxes,. and property taxes fir owner -occupied housing. Internal Revenue Service tax rates are used as guidelines for model testing. Esri then applies the proportions of after-tax earnings to income intervals that are cross -tabulated by age of householder for each state. State -specific proportions account for the variation in taxes by state. The proportions, or multipliers, are then applied to the age by income forecasts for block groups and counties to calculate disposable income. Current income is only one component of a household's financial security. Householders' net worth or accumulated wealth reflects their ability to stay afloat during a financial shock as well as their savings for future retirement. Net worth is estimated from data on household wealth that is collected from the Surveys of Consumer Finance (SCF) from the Federal Reserve Board from 1992 through 2013. These triennial surveys feature enhanced representation of wealthy households through the comprehensive measurement of net worth components. By definition. net worth equals total household assets less any debts, secured or unsecured. Assets include ownership of homes, rental properties, businesses, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and Keogh accounts, pension plans, stocks, mutual funds, and motor vehicles. Examples of secured debt include home mortgages and vehicle loans; unsecured debt includes credit cards and other bills or certain bank loans. Summary measures of household and disposable income and net worth include medians and averages, which are calculated from the distributions of income and net worth. Medians represent the middle of the income distribution. or the point that splits the distribution equally. Medians are calculated from the income intervals of the distributions using Pareto interpolation unless the median falls in the lowest (<$15.000) or highest (>$200,000) interval. For the lowest interval, linear interpolation is used. When the median falls in the upper interval. it is reported as $200,001 because households in the upper interval are top -coded to $200,000. Averages are computed from estimates of aggregate income or net worth. Fsri's 2015 income and net worth updates introduced unique sociodemographic methods to model distributions and aggregates simultaneously, which is continued in 2016. This top-down, bottom-up approach not only provides well-grounded small area estimates but places value on the relationship between medians and averages. 2016 Geography Changes in the areas for which data is tabulated and reported are critical to the analysis of trends. Esri reports data for political and statistical areas that include states, counties, census tracts, block groups, places, county subdivisions, Core Based Statistical Areas, and congressional districts plus special use areas like ZIP codes and DMAs. Of course, the provision of small area data in Esri® software enables users to define their own areas of interest too. 1-� Exhibit V Data is reported in 2010 geography for most of the standard political and statistical areas. Statistical areas, like block groups and census tracts, are defined by the Census Bureau (with help from local officials) to collect and report data for neighborhoods. Historically, these areas change every 10 years with each new census. Political areas. like counties. cities, or townships, are subject to change by local governments. For the current release, Esri updated place boundaries, from TIGER 2014. Census 2010 included 29,261 places; the TIGER 2014 inventory includes 29,297 places plus all the boundary changes. Larger political areas, like counties, change less often than places. Revisions to metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas were released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMR) in July 2015. The 2016/2021 updates reflect the latest definitions. Changes include 16 new micropolitan areas and 1 micropolitan area that was classified as a metropolitan area. Core Based Statistical Areas include 382 metropolitan and 551 micropolitan areas. Congressional districts represent the 1 I4th Congress. ZIP codes, which are defined solely by the US Postal Service to expedite mail delivery. can change monthly or whenever the US Postal Service revises delivery routes. ZIP codes do not represent standard census geographic areas for data reporting. ZIP code boundaries are not contiguous with census geographic areas or stable over time. Data estimated for ZIP codes is also subject to change. Residential ZIP code data is estimated from block group data, using a correspondence created by assigning Census 2010 block points to ZIP code boundaries from Nokia. The vintage of the ZIP code boundaries is third quarter, 2015; the total residential ZIP codes in this release is 32,088. Use of Projections Projections are necessarily derived from current events and past trends. The past and present are known; the future must be extrapolated from this knowledge base. Even though projections represent the unknown, they are not uninformed. Guidelines for the development of projections also inform the use of those projections: ■ The recent past provides a reasonable clue to the course of future events, especially if that information is tempered with a historical perspective. ■ A stable rate of growth is easier to anticipate than rapid growth or decline. ■ The damaging effects of natural disasters cannot be anticipated. Esri makes every effort to assess the impact of sudden, catastrophic events like strong storms, flooding, or wildfires. ■ The risk inherent in forecasting is inversely related to the size of an area: the smaller the area, the greater the risk. ■ The risk increases with the length of the projection interval. Any deviation of the projected trends from actual events is amplified over time. Esri revises its forecasts annually to draw on the latest data. However, this data can be enhanced with personal knowledge of an area to provide the qualitative, anecdotal detail that is not captured in a national database. It is incumbent on the data user and the producers to incorporate as much information as possible when assessing local trends, especially for areas that are subject to "boom -bust' cycles or natural disasters. Exhibit V n Esri's Data Led by chief demographer Lynn Wombold, Esri's data development team has a 35 -year Development Team history of excellence in market intelligence. The combined expertise of the team's economists, statisticians, demographers, geographers, and analysts totals nearly a century of data and segmentation development experience. "The team develops datasets, including annual demographic updates, Tapestry Segmentation, Consumer Spending, Market Potential, and Retail MarketPlace, which are now industry benchmarks. For more information about Esri's demographic data, call 1-800-447-9778. Exhibit V Esri inspires and enables people to positively impact their future through a deeper, geographic understanding of the changing world around them. Governments, industry leaders, academics, and nongovernmental organizations trust us to connect them with the analytic knowledge ?010N they need to make the critical decisions that shape the planet. For more than 40 years, Esri has cultivated collaborative relationships with partners who share our commitment to solving earth's most pressing challenges with geographic expertise and rational resolve. Today, we believe that geography is at the heart of a more resilient and sustainable future. Creating responsible products and solutions drives our passion for improving quality of life everywhere. Printed in USA Contact Esri 380 New York Street Redlands, California 