Loading...
CCPC Agenda 05/04/2017 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,MAY 4, 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—April 6,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PL20160000183: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6- BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3- BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the project to be known as Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development, to allow construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units on property located in the northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37+/- acres; and providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Eric Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner] Note: This item is being continued to the May 18,2017 CCPC meeting: B. PDI-PL20160000404: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek RPUD, Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, for property located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith, AICP,Principal Planner] C. CU-PL20130000320: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a facility for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste and an accessory use of incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands (A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands) pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv. of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of U.S. 41 East and Riggs Road, in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp April 6, 2017 Page 1 of 26 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 6th, 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: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative April 6, 2017 Page 2 of 26 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Welcome, everybody, to the April 6th 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: Before we ask the secretary to do the roll call, I wish to welcome Mr. Ned Fryer as a new member today. He was appointed with District 4, which is Commissioner Taylor's district. And with that, I see Karen's just coming on board. So, Diane, would you mind doing the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You had to say it out loud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had to wait for you to get here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're waiting for you, Karen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, good morning. Now you got me. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: 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: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda: We have two items scheduled. One is the Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road commercial infill subdistrict. The other is the temporary moratorium on marijuana dispensing businesses. This says "cannabis" (phonetic), but I never heard it referred to like that generally, so... And then, Mike, I think you had an add-on item you wanted to talk about. MR. BOSI: Correct, Chair. It's under new business; just a temporary change to the administrative code. I wanted to speak to the Planning Commission that we're -- before we get to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But for the benefit of the audience that's either watching or here that may want to stay for that, can you tell us what the subject matter is? MR. BOSI: It's a proposal to eliminate the holding of NIMs. NIMs are neighborhood information meetings which are required for all public land use petitions. There's a suggestion that we would eliminate the June, July, and August months as being eligible for NIMs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that will be added as a new business item under 10. Planning Commission absences: Our next meeting is this month on April 20th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the 20th? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- okay. We'll have a quorum. That brings us to the approval of minutes. And since we had such a long vacation, if you want to call it that, for the last almost six weeks, we have a series of minutes to be approved. We'll take them one at a time. The first one's Jan 30th, 2017, special LDC meeting. If there's no changes, is there a motion to approve? April 6, 2017 Page 3 of 26 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 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 7-0. That takes us to the second one, which is February 2nd, 2017. Same request. Anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Stan. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 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 7-0. And the third one is February 16th, 2017. Same request. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, motion to approve. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: On those three -- and I don't know where it is. You spelled a word h-a-l-t, h-a-u-l-t. If you do a control F, you'll be able to find it. It's not important, but -- you know. There's -- the rest of them were okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that note, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. April 6, 2017 Page 4 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. BCC report and recaps: Mike, that is you today, I assume. MR. BOSI: I did not prepare any recaps from the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we need Ray to do that. Does he have to show up for all these meetings? MR. BOSI: At the 28th, they did adopt the golf course moratorium, or the golf course amendments that now require stakeholder outreach meetings in a process before an application, before a golf course could be converted. So at the last meeting the Board did adopt those amendments related to golf course conversion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you, sir. Under chairman's report, just a couple of notes, since we've been away for a while. Please remember to speak, let's say, slow enough for the court reporter to be able to take down our discussion because she has to keep up with everything we say. And a few of us have had some coffee this morning, so we tend to talk faster. I will try to be slow. And that goes to Mr. Hancock, too. He's in the audience, and he's going to be presenting today. So cautioning him ahead of time. And also, for members of the commission, please wait to be recognized before you speak so that we don't have people talking over one another, again, for the court reporter. And with that, we will move into the -- well, consent agenda. There's nothing left over from our prior meeting. Oh, I'll do a report. Tollgate, finally, after weeks, got the language corrected, and it now is moving on to the Board. What date is that scheduled, Mike; do you know? Well, that's a Ray issue, right? MR. BOSI: No. I believe it's -- I believe the April 25th. It's scheduled for the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. And that takes us to the advertised public hearings. ***The first item up is 9A. It's PL20160001100/CP2016-2. It's Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill subdistrict. 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: We'll start with disclosures with Mr. Eastman way on the end. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I got a bunch of emails a long time ago, even before I got the packet, and then I talked to Tim Hancock and the attorney. What's his name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bruce, yeah. I'm joking. I'm joking. COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I talked with Mr. Ratteree, I've talked with staff, and I've talked with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have, likewise, all the same individuals that Diane has talked to plus Mr. Hancock this morning and various members of the civic association, with the Oaks Advisory Group, and some people with Saturnia. So with that, Diane? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean Karen; I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had nothing. I've just phone-tagged with Bruce Anderson, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Spoke with Tim Hancock; just discussed the issues primarily related to the authorized uses. Nothing other significant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. April 6, 2017 Page 5 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move directly into the presentation by the applicant, then we'll -- I see the applicant's looking at you. Is there a reason for that? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. Mr. Chairman, if you'd allow me to speak for a few moments before they give their presentation. Over the last few weeks you and a number of others have received more than two different recommendations on this application, and I want to be sure that all of us are working from the same document. The most recent recommendation, at least the Planning Commissioners themselves, you should have received as a handout before you sat down. A few pages -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I didn't. MR. SCHMIDT: -- do not have a heading, do not have page numbers, and the top page appears to be two colors with underlining and strikethrough editing. That's the document we'll be focusing on today. After I speak here, I'll make sure that the public has them and the audience, if they ask for them. For this handful, these five pages, the most important pages to focus on really are the last two pages. Because we have worked quickly with staff and the applicant team, you have in front of you a more easily-read clean version on those last two pages to follow along, not muddled by previous strikethroughs and underlines. I'll mention a few things about the document. When it leaves here today, we will reorder it so it's more like the LDC reads. I believe that this is just the work order. There wasn't time to also do that previously. Also to mention -- and this has been the approach all along -- some of those specific limitations on certain uses would be captured in the companion Planned Unit Development document when that time comes, and that will be presented by Tim as well. And, obviously, the Exhibit A version of this, again, once it leaves you with your recommendation today, will be entirely underlined because it's an all-new subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that all at this point? MR. SCHMIDT: It is, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Corby, the email you sent out on the 31st with that attachment, so that's no longer valid either? MR. SCHMIDT: It is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's been superceded. MR. SCHMIDT: It's been superceded, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: By this document then? MR. SCHMIDT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because you had -- basically that was the staff report and many changes, again, to the uses? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: And now this latest version is a bit closer to where we want to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this morning, or last night, there was another version sent to me by Mr. Anderson that Corby has attached to the -- that's part of the package you just handed out, is it not? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Okay. So, Mike? MR. BOSI: And, Chair, just to point out, and especially for some of the newer members, this is a Growth Management Plan amendment. This is a full-scale amendment and, as required by state statute, this will be heard twice by the Planning Commission; once during transmittal and then a recommendation will be forward to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will take action on that item. It will be sent to the State Department of Economic Opportunity. They were provided a review. It will come back, we'll make modifications, if any, based upon the state review, and then we'll have adoption hearings. April 6, 2017 Page 6 of 26 So this is a two -- or this is a two-step process. This is the first of the transmittal hearings, and then we'll have adoption hearings, but that will be later on. So just -- so for the new members, that's the process that's associated with a Growth Management Plan -- a full-scale amendment to the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, Mike, do you anticipate, when it comes back for adoption, it will be accompanied with the PUD amendment as well? MR. BOSI: That is -- that is traditionally how we handle it. At transmittal it's solely as the Growth Management Plan amendment. When it comes back, it will have the corresponding Planned Unit Development with the specific zoning regulations and restrictions and development standards that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and ultimately decided by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only issue I'd like to point out is that this is a good way to approach it by listing the principal and prohibited uses. It makes it clear to the residents and to the public exactly what is intended for the use of this property. And I have to applaud the applicant for amending it the number of times over the last period of time because they got input from various civic associations and individuals about things that were concerning. And it appears that since the applicant wasn't going to want those uses anyway, they agreed, and that's how some of these amendments came about. Now, for the first round, when we first got it, I sat and compared an amendment then with what Corby had proposed, and then I had a meeting with staff, and we walked through all the differences. Well, since then there's been two more submittals of differences. So all I want to make sure is that by the time we're done today, we've got a handle on what it is that we're changing, and then more -- you're scheduled to have this heard when by the Board of County Commissioners? Do we know? MR. HANCOCK: May 9th, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we have a meeting on the 20th that this would most likely come back, then, on consent to make sure that everything that has been talked about today gets properly allocated here. Mike, would that jeopardize -- a consent jeopardize their hearing before the Board? MR. BOSI: No. We can most certainly post the item to the agenda system and be able to update it post the consent hearing for the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll confirm the consent before the day's over, so... Okay. With that, Tim, it's all yours. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning. Tim Hancock with StanTech representing the applicant, Immokalee Road Associates. My co-agent on this application, Bruce Anderson, had to attend to an emergency situation last night, sends his apologies and regrets; mainly his regret to the court reporter and the rest of you, as you have to listen to me instead of him. But the applicant, Immokalee Road Associates, is represented here today by Kevin Ratterree with GL. Many of you have seen Kevin over the years representing primarily residential projects in Collier County; and also Mr. Michael Friedman with GL commercial, a project team here today to address any questions you may have. It is not our intent to put them on for testimony purposes at this time; Mr. Jeff Perry, AICP, a transportation planner with Stantec; and Kristine Smale, market and demand analysis -- excuse me -- analyst with John Burns Real Estate Consulting. Bruce indicated to me he was going to make some brief introductory remarks, so I'll do my best to channel my inner Bruce and just give you some background information and then open things up for your questions this morning. The aerial you see on the visualizer shows the property, which is at 18.6 acres, lying at the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard. To the