92373-8100 USA 1 800 447 9778 T 909 793 2853 F 909 793 5953 infooesri.com esn.com Offices worldwide esri.com/locations Exhibit V GASPAR STATION PUD LAND FOR SALE investment properties corporation LOCATION: SWC of Immokalee Road and Juliet Boulevard in Naples, Florida, (1-75 Exit 111). ZONE: The Gaspar Station PUD allows a wide variety of commercial uses, Contact: Craig D. Timmins, CCIM 239-261.3400, ext. 161 craig@ipcnapies.com CLICK HERE FOR AERIAL: http://goo.gl/maps/FGjZR Exhibit V GASPAR STATION PUD LAND FOR SALE Exhibit V GASPAR STATION PUD LAND FOR SALE investment properties corporation PROPERTY SUMMARY Gaspar Station is located on the SWC of Immokalee Road and Juliet Boulevard, in Naples, FL. This signalized intersection is shared by the Wal-Mart Supercenter, a shopping center anchored by Publix as well as The Strand, a 1,160 unit residential community and other commercial and residential uses. This Immokalee Road location is at 1-75, exit 111. Located in fast-growing North Naples, Gaspar Station is also near Super Target and the North Naples Regional Park. As part of the recent 1-75 widening in Collier and Lee Counties, the Exit 111 interchange has been completely updated, including increasing Immokalee Road from six to eight lanes at the overpass. ZONING The Gaspar Station PUD allows a wide variety of commercial uses. UTILITIES Water and sewer service is available to the site. Exhibit V GASPAR STATION PUD LAND FOR SALE investment properties corporation Total Population: 8,404 46,012 116,855 Total Households: 3,983 21,031 53,308 Median Age: 48.3 54.8 54.1 Median Household Income: $69,347 $73,896 $67,065 AverageDaily 2013 2014e Immokalee Road east of 1-75 36,860 37,374 36,306 Immokalee Road west of 1-75 48,478 46,432 47,758 Immokalee Road west of Collier Blvd. (951) 33,406 34,027 35,422 1-75, North of CR 846/ Immokalee Road (FDOT) 87,000 90,500 N/A 1-75, 0.5 Mi N of CR -896, Pine Ridge Road 65,423 70,332 N/A Exhibit V MGASPAR STATION PUD LAND FOR SALE investment properties corporation FC�-2 FD -3 I MACKALEE RD" (EX. CARWASH) 4A C"Af $AW-, US AC 45 A% L WATER SANITARY (PENCMIG; 3 ITTORY 33 ITT TY LF -$T CE) 'T co GASPAR PUD 2152 2 AREA CALCULATIONS ru (C—A) AC. -.?M M-2 (—N) 701 AC 305.(67SF FD -2 (STORAGE)212 92,490 SF "DDA "Y D'S 1 1!40A 51 JUJI1 4i At 6},002 TJ FD -2 6- SANITARY SEWER TDI AC DEVELOPABLE AREA FO -2 (VAN) 101 AC, 305"4{7 OLL RUT 1,79 AC "All ',—� _-TAKE LAKE mu Lul. :71 rems NET DMDFABA ARG 607 AC 264,575 SF DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS BASED ON 17.7 AC. a. I-AKE IS' SANITARY SEWER RETAP & SERVICES 7,500 SF/CROSS AC 132,750 SF 0' LIS CIIASE DANK S ALXCATION: -4.500 Sf _ESS CARWASH TRACT r0-3: -5,000 sr NET REMAINING; 123,250 SF OFFICE 15,000 SF/GROSS AC 265.500 SF LESS 3 STORY STORAGE -110,000 SF -155,500 -Sr a' SANITARY SEWER NET REMAINING. -46EIMOtEl 26 UNITS/GROSS AC 461) UNITS NOTES; I AN ACCESS EASEMENT MUST BE PRDVtDEI) To THE VACANT PARCEL WLSi OF GASPAR TBC EX, PRESERVE STATION LOCATION OF EASEMENT BY OWNER 2. COLIIrR COUNTY NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GASPAR STATION PUD PAVE BEEN FuTrL.-EC it 3 THE BACKBONE SURfACL WATER MANIA EVEN, SYS FEM (LAKE. CONTROL STRUCIURE, --l(;.) HAS BEEN DESIGNED. PERMITTED ANO CONSTRUCTED HOWEVER DRY L PRE-TREATMENT AREAS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GASPAR STATION DEVELOPABLE AREA EXHIBIT LOCATION or THESE AREAS TO E DETERMINED BY FUTURE DLVELDPMEN RNSCD: OCTOBER 03. 2016 I. EXHIBIT "W" ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOGAN BOULEVARD/ IMMOKALEE ROAD COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Revised October 2016 Prepared For: Immokalee Road Associates LLC. 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 400 Sunrise, Florida 33323 (954) 753-1730 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 Project No. 13GLH2170 n TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ I 2.0 Vegetation Associations and Land Uses............................................................................ I 3.0 Soils..............................................................................................................................3 4.0 Listed Species....................................................................................................................4 5.0 Archaeological and Historical Resources..........................................................................4 6.0 References.............................................................................................................. ........4 �1 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary................................................................1 Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS......................................................................................3 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map.........................................................................................El-1 Exhibit2. FLUCFCS Map............................................................ ............................. ......... E2-1 Exhibit 3. Aerial with FLUCFCS Map...............................................................................E3-t Exhibit4. Soils Map ...... ..................................................................................................... E4-1 Exhibit 5. Listed Species Survey Report ............................................................................E5-1 ft 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following information regarding site conditions and environmental considerations has been prepared for the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment for the Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (Project). The 19± acre Project site is located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Exhibit 1). More specifically, it is found at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard and is located approximately 1.4 miles east of Interstate 75. The property is bound by Immokalee Road to the north, Logan Boulevard and a landscaping nursery to the west, and a landscaping nursery to the east and south. Saturnia Lakes residential development is located to the southeast of the Project site. The Project site is comprised primarily of forested uplands that have been disturbed by the invasion of varying levels of exotic vegetation. 2.0 VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS AND LAND USES The existing land uses on the Project site include a combination of disturbed land and forested uplands with varying degrees of exotic infestation. The vegetation associations for the property were delineated using January 2016 rectified color aerials (Scale: l" = 100'). These delineations were classified based on the nomenclature of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) bevels III and IV (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote disturbance. "E" codes were used to identify levels of exotic species invasion (i.e., Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)). AutoCAD Map 3D 2015 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapped polygon, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS map (Exhibits 2 and 3). A total of nine vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified on the property. The dominant habitat type on the property is Pine, Disturbed (FLUCFCS Code 4159) with various levels of exotic coverage (i.e., El and E3). This vegetative community accounts for 43.4 percent of the property (8.09± acres). Exotic vegetation documented on-site includes, but is not limited to, Brazilian pepper, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and earleaf acacia (acacia auriculiformis). The degree of exotic infestation ranges from 0 to 100 percent cover. Table I summarizes the FLUCFCS acreages and a brief description of each of the FLUCFCS classifications follows the table. Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary FLUCFCS Code Description Acreage Percent of Total 241 Tree Nursery 0.91 4.9 4119 EI Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed 0-24% Exotics 1.64 8.8 4159 E1 Pine, Disturbed 0-24% Exotics 4.56 24.5 Table 1. (Continued) FLUCFCS Code Description Acreage Percent of Total 4159 E3 Pine, Disturbed 50-75% Exotics 3.53 18.9 4289 E3 Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 50-75% Exotics 0.20 1.1 439 Mixed Exotic Hardwoods 3.96 21.2 6215 E3 Cypress, Disturbed and Drained (50-75% Exotics) 0.37 2.0 6245 E3 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed and Drained 2.99 50-75% Exotics 16.0 740 Disturbed Land 0.48 2.6 Totals 18.64 100.0 Tree Nursery (FLUCFCS Code 24 1) A tree nursery is located on the western portion of the Project site. This area consists primarily of planted date palms (Phoenix dactylifera) and queen palms (Syagrus romanzoffiana). Pine Flatwoods Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1) This upland habitat is located in the eastern portion of the property. The canopy is dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii), along with scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and earleaf acacia. The sub -canopy vegetation includes cabbage palm, along with rusty lyonia (Lyonia fruticosa), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and scattered Brazilian pepper. The ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto, with lesser amounts of bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax auriculata), and caesarweed (Urena lobata). Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1) This upland habitat occupies the south-central portion of the property. The canopy and sub -canopy are dominated by slash pine with scattered melaleuca, earleaf acacia, cabbage palm, rusty lyonia, Brazilian pepper, myrsine (Rapanea punctata), and strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum). The ground cover is dominated by species typical to disturbed areas, such as muscadine grape, poison ivy, greenbrier, spermacoce (Spermacoce verticillata), caesarweed, and bracken fern. Additional ground cover species including little blue maidencane (Amphicarpuni muhlenbergianum), gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), Boston fern (Nephrolepis sp.), and swamp fern (Blechnun: serrulatum) occur in lesser amounts. Pine Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3) This upland habitat is similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 El, but with a higher concentration of Brazilian pepper in the sub -canopy and melaleuca and earleaf acacia in the canopy. Cabbage Palm Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4289 E3) This upland habitat is located near the southeast corner of the property. The canopy is dominated by cabbage palm, along with very scattered slash pine. The sub -canopy is dominated by Brazilian pepper, with scattered cabbage palm and citrus (Citrus sp.). The ground cover is dominated by swamp fern. Mixed Exotic Hardwoods (FLUCFCS Code 439) This upland habitat occupies most of the northeastern portion of the property. The canopy and sub - canopy are dominated by exotics such as melaleuca, earleaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, and strawberry guava. Scattered native species present include widely scattered bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), cabbage palm, myrsine, and cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco). The ground cover is dominated by swamp fern with scattered sawgrass (Cladium janiaicense), muscadine grape, and greenbrier. Cypress. Disturbed and Drained5( 0-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6215 E3) This drained habitat is located near the northeast corner of the property. The canopy is dominated by bald cypress with cabbage palm and melaleuca. The sub -canopy vegetation consists of Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and cabbage palm. The ground cover is mostly open with scattered swamp fern, sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum, muscadine grape, poison ivy, and caesarweed. Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed and Drained (50-75% Exotics) FLUCFCS Code 6245 E3) This drained habitat is found in the northwest portion of the property. The canopy is dominated by slash pine with bald cypress, melaleuca, and earleaf acacia. Brazilian pepper dominates the sub - canopy stratum, along with scattered laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The ground cover vegetation commonly includes swamp fern, along with scattered greenbrier and muscadine grape. Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740) This upland land use is located along the south property line. The canopy and sub -canopy strata are mostly open, with widely scattered earleaf acacia and Brazilian pepper growing along its northern edge. The herbaceous ground cover is dominated by species typical of disturbed areas including beggar -tick (Biden pilosa), spermaeoce, muscadine grape, common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), poinsettia (Poinsettia cyathophora), and flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis). 3.0 SOILS The soils for the property, per the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), are shown on Exhibit 4 and listed in Table 2. The "Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook" (Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists 1995) lists Holopaw Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum (No. 2); Basinger Fine Sand (No. 17); and Holopaw and Okeelanta Soils, Depressional (No. 23) as hydric soils. Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS Mapping Unit Description H dric/Non-H drie* 2 Holopaw Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum Hydric 17 Basinger Fine Sand Hydric 23 Holopaw and Okeelanta Soils De ressional —Hydric *Per the "Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook" (Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists 1995). __\ 4.0 LISTED SPECIES A listed species survey was conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. on the Project site on June 15, 2016. No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species survey. However, one state -listed plant species, the cardinal airplant (Tillandsia_fasciculata), was observed scattered throughout the Project site. The listed species survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit 5. 5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES There are no known archaeological or historical sites present within or in the vicinity of the Project site. 6.0 REFERENCES Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 1995. Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition. Victor W. Carlisle, Ed. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP tiLI�rJ GC , ♦;:n - CORKSCREW RD1 L� .:: " 8 8LL4E64tiC' 3 f t. `i RD ,§ 4 19)LP )L 4MdTi.T'R Wif F:diap - { 1� t +drt.V 2 t_ p. t fMet.ai1156f04L( f I4ET Wl6T !V s1 z N O � d 0, fY < PAIJI .ter A4 aii � � :uelenKt e:u LMgNT: N\' IM It EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP T.S. 6/17/16 H1,11MI11M, ❑, PASSARELLA LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD S.J. 6/17i1fi n � � ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT "°"`E" � , J � C r Y ICR '�iP a- a !V s1 z N O � d 0, fY < PAIJI .ter A4 aii � � :uelenKt e:u LMgNT: N\' IM It EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP T.S. 6/17/16 H1,11MI11M, ❑, PASSARELLA LOGAN BOULEVARD / IMMOKALEE ROAD S.J. 6/17i1fi n � � ASSOCIATES COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT "°"`E" � , J EXHIBIT 2 FLUCFCS MAP -IMMOKALEE RD- A, f.� SCALE VXp' 439 Do (3.96 Ac.2) CD 0 -�j 621 SE3 ' (0.37 Alt) r—`' 6245E3 (2.99 A A) /4119EI (0.29 Ac. 4119E1 (0.15 Ac.±) 4159E3 (3.53 Ac.1) 241 (0.91 Ac.±) 4159E1 (4.56 Ac.±) 4289E3 (0.20 Ac.. 4119E1 (1.20 Ac.l) 740 (0.48 -A " P/L n NOTES FLUCFCS OF CODES DESCRIPTIONS TOTAL PROPEPTY BODINCARY PFR STANTEC IINL DRAWING No 24' TREE NURSERY ---.ACREAGE 591 A� NB.0 11.1 "I" " RNEFI-A IWOODS, INSTUABLD IQ 21% LXG; lCq) 1,64 AI, 8% DlAAV' ST 24 M6 1159 El IINEISTIIABID�C24%EXOTCS) 4.50 AD 245% AERI FLUCFCS LINES ElTiMAl ED FROM 1'-200 AL "59 E3 PINE, DISTURBED 50 75% EXCMCS) 3 53 A,,! 109a P40TOtRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED n 42 F3 (dEY6AGE PALM DISTUAR.F0 (S 75, EXOTICS] 020 A,, 1 430MAXEDEX TIC I AqDVVOqPS 3W& 2% FLL FCS PER FLOPs" LAND USE COVER AND f ODMS E?l b ES CYPRESS DISTLIFIBED AND DRAINED (510 n% EXOTICS) 037A, i 2090 C-AS51IFICAT*N SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) IF DOT 1944) ;245 E3 CYMCSSIPINECAEIBAUE PALM DITURFEDAND DRAINED (5075% EXOTICS) 29<3Ao 4 16 M DISTUI`48LO LAND 04BA�± 2.m TOTAL 16.64 A..± 100.0% A Ts' 111-1,116 f ftPASSARELLA LCK' AN 1301 jLEVARD/IMMOKA�LERP ROAD 13(311-170 16 & ASSOCIATESI "Ifir'l, 2 EXHIBIT 3 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS MAP 10-\ IAV ._i 1 SOILS MAP 1 W14 It I I "A IW LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT LOGAN BOULEVARD/ IMMOKALEE ROAD COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT Revised October 2016 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) on June 15, 2016 for the Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict (Project). The purpose of the survey was to review the Project area for plant and wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC), the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, species of special concern, or commercially exploited. The 19± acre Project site is located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, it is found at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard and is located approximately 1.4 miles east of Interstate 75. The property is bound by Immokalee Road to the north, Logan Boulevard and agricultural activities to the west, and agricultural activities to the east and south. Saturnia Lakes residential development is located to the southeast of the Project site. The Project site is comprised primarily of forested uplands that have been disturbed by the invasion of varying levels of exotic vegetation and disturbed land. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Literature Review The listed plant and wildlife species survey included a literature search for local, state, and federal listed species and an on-site review conducted on June 15, 2016. The literature search found no documented occurrences of listed wildlife species within the Project site. The property is not located within the designated critical habitat areas for any listed wildlife species. Further details regarding the literature search results and survey methodology are as follows: The literature search involved an examination of available information on protected species in the Project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (2011); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al. 2006); and the USFWS and/or the FWCC databases for telemetry locations of Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle, red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), and wading bird rookeries, such as the wood E5-1 stork (Mycleria americana), in Collier County. The results of the literature search found no documented occurrences of listed wildlife species on-site (Figure 2). The wildlife agencies' database information is updated on a periodic basis and it is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information is current through the noted dates for the following four species: Florida panther telemetry — June 2015; bald eagle nest locations — August 2015; black bear telemetry — August 2015; and RCW locations — August 2015. The closest documented bald eagle nest is CO -049 which is located approximately 2.1 miles to the northwest of the site and was last active in 2013. No bald eagle nests were identified within the Project limits. The nest distance is beyond the USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660 - foot buffer protection zone for active and alternate bald eagle nests. The bald eagle is not a listed species, but is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No RCW colonies or cavity trees have been documented within the Project area, per the FWCC's database (Figure 2). The USFWS considers suitable habitat for RCW to include any forested community with pines in the canopy that encompasses more than ten acres (i.e., includes both on- and off-site). Although the Project area does have canopy pine trees, no live slash pine (Pinus elliotti) cavities were observed during the survey and no sightings were documented in the area. The RCW is a state and federally listed endangered species. The literature search confirmed that the Project is located within the 30 kilometer (18.6 miles) Core Foraging Area of one documented wood stork rookery (No. 619018) (Figure 3). However, the Project contains dense forested upland habitat types that preclude access for wading birds, including wood storks. No wood storks or other listed wading bird species were observed on- site. In addition, there was no reference in the atlas to any breeding colonies located on or adjacent to the Project site. The wood stork is listed as federally threatened by the FWCC and threatened by the USFWS. The FWCC database contains no documented Florida black bear radio -telemetry locations on- site or within the vicinity of the Project area (Figure 2). The site's relatively small size and densely urban surroundings do not lend it support as suitable habitat for this species. The Florida black bear is not listed by the FWCC or the USFWS. However, the FWCC has specific management activities for this species. A review of FWCC records found that no Florida panthers are documented within the Project site or in the immediate vicinity (Figure 2). The property is located outside of both the primary and secondary zones of the USFWS panther Focus Area, and no Florida panther telemetry points have been documented on-site or within the Project's general vicinity (Figure 4). The Florida panther is listed as federally endangered by the FWCC and endangered by the USFWS. One listed plant species was observed during the June 15, 2016 listed species survey. The listed plant species observed is described in the Field Survey section below. E5-2 Field Survey ]"he property was surveyed on June 15, 2016 for wildlife species listed by the FWCC as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern; and by the USFWS as endangered or threatened. The property was also surveyed for plant species listed by the FDACS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited. In addition, the property was surveyed for the bald eagle and/or their nests since they are protected under Florida Administrative Code 68A- 16.002 and the BGEPA. The June 15, 2016 field surveys were conducted by qualified ecologists walking meandering transects spaced approximately 100 feet apart (Figure 5). The site was inspected for listed plant and wildlife species as well as their signs (e.g., burrows, tracks, scat, scratches, etc.). At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The weather during the survey was seasonal with temperatures in the upper 80s to low 90s, clear skies, and winds ranging from five to ten miles per hour. The survey began at approximately 9:30 a.m. and ended at approximately 3:00 p.m. No listed wildlife species were documented on the Project site during the survey. One state listed plant species was observed on-site during the listed species survey, the cardinal airplant (Tillandsia fasciculata). The locations of the observed cardinal airplants are depicted on Figure 5. The cardinal airplant is listed as endangered by the FDACS. 01111 u RM The literature search found no documented occurrences of listed wildlife species within the Project site. There was one state listed plant species observed on the Project site during the June 15, 2016 listed species survey. The cardinal airplant is listed as threatened by the FDACS. No listed wildlife species were observed utilizing the Project site during the survey. E5-3 100IN REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non -Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133. Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. E5-4 O VERv R„,;M ', dMMO1�M-tM .� '— t t� - 009, P 81. Y Y. A WOLhE RO 9O N QUR,,OAKS ZWR L11..3.,w � •dam = ENGLI�HAA '° + �` .^ VANOER431 T.BEACht,�AQ s � 7H AVf PIVIi,i.,.�.s. �y i 7RWA1fNW-VA-4 y- Y-'• i JR y`vT !4 .t, im, r tiUN�R ��l x� 1 - ? x t Y�� _N�}�• AN,DALW ODUiLN:'.,foe : . . . . . . .°». . ° � . � ^ ui I til Ilk FF : . . . . . . .°». . ° � . � ^ ui I til OAKS BLVD glff AIRPORI -PULLING' RD u wo ui I til OAKS BLVD AIRPORI -PULLING' RD u wo W_ Z O O U Z o r w a o Fw fel GZ Z I a �, W = z p(+ U CW ) u, w 'S W oE5'�' +yuF V/ O aD t0 �D � b C u r Lu, F- 0 s �d0 -.> u;4wF C) Ln CO u - 3 0u 00 f r ,fit' Me O� O� t � 0182 T' b � Gtx w'h `f+'dr' ff�s?r00.y'mni5'CePµ'(`3e��� fls 3ne�ii �3r..sr5"L.ii l tf5-e}dti ho�92151 ry+4iflH +^f ift itl t f N e f h 0 m w 0 m z w w Q L9 1 � � O 0 OA18 NVO01 < i O W H v W r � C-' N uas w an,aSW GO U) � :. U� W � ►�I W z aN N7SONInn DNnlnd-laoaaiv OUDa � W �4 tiQ{?04f; TTk RD EXT <J i1O� 11 a dN NNNN3 311310000 �. tLY DR Nd B9�91 I ! 91U219I01 - aiN 59M9Ttl3X1NYA-a'axn�u�sa,nx��.aw,nc-:ao�-ea,:rna�n�.,��,a�ss,a� �1 W EXHIBIT "X" SURROUNDING EXISITNG LAND USES n EXHIBIT X Surrounding Existing Land Uses The area surrounding the subject property primarily consists of low density residential development with scattered agricultural, public facility and commercial uses. North, east and south of the subject property are predominately residential neighborhoods with very few commercial services. To the west, along the Immokalee Road corridor are limited commercial developments which serve commuting traffic. There are regional commercial shopping centers located near the intersection of Immokalee Road and Interstate 75. Much of the commercial services provided along Immokalee Road are located west of and adjacent to Interstate 75 and are over 1.5 miles from the subject property. These uses are located at one of Collier County's busiest intersections {1-75 and Immokalee Road). There are no significant commercial centers in close proximity of the subject property. A more detailed description of the surrounding areas is provided below. Immediately adjacent to the subject properties eastern boundary is an ±8 acre agricultural operation and another 8 acre vacant parcel adjacent to it. Further to the east of the agricultural property are two residential subdivisions, including Saturnia Lakes, followed by Heritage Greens. Laurel Oaks Elementary .-� School and Gulf Coast High School are located east of Heritage Greens, followed by Cornerstone United Methodist Church. Lying east of Cornerstone Methodist and adjacent to Immokalee Road are the ibis Cove, Laurel Lakes and Pebblebrook residential communities with Pebble Brooke plaza, a commercial shopping center located on the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. Across Collier Boulevard to the east is Pelican Nursery, a commercial agricultural operation. Continuing east along Immokalee Road lies several more residential neighborhoods, many currently under construction. Immokalee Road, a multi -lane, east -west arterial road is immediately north of the subject property. On the northeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard is Olde Cypress, a residential golf community which extends approximately 1 mile north along Logan Boulevard. Lantana, a single family subdivision is located along Immokalee Boulevard immediately to the east of the Olde Cypress driving range and north of the subject property. North of Olde Cypress is Saturnia Falls. North of Staunria Falls Logan boulevard bends east then north around the Parklands residential community, before terminating at the Collier County border. To the south of the subject property is Work-A-Holics Landscape Maintenance, a commercial landscaping business. Satrunia Lakes is located south and east of the landscaping operation and is also adjacent to the southeast corner of the subject property. Saturnia Lakes is a single-family residential subdivision which extends south along Logan boulevard for approximately six -tenths of a mile. Further South is IslandWalk, a gated residential subdivision, extending south of Satunia lakes for approximately one mile and is bordered by Vanderbilt Road on the south. South of Vanderbilt Road, a six lane east -west arterial roadway, is Golden Gate Estates, a residential community which consists of pre -platted lots created in the 1960's. Logan Boulevard, a multi -lane north south arterial roadway, is immediately west of the subject property. Across Logan Boulevard to the west is a portion of Golden Gate Estates extending approximately one mile west of Logan boulevard to the intersection of Immokalee Road and Tarpon Bay Boulevard. Golden Gate --� Estates consists primarily of large lots residential uses. However, a few of lots within Golden Gate Estates October 13, 2016 with frontage along Immokalee Road are developed community facility and public service uses including several churches and the North Collier Fire Station. To the east of Tarpon Bay Boulevard is the Brentwood Commercial Shopping Center which is a regional shopping center with a mixture of retail, restaurant, and financial institutions. The Interstate 75 interchange divides the Brentwood Commercial Center from a large commercial center which includes Walmart and Verizon Wireless. East of Juliet Boulevard is a small commercial center developed with a car wash and a financial institution. Two multifamily residential developments, Bermuda Lakes and Windsong Club Apartments, are located further east and are adjacent to Livingston Road. 2 October 13, 2016 Stantec Mogan/Immokalee Commercial Infill Subdistrict se� o;,EEV1CG5� 9dJP W�ov Eoll � 1 ii 34�M Existing Land Use Exhibit I� loo,a�o OC.IObr.1701h pax v1 YJ)6Y 11 ero ec e� SES P91�4 .= EXHIBIT "Y" GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY NARRATIVE EXHIBIT Y Growth Management Plan Consistency Narrative This application proposes to create the Logan Boulevard / Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, a new Future Land Use classification. The proposed sub -district will allow for retail, office, medical office, financial institutions and similar uses that are permitted by right and/or conditional use within the C-4 zoning district. The proposed limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses on parcels totalling 18.6± acres provides for a lower commercial intensity per acre than a typical retail land use, lessening compatibility concerns for the adjacent properties. A PUD rezone will be submitted for concurrent review with the GMP application to address additional site design considerations. The proposed subdistrict is consistent with the following key Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element Objectives and Policies: Future land Use Element OBJECTIVE 5: In order to promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat forested species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element, the following general land use policies shall be implemented upon the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). Resoonse: This GMP Amendment is proposing a maximum of 100,000 square feet of retail, office, financial institutions and medical office land uses on 18.6± acres By limiting the size to 100,000 square feet, or 5,376 so ft per acre the overall intensity of this Bevel gment is significantly lower than that permitted on many similarly sized commercial zoned or designation parcels throughout Collier County. The proposed project is bordered on the North by Immokalee Road a 6 -Ione arterial roadway and on the West by Logan Boulevard which has been improved at the intersection with Immokalee Road to a 4 -lane condition but tapers to 2 -lanes as you travel south Across Logan Boulevard lies vacant Ignd as well as Estates zoned residential development To the east of the subject property lies vacant Agricultural land and approximately 800 feet east is the entrance to Saturnia Lgkes g residential community. To the South of the subigct proi2ert is s an Agricultural operation inclusive of a nursery, landscape business and associated uses To the southeast is residential development that is port of the Saturnia Lakes development which is the closest residential development to the property. While most matters pertaining to comoatibility such as noise lighting buffering etc are most apprggriately addressed at the zoning stage, Master Conggpt Plan has been inglUded with this October 13, 2016 application that shows the inten&led size, scale and location of development that is progosed for the site. A key factor in the [2roQosed development is the placement of a native vegetative buffer and -water management lake to the rear gf the l2rogerty to prgvide substantial buffering and distance for the commercial develoipment to the nearest home in Saturnia Lakes. As shown on the MCP, a distance of apiproximately 340 feet -exists between the commercial development on the subiect property and Saturnia Lakes, the residential development southeast of the subiect property. Of this distance, 125 feet will be comorised of a gr000sed native vegetation I?reserve which consists of Pine Flatwoods with minimal exotic vegetation reguiring removal. Additionally, Saturnia Lakes has a native planted area of aggroximately 130 feet from the common corner..point to the nearest lot line. These combine to result in a distance of opgroximately 470 feet from the propospd commercial clevelogment to the nearest resicign-tigi Igt, witb 250 feet gr �g gf that being comi2rised of native plantings and oreserves. An apl2lication for CPQQ rezone will be filed to run concurrently with the GMPA and will contain additional protections and �afeguarcls that will serve to enhancg and clarify with a greater specificity thg 12roiects Future Land Use Element OBJECTIVE J: In on effort tosupport the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall beimplemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. R-esl2onse: A 12art of the move tg�wgrd implementation of smart growth policies includes the placement of commercial and residential land uses to promote the reduction or elimination of vehicular use whgre practical, Based on the market study 12rgvided, this area which has a significant number of residgntial units in the 3 -mile Primg[y Service Area is underserved by the existing commercial developments both today and in the foreseeable futgre. By locating new commercial land uses in near proximity to existing homes, Collier County con reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT's) for certain uses and basic negds. Increased access and convenignge gf commercigi gg-ods is a sound l2lanning princigal in the reduction of VMT's and therefore a commensurate reduction in areenhouse gases. The 12rgposed land uses in this location will serve to prgmote smart growth grincipals in support of Obiective 7. Future Land Use Element Policy 7.l:The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties 10 fronting collector and arterial roods' except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Response: This GMPA incorporates a Mastgr Conceot Plan that shows connections on collector or arterial roadways including Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. Additionally, the proiect is 12roviding two interconnections to ormerties to the east and sputh with the specific intent of polentially reducing the nUmber of dirgcl connections to Immokalee Road and Logan 5!Qulgvard in the fut-yre. October 13, 2016 3�1 Stantec Future Land Use Element Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. Resgonse• The MCP included with this application provides for access through the Miect from Logon Boulevard to Immokalee Road via internal drives without creating a 'racew y' style connection around the proposed development Access is provided aver and through the proiect to enhance connectivity. Future Land Use Element Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. Reponse: Please see the above response for Policy 7.1 that ciemonstrates consistency with this policy as well as Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element The project has provided connection points to all adiacent properties where it is feasible and practical to do so. Future Land Use Element Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Response: The pr000sed development is designed to meet the demand in the marketplace for neighborhood style retail office financial institutions and medical office uses which will serve the nearby communities and ultimately the adjacent properties should they develoip. with residential uses This center has been specificallydesigned to 12Mvide a very walkable environment with features that provide visual and aesthetic interest These elements will be explained in more detail in the proposed CPDD by rop viding locations of planned sidewalk connections internal to the project and the l2edestriar2 and bicycle access points that will connect to the existing sidewalks alona both Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in order to more fully demonstrate compliance with this Policy. 3 October 13, 2016 IIStantec EXHIBIT "Z" PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT MAP .k'Tlee RSD, S Logan Blvd/lmmokalee t Rd Commercial Infill 4 Subdistrict ' 1 tt _„ N Logan Blvd/immokalee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict 0 300MMMq Feet © Collier County, A September 2016 Prepared by: U.5.06/27/16 i r i t•� r � j 3 s � s � s s IF t � i s t s ((s OIt•�, ,� +. r1 t _ ,! F r r � k ' I�. s.. !f }� ( hs i1 Logan Blvd/lmmokalee t Rd Commercial Infill 4 Subdistrict ' 1 tt _„ N Logan Blvd/immokalee Rd Commercial Infill Subdistrict 0 300MMMq Feet © Collier County, A September 2016 Prepared by: U.5.06/27/16 EXHIBIT "AA" MAP OF ADJACENT LAND USES ZSO 500 Stantec .ma Logan/Immokofee Commercial Infill Subdistrict Feel Existing Land Use Exhibit September 1016 EXHIBIT "BB" STATUTORY COMPLIANCE NARRATIVE ()� Stantec EXHIBIT BB Statutory Compliance for Growth Management Plan Amendments Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3177(1) (f) (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. Response: The proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment has been developed based on the surveys, reports, and data provided as part of the application materials. The supporting documents were prepared based on the approved and accepted methods and technical guidelines for each profession. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. Response: The proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment has been developed based on the surveys, reports, and data provided as part of the application materials. The supporting documents were prepared based on the approved and accepted methods and technical guidelines for each profession. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and October 13, 2016 Demographic Research for at least a 10 -year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area's proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Response: The commercial demand analysis included as Exhibit V utilizes the existing population figures and is adjusted based on the seasonal fluctuations in the population. The analysis shows there is a significant deficit of commercial goods and services available to the surrounding community. Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3177161 (6) In addition to the requirements of subsections (1)-(5), the comprehensive plan shall include the following elements: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each n existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. Response: As described in the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment application, the subject property is 18.6± acres and is proposed to be developed with approximately 100,000 square - feet of commercial uses. 1. Each future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included, and must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities. The proposed distribution, location, and extent of the various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map series which shall be supplemented by goals, policies, and measurable objectives. Response: The proposed Logan Boulevard/Immokolee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict will create a new future land use category which will have limitations on the type and intensity of uses permitted on the Subdistrict. Exhibit F of the application materials provides the proposed policy language for the new Subdistrict which will guide any future development of the 18.6± acres property. A map illustrating the proposed boundaries of the new Subdistrict is included as Exhibit Z. 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: 2 October 13, 2016 (N Stantec a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Response: The Commercial Market Assessment (Exhibit V) provides an analysis of the existing and future demand for commercial development. The analysis shows the need for the commercial development proposed as part of the Growth Management Plan Amendment, based on a number of relevant market factors. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. Response: The market analysis included as Exhibit V is based on the permanent and seasonal population fluctuations of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. Response: An Environmental Assessment describing the current features of the site including plant species and habitat, and general character of the subject property is attached as Exhibit W. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. Response: Adequate public utilities and services are available to serve the proposed development. Exhibit S of the application includes an analysis of the public facility impact. Letters of Availability from the public utilities and services are included in Exhibit U. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. Response: The subject property is currently undeveloped. There are no nonconforming uses or uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community that currently exist on the property. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. Response: There are no military installations within close proximity to the subject property g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. Response: There are no airports within close proximity to the subject property. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. Response: The subject property is located in an area where public facilities and services are already provided to the site and will not need additional expansion to serve the subject property. Surrounding areas in all directions are predominately residential subdivisions, with few areas for goods and services. The proposed amendment will provide for commercial infill development to provide goods and services to the surrounding areas. By providing these services in this area, the nearby residential uses will not be 3 October 13, 2016 forced to travel additional distances along Immokalee Road, one of Collier County's critical east -west arterial roadways. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. Response: In addition to providing much needed goods and services to an underserved region of Collier County, the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will allow for the development of a vacant property for a commercial shopping center. The future commercial uses will provide employment opportunities for the residents while contributing positively to the regional economy. Public facilities are currently in place, minimizing the capital expenditures needed to provide for the commercial needs to the surrounding community. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Response: The subject property is not located within an antiquated subdivision. Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3177(6) (a)8. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. Response: Public facilities are available to serve the subject property. Letters of availability from the public utility providers are included as Exhibit T. A detailed public facilities impact analysis indicates the development proposed in this application will not create an undue burden on the public facilities serving the subject property. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. Response: Based on the information included in the Environmental Assessment (Exhibit W), the subject property is suitable for the commercial uses proposed. The proposed Growth Management Plan is consistent with this finding. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Response: The Commercial Market Assessment (Exhibit V) provides a detailed analysis of the commercial demand needed to provide goods and services to the surrounding community. Based on the assessment the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment is consistent with this finding. 4 October 13, 2016 10"\ EXHIBIT "CC" UTILITY PROVISIONS APPLICATION Co Y County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliersov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE R I APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION I Name of Applicant(s): Tim Hancock Address: 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd, Ste 300 City: Naples state: FL ZIP: 34108 Telephone:239-649-4040 Cell: Fax:239-643-5716 E -Mail Address: Tim.Hancock@stantec.com Address of Subject Property (If available): 5470 Hidden Oaks Ln City: Naples State: Florida ZIP: 34119 PROPERTY INFORMATION 77 Section/Township/Range: 28/ 48/ 26 Lot: Block: Subdivision: Metes & Bounds Description: See Attached Legal Description Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: See Attached List of Properties TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System x❑ b. City Utility System F C. Franchised Utility System M Provide Name: Collier County d. Package Treatment Plant ❑ (GPD Capacity): e. sentic system I TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED I Check applicable system: a. County Utility System Q b. City Utility System ❑ C. Franchised Utility System ❑ d. Private System (Well) ❑ Provide Name: Collier County Total Population to be Served: 100,000 Square Feet of Commercial Uses Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water -Peak: 23,625 MDD Average Daily: 17,500 GPD B. Sewer -Peak: 16,875 MDD Average Daily: 12,500 GPD If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: 2018 4/15/2015 Page 8 of 16 Coker County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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. N/A Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that 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 an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. The applicant acknowledges the requirement for the utilities within the project to be dedicated to Collier County prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant will be providing the notarized statement with the rezoning submittal and again at the time of Site Development Plan approval, when more detailed information can be provided regarding easement location and actual uses for the property. 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 adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 4/15/2015 Page 9 of 16 Estimated Sewage Project Capacity - COMMERCIAL Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Airport, bus terminal, train stations, port & dock facilities, bathroom waste 75 0 only 0 4 0 (PER PASSENGER) 25 0 Airport, bus terminal, train stations, 0 0 port & dock facilities, bathroom waste 15 0 only 0 15 0 (ADD PER EMPLOYEE PER 8 HR SHIFT) TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Barber & beauty shop (PER SERVICE CHAIR) 75 0 TOTAL 0 0.00 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Bowling Alley bathroom waste only (PER LANE) 50 0 TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Country Club (PER RESIDENT) 100 0 Country Club (ADD PER MEMBER OR PATRON) 25 0 Country Club 0 0 (ADD PER EMPLOYEE PER 8 HR SHIFT) 15 0 TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Doctor and Dentist office (PER PRACTITIONER) 250 0 Doctor and Dentist office (ADD PER EMPLOYEE PER 8 HR SHIFT) 15 0 TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Factories, exclusive of industrial waste day 540 40 gallons per employee per 8 hr shift (PER SEAT) 15 0 (NO SHOWERS) 15 0 Factories, exclusive of industrial waste gallons per employee per 8 hr shift 25 0 (SHOWERS PROVIDED) TOTAL 0 50 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Flea Market open 3 or LESS days per day 540 40 week (PER SEAT) (PER NON-FOOD SERVICE VENDOR 15 0 SPACE) Flea Market open 3 or LESS days per week (ADD PER FOOD SERVICE USING 50 0 SINGLE SERVICE ARTICLES ONLY PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) Flea Market open 3 or LESS days per week (PER LIMITED FOOD SERVICE 25 0 ESTABLISHMENT) Flea Market open MORE than 3 days per week (PER NON-FOOD SERVICE VENDOR 30 0 SPACE) Flea Market open MORE than 3 days per week (ADD PER FOOD SERVICE USING 100 0 SINGLE SERVICE ARTICLES ONLY PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) Flea Market open MORE than 3 days per week (PER LIMITED FOOD SERVICE 50 D ESTABLISHMENT) TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Restaurant opening 16 hrs or less per day 540 40 21600 (PER SEAT) Restaurant opening more than 16 hrs ## Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) per day 60 0 (PER SEAT) 100 0 Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hrs or less per 200 0 day 20 0 (PER SEAT) Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hrs or less per day 35 0 (PER SEAT) Bar and cocktail lounge (PER SEAT 20 0 Bar and gaming lounge (PER POOL TABLE) 15 0 Drive-in restaurant (PER CAR SPACE) 50 0 Carry -out only, including caterers (PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) 50 0 Carry -out only, including caterers (ADD PER EMPLOYEE PER 8 HR SHIFT) 15 0 Institutions (PER MEAL) 5 0 Food Outlets excluding deli's, bakery, or meat dpt 10 0 (PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) Food Outlets DELI (ADD PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) 40 0 Food Outlets BAKERY (ADD PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) 40 0 Food Outlets MEAT DPT (ADD PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) 75 0 Food Outlets (ADD PER WATER CLOSET) 200 0 TOTAL 540 21600 Type of Establishment ## Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Hotels & Motels (REGULAR PER ROOM) 100 0 Hotels & Motels (RESORT HOTELS, CAMPS, COTTAGES 200 0 PER ROOM) Hotels & Motels (WITH SELF SERVICE LAUNDRY 750 0 FACILITIES PER MACHINE) TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Mobile Home Park (PER SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME 15 0 SPACE, LESS THAN 4 SINGLE WIDE 250 0 SPACES CONNECTED TO A SHARED 15 0 ONSITE SYSTEM Mobile Home Park (PER SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME SPACE, 4 OR MORE SINGLE WIDE 225 0 SPACES CONNECTED TO A SHARED ONSITE SYSTEM Mobile Home Park (PER DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE HOME SPACE,LESS THAN 4 DOUBLE WIDE 300 0 SPACES CONNECTED TO A SHARED ONSITE SYSTEM) Mobile Home Park (PER DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE HOME SPACE, 4 OR MORE DOUBLE WIDE 275 0 SPACES CONNECTED TO A SHARED ONSITE SYSTEM TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment* # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Office building (PER EMPLOYEE PER 8 HR SHIFT) 15 0 Office building 50 0 (PER 100 SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) 15 0 * use whichever is greater (do not sum flows) Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Transient Recreational Vehicle Park (FOR OVERNIGHT STAY, WITHOUT WATER AND SEWER HOOKUP PER 50 0 VEHICLE SPACE) Transient Recreational Vehicle Park (FOR OVERNIGHT STAY, WITH WATER 75 AND SEWER HOOKUP PER VEHICLE TOTAL Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Service Stations per water closet (OPEN 16 HRS PER DAY OR LESS) 250 0 Service Stations per water closet 0 0 (OPEN MORE THAN 16 HRS PER DAY) 325 0 Shopping Center without food or laundry 80000 0.1 8000 (PER SQ FT OF FLOOR SPACE) 0 0 Stadiums, race tracks, ball parks (PER SEAT) 4 0 TOTAL 80000 8000 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Stores (PER BATHROOM) 200 0 TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Swimming and bathing facilities, public (PER PERSON) 10 0 TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Theaters and Auditoriums (PER PERSON) 4 0 TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Veterinary Clinic (PER PRACTITIONER) 250 0 Veterinary Clinic (ADD PER EMPLOYEE PER 8 HR SHIFT) 15 0 Veterinary Clinic (ADD PER KENNEL, STALL OR CAGE) 20 0 TOTAL 0 0 Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Calculated Flow (GPD) Warehouse 1 4.08 1 120796 83.9 (ADD PER EMPLOYEE PER 8 HR SHIFT) 15 0 Warehouse (ADD PER LOADING BAY) 100 0 Warehouse* (SELF -STORAGE, PER UNIT UP TO 200 1 0 UNITS) TOTAL 0 0 r+uu ganon ror eacn z upas or Traction tnereot, for over z00 units and shall be in addition to employees, offices or living quarters Type of Establishment # Units Sewage Flow GDP (F.A.C.) Falculated Flow (GPD) Other 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 Total Calculated Average Daily Flaw Peak Factor Total Peak Hour Flow Total Peak Hour Flow 29600 1 4.08 1 120796 83.9 POSTED SIGNS