west of the property is Logan Boulevard, and then further beyond that, predominantly Estates zoning, better known as the Oaks homeowners' area. And as you go further west is Tarpon Bay, and then April 6, 2017 Page 7 of 26 I-75, which is all the way out to the left of the aerial you see before you. To the north and west are the communities of Longshore Lake, Quail Creek Village, and Quail Creek a little bit more to the north. Northeast lies a pocket community called Lantana, as well as the community of Old Cypress, and further north are Riverstone and Stone Creek, both of which are GL communities. To the west and southwest is approximately 20 acres of vacant land, and then Saturnia Lakes, and those would be directly east -- I'm sorry, directly east, and then another GL community, which is Saturnia Lakes, further to the east and also to the south and east. Directly south is a landscape nursery and maintenance business owned by Mr. Colin Walker under the name Workaholics. The dominant effect of this aerial to me is when you look at it what you see first and foremost are the high number of residential rooftops within a relatively small area, a lot of developments, a lot of residents needing services. And all exhibits being placed on the visualizer are parts of your packet today. None of these exhibits are new. This aerial shows more the immediate proximity of the site to its surroundings. The plan of development that this GMPA would authorize is to construct up to 100,000 square feet of commercial shopping center and outbuildings on 18.6 acres. This is an intensity of approximately 5,400 square feet per acre. This is a rather low intensity when compared to more recent commercial shopping center developments which typically will fall somewhere north of 7,000 square feet to about 9,000 square feet per acre. While a Growth Management Plan amendment does not typically require -- does not typically require a site plan, we've included one in our application to help the public and this body see the style and character of development being proposed. With the lower intensity and the interest from restaurants and specialty grocers, this development will be more of a lifestyle center versus a traditional shopping center focusing on providing goods and services to those that lie within the immediate surrounding area. The site plan you see here is the basis for a rezone application that has already been filed for this project and received its first round of review comments. Assuming this Growth Management Plan amendment is approved for transmittal, we anticipate bringing the rezone application forward for consideration by this body at the same time you're considering the Growth Management Plan amendment for adoption. This will allow for any furthering of development regulations to be considered at that time as the land use change to ensure increased consistency and compatibility with the surrounding properties. This project is rather unique in that GL has developed and continues to develop high-quality residential communities in the area. From Saturnia Lakes to their current effort at Stone Creek, their residents have many times spoken of their wish to have quality and convenient commercial development nearby. GL sees this project as an opportunity to provide a commercial amenity to its residents in a central location bringing desirable end-users to the marketplace for not just their residents, but all residents in the area. GL is also not just the developer of this project. Their model is to develop, lease, own, and maintain their commercial assets for the long term. This has allowed us, in our interaction with residents, to speak with a higher degree of specificity at this stage than we normally would be, and it's been most helpful, quite honestly, in how we deal with the questions and comments that have been received so far. Mr. Ratterree and Mr. Friedman took this approach several steps further in a very open and thorough public involvement and information campaign by meeting with surrounding neighborhoods and discussing the development plans in detail. Starting in October of last year, they met with the residents of Long Shore Lakes and Old Cypress. In November, they met with the residents of Saturnia Lakes, and with the community of Riverstone in December. We then held our required information meeting in March and have also had many followup conversations by email and telephone with interested residents, including the Oaks Homeowners' group, and have further amended our proposed language to address as many of the concerns that have been raised as possible. April 6, 2017 Page 8 of 26 This extensive and collaborative effort involving communicating and listening was evident in our neighborhood information meeting in March where there were more questions about how quickly we can get this project built than there were concerns. While everyone recognizes every project has its challenges, Immokalee Road is not the most pleasant roadway at 5:30 or 6 o'clock in the evening when traveling to the east. That being said, for thousands of residents, this project will serve to provide services and convenience retail closer to them than currently existing and may have an overall benefit in at least reducing lane miles traveled for certain services. Also included within your packet -- and we do not plan on putting on testimony, but Kristine is here to answer any questions -- is a market study that we found to be very thorough in the sense that not only did it identify what the needs are, it also identified where there are needs. And that basis was used by staff in suggesting that certain uses not be included. If we live by the sword, we die by the sword. So if our market study says a certain element isn't required or there's no demand, well, there's no reason to put it in our language. And so the market study, I think, really did a very nice job of capturing the demand in the area, and we believe the uses that you see here and the intensity level of the project respond to that market study very well. We've all received emails of support from residents of Saturnia Lakes, Riverstone, and Stone Creek. I have copies of those emails in the event they were not forwarded to you at some point in this process, and I will be providing those as a part of the record today. I guess what I'd like to do is put the language up that is -- as Mr. Schmidt indicated, probably the easiest way to look at this language is to look at the clean-copy version. What I've done is we have a total of four -- and I do have additional copies of this for the record as well. Mr. Strain, this may be what you received from Mr. Anderson last night, but I'm not entirely -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is, yes. At least I recognize the highlighting and the format, so... MR. HANCOCK: We're pleased to be here before you today with a staff recommendation of approval based on revised and updated language with regard to permitted and disallowed land uses in the Growth Management Plan amendment. The list of permitted uses you see in the most recent language here as proposed by staff is the result of the community meetings that I've elaborated on. The only changes that we are offering or suggesting here are to make minor clarifications to ensure that what has been conveyed publicly is fully represented in the Growth Management Plan language. That being said, my conversation with Mr. Schmidt before the hearing, a couple of these clarifications may be most appropriate in the zoning document, at which time we are happy to move those down the road. But we wanted to make sure that the residents who were watching and monitoring this knew that we heard what they requested and that we're doing our best to make sure that we identify those uses and, more importantly, the ones that may not be included going forward. So let me go over those -- the changes in front of you. Mr. Chairman, would it be helpful to everyone if I handed out hard copies of this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you already did, didn't you? They're the back two pages of what we previously -- the package we have. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. If you have the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a four- or five-page package, and I think the back two pages -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The back two pages is, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course, it's not highlighted in yellow. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have one highlighted in yellow -- MR. HANCOCK: I do, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it matches what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But the back two pages are not that, that I have. MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, I believe that the document given to you by Corby earlier does not encompass those changes that are presented on the screen right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They're not. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They're not. April 6, 2017 Page 9 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Tim, how many copies would -- let me see. Who hasn't got a copy here? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since I do everything electronically, I don't have a copy. This is only -- MR. HANCOCK: It should be one page front and back. I made 15 copies, so we should be ballpark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any left over for any members of the public that would wish to see it? The County Attorney's Office, did you get one? MR. STONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think Heidi needs one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she's getting one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, in essence, this now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Replaces that packet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- replaces this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Well, that's what I think the applicant's asking. We've just got to walk through it. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. I have four items to point out to you and, like I said, two of them may be most appropriate for the PUD, and we'll accept your direction on that, but let me go over the four -- these are the -- there are only four changes to what -- Corby's language that you last received. So let me go over those four very quickly with you. The first one, under personal services, miscellaneous, 7299, we're offering a clarification here because there were a lot of things under 7299 that were found objectionable. And so what we're suggesting is, whether this be more appropriate for the PUD or for the Growth Management Plan amendment, we'll seek your direction on, but that we allow only depilatory salons and hair removal to -- in a sense these are the same thing. These are wax salons and so forth. I'm married. I know about these things. Tanning salons and massage services only as part of an establishment such as a day spa providing other permitted uses. The reason for this clarification is we wanted to make sure that, for lack of a better phrase, the more seedy elements of things such as massage parlors and Turkish baths are prohibited; however, day spas, MassageLuXe, Massage Envy, we received positive feedback from the community on those uses. So we wanted to draw that distinction, and it doesn't really exist in the SIC code. So we're crafting on the fly with this. Again, maybe more appropriate in the PUD as opposed to the Growth Management Plan and, again, your direction on that is welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we head off that one, since you are discussing that issue at this time, personal services -- and it says everything you just stated, but it says only as a part of an establishment such as a day spa providing other permitted uses. Where is a day spa spelled out as being permitted to begin with so that those other uses could be associated with it? You're saying it's 7299, is what I'm assuming. MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately, if you're a -- when we talk about a spa, you talk about something like a MassageLuXe or a Massage Envy. They actually fall under, when they get their business license, SIC Code 7299. There are considered a massage parlor by SIC code standards. The purpose of this definition is to try and draw a distinction that a massage parlor would not be permitted but a day spa, which is -- I'm sorry, but it's fairly undefined -- would be. And maybe that's why the crafting of this is better in the PUD, but we want to make sure we're clear on that distinction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we focus on the last part of that, it says, tanning salons and massage services only as part of an establishment such as a day spa providing other permitted services. All I'm suggesting, then, there must be another part of 7299 that specifically allows the element that day spa would fit under; is that a true statement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then wouldn't we want to say include that as part of the word -- after the word "only" so that -- if you want to include the day spa to provide as part of the other April 6, 2017 Page 10 of 26 permitted services, it would need to be in the first part of that clarification, wouldn't it? Because right now the only things you seem to have is the salons and the hair removing and the tanning salons, but the massage services can only be there if they're part of a day spa, but the day spa isn't a listed item. That all I'm suggesting. MR. HANCOCK: I understand, and we've wrestled with this several different ways, and we're certainly open to clarifying that, as long as the distinction is understood and the record is clear on we're talking about this character of use, not this character of use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look at NAICS to see if they had a conversion? MR. HANCOCK: We did, and it also was not overly clear. And I'm -- to be honest with you, I think there are some other areas of NAICS that we can cross-reference that will provide some clarity, but I thought that was a little bit of an undertaking for today's decision. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could you maybe put -- because I know what you're trying to get at here. Could you put day spa, have the SIC code and put the day spa first under that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's saying there's no SIC code for day spa. That's the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know it, but things have changed since '87. MR. HANCOCK: A few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SIC codes haven't changed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know they haven't, but neither have gas stations. But as it turns out, can you -- because I went through this. Can you maybe move the day spa around so it makes more sense in this? MR. HANCOCK: We certainly can do that. And let me suggest, as a way to move forward with today's conversation, that we discuss this from the standpoint of you understand what our intent is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. HANCOCK: And if you agree that this may be more appropriate in the PUD, then we can move it to that and work on the language in the interim. The other alternative would be to work on this language and bring it back to you as part of GMPA. But either way, I think it's going to take some team work here to get it put together in a way that everybody's comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's figure that out as we go on and see other changes that you have, then. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. Decidedly more easy, under retail services, we've removed 5993, which is tobacco shops. That was at the request of the Oaks homeowners. So that highlight right there is really just the removal of SIC Code 5993. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It says 5994. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. It's because it used to say 5992 to 5999. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh. I see. MR. HANCOCK: So I removed 5993 and inserted the next number. So the effect is the removal of 5993. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got it. Okay. Thanks. MR. HANCOCK: Under eating places, SIC 5812. Again, at the request of the Oaks homeowners, we are not including -- and these are specific SIC listings under this -- dinner theaters; drive-in restaurants; industrial feeding; and theaters, comma, dinner. Not sure the difference. But since we don't plan on doing them, we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at your second line under retail. You say 5994 through 5999 except pawn shops and building materials, comma, then you restate 5992 to 5999 and you go into exceptions again. What do you need to restate that series of numbers for? MR. HANCOCK: We don't. I think that was a cut-and-paste leave-in from the original document that probably needs to be cleaned up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just out of curiosity, what's industrial feeding? Like, it's like April 6, 2017 Page 11 of 26 Michelbob's or something? MR. HANCOCK: Only on rib day. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I hope they weren't listening. I eat there. MR. HANCOCK: To be honest with you, it's like one of thousands of things in the SIC code, and I have honestly no idea. I could make something up that sounds good but, you know, the truth is, industrial feeding to me is just large-scale mass processing of food that you would put forward, you know. For example, if you were making meals that go on airplanes, that may be qualified as industrial feeding, but that's the best guess I've got. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Catering services. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question with respect to the SIC code structure. Is a definition of a permitted use defined by words of limitation or would the definition include common understandings, dictionary definitions of these terms? MR. HANCOCK: From my experience with the SIC code is the SIC code and the dictionary have little in uncommon. Crafted in 1987, what it tried to do was list every single thing in the world and put it under a category, and the problem we have is things such as the example of a MassageLuXe. 1987, most spas were associated with hotel properties, for example. Well, they've kind of branched out and become stand-alone uses now, and the SIC code hasn't caught up with it. So the structure of the SIC code is you have large groups of uses broken down into subheadings, and under each subheading is a very detailed listing of uses. And if it's not in there, it's not permitted. So the concern we have as the applicant is that we're trying to figure out where things we're pretty sure make a lot of sense here fit under the SIC code. And, in some cases, there's not a clean fit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's defined by words of limitation? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, in the sense that the descriptors are very specific for each use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at some point, I'm sure that staff will arrange a meeting with Mr. Fryer so you can pass on these books to him. So you'll get to have a nice, thick book of very pleasant reading so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be part of it. And that is one of the books that you should receive is a Standard Industrial Classification Code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've actually seen them online, but I'd be happy to have the book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The online system's actually much better to use than a book. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim. MR. HANCOCK: And the last of the four suggested items at the bottom of the first page is under security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges and services; 6211 deals with one facet of that, 6282 deals with financial advisors, and we were thinking something along the lines of a Charles Schwab or Edward Jones maybe under a financial advisor and, therefore, we're requesting the addition of 6282. Those are the only changes or clarifications that we are seeking to the language that staff has put forward. And with that, I'm going to conclude. And, I'm sorry, the one thing that is not in this that we have discussed and agreed to is a cap of 45,000 square feet on any one box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the top paragraph. MR. HANCOCK: Is it? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: And with that -- is there anything else, Kevin? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is -- just a general statement before we go into questions. You had gotten a letter from -- or an email from John Nicola with the Oaks Advisory Group, and in it, apparently, there was an agreement to strike a series of personal services and some other eating establishments. I find the eating establishments ones pretty much; industrial feeding, that makes sense. Where did you strike the personal services? Was that by mere omission of the SIC numbers, or how did you handle that? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And let me get my email from Mr. Nicola. April 6, 2017 Page 12 of 26 Under personal services, which -- the ones that they requested be stricken were under our 7299. So by listing 7299 and allowing only the language you see there, the tanning salons, the depilatory hair removal and day spas, the rest are, therefore, omitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, this new handout does that. Last night's didn't, so that works. MR. HANCOCK: And then the -- and, I'm sorry. You mentioned that you did see the restaurant ones, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Yeah, you've got those. Industrial feeding, Stan's favorite; that sticks out. So it's there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm trying to reconcile the two iterations of, I guess, what is on Page 67, Section 13, the list of permitted uses. And I look at the one that we were handed out this morning, record and prerecorded tape stores. Aside from the fact that that's fairly archaic language, I guess we're stuck with it. But then in underlining, which I interfere means addition, is the language "musical instrument stores" with an SIC code, but I don't see that on the latest iteration, the one with the yellow lines. MR. HANCOCK: And, sir, I think that's because what you received last night was a strikethrough underline of things that were being added. This is a clean copy, which means that if they were a part of what staff was recommending, they have no underline. The only underlines you see here are those that we as the applicant are asking for your consideration today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right, but an ultimate draft of this, the one we received first thing this morning, has underlined, which I assume means added, right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It says, music instrument stores with an SIC code. That is not what is shown on the latest version. It just simply says record and prerecorded tape stores. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner, I believe I can answer that, okay. The musical instrument store appears in the strikethrough/underlined version you received as a handout from staff, both struck through and underlined. It was simply moved to be in a similar grouping. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do. Dry-cleaning plants, you're looking for dry cleaners, right? MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Because that's the wrong number. It's 7212. Then you wouldn't need all the nonindustrial, because that's -- dry-cleaning plants is only industrial. MR. HANCOCK: And I do have a clarification on that that I think I can provide you that was part of our conversation. 7212 is pickup and dropoff only, basically, and garment pressing. It does not allow for the actual cleaning of the material. And what we're talking about here is not a dry-cleaning plant in the traditional sense that you have, you know, all the chemicals, all that kind of thing. And there are standards now that I think would be most appropriate at the time of zoning to address. But, for example, using a brand name out there we all recognize, Tide Dry Cleaners. You know, the material they get in is in pelletized form; there are no liquid chemicals used. There are green standards for dry cleaners that I think we can review, look at, and incorporate at the time of zoning. But we want to have the ability for those green technologies, that green cleaning of clothes to occur on site, not have to be sent off to another site, which is why, Commissioner Homiak, we have dry-cleaning plants in there, which leaves the door open for that to occur at time of zoning. Because if it were pickup and dropoff only, even a Tide Dry Cleaner would not be allowed to locate in this center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the -- no adult-oriented sales or rentals would come in the PUD or -- since it's -- since you have the prerecorded tape stores listed here, would it be included here or later on? MR. HANCOCK: I believe those -- yeah, later on would be the appropriate -- I think the PUD April 6, 2017 Page 13 of 26 would be the appropriate place for a further restriction, if required. This is where we go through the machination of finding out if that's the SIC code that particular use would fall under or whether it's somewhere else in the code, so it may already be not permitted, but I would have to look at it specifically. But, clearly, it is our intent not to have that type of use within this project. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was reading the NIM minutes or -- and it was in -- and also the tire dealers. It was -- I read it. I think it was stated actually at the NIM that you wouldn't have any tire stores for changing of tires and -- for the noise. MR. HANCOCK: And the auto and home supply are the retail side of that. Again, we can -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Tire dealers. It includes tire dealers, 5531. MR. HANCOCK: It was just pointed out to me by my client, under precluded uses, 5511 is precluded. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's -- 5531 has tire dealers included in that SIC code, auto supply stores. Did you intend to put a tire dealer there? MR. HANCOCK: Not a tire dealer; just an auto supply store on the retail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under auto supply and home stores under the SIC Code 5531, could you say except if it lists it as tire dealers as a use, just to list -- just say "except tire dealers." You have done that other locations here, so that would work. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, in essence, it allows, like, an AutoZone or whatever, the similar type of product, but not a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a Tire Kingdom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not a Tire Kingdom. MR. HANCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: To use brand names. MR. HANCOCK: Sometimes it's the only way to walk through this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only way to do it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think so. I have so many scribbles here I can't tell now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those are all outdated. We've got a whole new list. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know, but I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You know, I went through the entire -- I did the same thing. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know, but I went through the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then I got Corby's change, and now this. This cleans up everything for me. MR. HANCOCK: What I did on, again, getting Corby's language last night, is I compared it to the previous version, and what I found was the net result was two items were removed. Everything else was relocated or identified, so -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. HANCOCK: -- the uses between those two, I think there were only two that were pulled out altogether, and then the further changes we've discussed this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the presenter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, I have one that's probably more holistic in approach then. Apparently you guys have planned this carefully so far, because I saw the renderings that you included with the NIM, and I wanted to caution you, by the way, that all those commitments at the NIM, many of them are more applicable to the PUD, and you did the NIM for both. So I'm sure we'll go through the minutes from that NIM and make sure that everything you committed to is incorporated in the PUD. So you might expect that and have it done anyway. But if these are the uses that you're intending, I'm concerned about the language in the second paragraph. The subdistrict allows only those uses permitted by right and by conditional use within the C3 zoning district as listed in the Land Development Code amended and in effect as of the day of the adoption of April 6, 2017 Page 14 of 26 the subdistrict further limited to the following now. Now, you went to the effort to limit the principal uses that should be there, but then you specifically listed prohibited uses that you were looking at. And some people -- and we've had all kinds of attempts in front of this board in the future -- as the future goes on to say, well, if they really intended all the 123 uses in C3 to be prohibited that weren't listed, they should have listed them all as prohibited uses. I don't know if you've done that. When I say 123 uses, I'm not talking about the range in the SIC codes that fall within every category. That's just the category. So there's probably close to 250 to 300 uses there, or more, when you get into the sub-uses of the SIC code categories. What I would suggest is that second paragraph read something to the effect, the subdistrict allows only those uses, and strike the rest of it until the last four words, "limited to the following." Then you've -- these are the uses you get, and then we can leave the prohibited uses in there as to highlight, but it clearly takes out the reference to the broadness of C1 through C3 and all those mysterious SIC codes that are hidden in sub-footnotes to the SIC document that we've -- we're not addressing here. And if we had to address them, we'd be here all afternoon. And I think your client's saying that's okay. That would solve a lot of issues, so... MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I think we can come back with that and, with that, do a thorough review of the C1, C2, C3 and see if there's anything not listed that is innocuous and makes sense. But, for the most part, what we have here is what we anticipate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if we want to -- if you want to do what you just suggested, we would have to hold up on a vote today and vote and maybe do a vote and consent at the same meeting, but we couldn't do a vote today, then, because you'd be adding things, and you can't do that on consent. MR. HANCOCK: In that case, never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could you just repeat what you suggested for them to do so I can write it down. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you making that -- are you going to consent to that change? That's the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think their -- I think he said yes. He already acknowledged that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it does clarify; very clear. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It certainly does. MR. HANCOCK: And I just wanted to be clear with my client and make sure, you know, I didn't miss that. But, yes, what you see here is what we intend to do. So what we're talking about is clarifying that this is not the gamut of C1 through C3. Oh, and we're listing a few more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read the language, as Diane had asked. That second paragraph would read something -- I mean, Corby likes to change language a bit to clarify it, and he's more than welcome to, but the intention would be the first six words, "the subdistrict allows only those uses," and then the last four of that paragraph, "limited to the following." COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So everything is struck; everything else is gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything in between those is gone. The lists stay the same as they are, and we don't have to worry about any hidden intentions that someone in the future may argue if your client isn't the one operating this shopping center or something changes, and that typically happens a lot in this county, so... MR. HANCOCK: Would you, then, remove the prohibited uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for the -- I think for your strategy moving forward to the Board, you'd probably be better off just leaving them in since you're not going to use them anyway, and it does show that you've gone to the extreme to try to meet the intent -- the concerns of the neighborhood. So you're hitting it both ways. You're hitting it positive in both ways. MR. HANCOCK: That would have been my preference. But yes, sir, we certainly think that's the right way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other comments from the Planning Commission or the applicant, we'll -- April 6, 2017 Page 15 of 26 MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry. My client raised a point that the language of that second paragraph, if it just simply says the subdistrict only allows the following uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but I -- 16 years on this board, I have heard all kinds of arguments from land use planners -- or land use attorneys, and I can see them trying to make a reference that, well, if you really meant to prohibit that use, then it would have been on this list, therefore, it's not, and it gets convoluted, and I'd rather not even go there. Why open the door if you don't need it? MR. HANCOCK: You're trying to protect us from ourselves. We appreciate that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can we say "this subdistrict." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same thing. That's fine. The wording is clear. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, let's go with your presentation. I guess -- you're done at this point, Tim? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Excusing all the confusion with the multiple handouts, deliveries, emails, recommendations, et cetera, I think we've worked through most of those issues between the handout version from staff this morning and what Tim presented with the highlighting. Those four changes in his handout are understood. I believe only one of them, and that's the personal services listing, we may have trouble with the language that we may leave to the PUD; otherwise, all of the other changes he proposes are suitable for the subdistrict language. I have noted that the second paragraph should be amended in some manner to clarify what we've just discussed and to omit those tire dealers from the first listing, and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will entertain the public -- any public speakers. MR. BOSI: Chair, we have had no speaker slips that have been submitted to date. Oh, I guess we do. My apologies. I should have probably instructed them to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Anybody that would like to speak, please provide somebody on one side of the room or the other with the speaker slip. Scott doesn't want them, so he's pushing you over to Mike. And before either of you come up to speak, we'll do this together. Have you -- did you stand to be sworn in when we started? MR. NICOLA: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you didn't, then please stay standing, and the court reporter will swear you in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could please state your name for the record, we will certainly listen. MR. NICOLA: Sure. John Nicola, representative of the Oaks Estates Neighborhood Association, and I just wanted to clarify some of the things that we had discussed, and I would like to commend them, first of all, for their efforts to help us get through this in terms of limiting the uses via SIC code versus the C1 through 2, 3, 4. As we got into it, that was my first concern that I had broached with Kevin. And I'd like to thank them for going this far to help us out with this and his team over there. Our biggest concerns with the Oaks Estates were we didn't want a Home Depot/Lowe's, so we were trying to limit the size of the box there, and that was accomplished by limiting it to 45,000 square feet. The other issues with ambient sound, lighting, and everything could be handled in the CPUD is my understanding of that. I want to make sure that's clear. The last item we wanted to make sure is that the intentions of GL Homes extends beyond them to any future use or future developer; 20, 30 years from now we wanted to make sure that if there were changes or amendments they wanted, it was going to be they would have to go through a complete GMPA April 6, 2017 Page 16 of 26 amendment as well, and I think we've accomplished that. I mean, is that clear? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By listing these the way we have, if someone came in and wanted a use that wasn't listed, they would have to do both a PUD and a GMPA, so they would be in a loop to have to do both. MR. NICOLA: Okay. Well, then that's everything I just wanted to bring to your attention, and I appreciate everybody's hard work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Next speaker, please. MS. SNEED: Good morning. My name is Danielle Sneed. I'm a resident of the Oaks. I've lived there about six or eight months. And I just want to show my support for the project. We are in need of some local boutique shops and restaurants, so I'm looking forward to this project. And I appreciate your hard work in looking at all the different details and what can be included and not included. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That wraps up public speakers. Are there any other questions of anybody by any members of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. Now, I would like this to come back on consent to just make sure that the changes that we've talked about and everything reads correctly. So if the motion maker could consider a motion and then also a request to come back on consent, we'll wrap it up in one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Can -- I'd like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd like to make a motion to approve Petition CP2016-2PL20160001100. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. But are those subject to the changes -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Subject to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that we've talked about? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Subject to the changes we did this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we'll do a separate motion for consent then. Okay. A motion's been made and seconded. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- just to have one comment. It seems consistent with Kevin Ratterree's manner of operation. You did a great job in working with the neighborhood. I wish everybody would follow your lead. This was -- I know the changes came fast and furious in the last couple days, but it was well worth it, and so thank you for the efforts you've outreached to them. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, all in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) April 6, 2017 Page 17 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. And would someone like to make a motion to have this come back on the consent on April 20th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion that it comes back April 20th on consent agenda. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And before -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: My discussion is I've worked with Mr. Ratterree before. He has always come -- before he brings it to the county, he has pretty much worked with everyone around him. He has been gracious taking complaints and, you know, people asking questions. He works very well with the communities around him, and I want to congratulate him for that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, everybody in favor of it coming back for consent, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 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 7-0. Thank you, all, for your participation in this matter. ***And we will move on to the second advertised public hearing, which is 9B. 9B is an ordinance by the -- supported by the Board of County Commissioners for a temporary moratorium on cannabis dispensing businesses. This is more of a straw vote. How are we supposed to approach this? I'm not sure we need to swear everybody in on this one or not. MR. BOSI: Within the staff report, we do ask the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to move forward with the adoption of the moratorium and direct staff to bring back the LDC amendments that will dictate the regulations for the sitting of these. So we are asking for a formal motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's not a quasi-judicial matter. This is more towards -- it's a confirmation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's more legislative, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll just move directly into discussion or, if staff wants to make a report, we've got the pages you sent us. Did you have anything you wanted to add to that? MR. BOSI: Yeah. Mike Bosi, planning and zoning director. Just want to just -- the reason why this moratorium is before you is really a procedural nature. From a due process standpoint, the LPA, the Planning Commission is required to hear any amendments to the Land Development Code. It was suggested by the County Attorney's Office that before we adopted the moratorium that we have the recommendation in the review of the Planning Commission so procedurally we'd follow the same process that we would follow for amending the Land Development Code. So the Board of County Commissioners, with their action on February 14th, have imposed this moratorium. The resolution will memorialize that it has -- it is in effect at the date that the Board directed the moratorium to be brought back to them. This is just a procedural step for the Planning Commission to review, and we're looking for your -- for a recommendation for the Board to move forward with the action proposed within the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, there's been several other moratoriums in the county. I don't recall us being asked to weigh in on those. Do you know why -- we're asking us -- why this one's being asked and the others never did? April 6, 2017 Page 18 of 26 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: At the Board of County Commissioner meeting a couple weeks ago, they requested that it be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But does anybody know why their focus was different on this than they were on the golf course conversions and the gas station moratoriums and the attempted moratorium on the East Trail and all those? I mean, what's different about this one that made them think that -- this has to come back to us when the land planning ones of that other nature didn't come back to us for a moratorium consideration? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We have a new board composition, so it might have been that they have different board members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just curious what to look for. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark, can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Chairman. So my question on this is -- and I think I've seen Lee County has also done something already similar to a 12-month. From a business perspective and regarding the county and the money that's made or not made by these businesses, this cannabis dispensing business, since this thing was just passed statewide, would this moratorium affect people just going -- I know other counties around us are not -- are moving forward quickly and rapidly. Is that going to affect business, i.e., those that want to, potential clients, leaving the county and going to other counties, and are we going to miss the boat from a financial standpoint gain for the county by having a 12-month moratorium? I'm just asking the question. I have no idea. MR. BOSI: I could provide somewhat of a perspective. The way that the legislative process works, there was the voter referendum. It's become -- it's become an allowable use within the state for medical marijuana. Right now the state legislator (sic) is in the process of setting up the regulations for how the process will work. In 2014 the state allowed a limited -- a limited strain of marijuana -- medical marijuana to be provided to certain patients with certain ailments. I think it was referred to as Charlotte's Web. And the way that that structure works is there's seven licensed farms that are allowed to grow and distribute the product. Those seven licensed farms -- and they say it's almost the seed-to-table concept in the sense that those farms are the -- have to grow the product, but they also have to be the entities that dispense the product, and why that is, I believe the State of Florida wants to eliminate third-party involvement within the process. So right now there's only seven license holders that could open up a dispensary in any one of the counties. They are going through the process to evaluate whether that same system is going to be implemented for the wider range of the medical marijuana. After the legislative session wraps up in April, the expectation is the laws that are passed are signed by the governor sometime in July 1st. When the legislative (sic) wraps up, we will take the lead, and we'll start interacting with the local groups to start to develop the structure for how these land use regulations are to be provided. We'll be back to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners sometime in the fall to vet the proposed location criteria for how these -- how they will move forward. So in terms of business opportunity, it's simply a supply and demand, and I don't think because we have adopted this moratorium that we will -- that there will be a lack of interest from the business community in terms of moving forward with these facilities, but we will make sure that we have an agreed upon set of regulations that will appropriately locate where these businesses can provide their services. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Followup question. Thanks, Mike. So just out of curiosity, are there any of those seven license holders/farms, are any of those in Collier County? MR. BOSI: None that I know of that are in the location of Collier County. I think -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just wondering. MR. BOSI: And there was -- there's a pretty strict regulation as to which farms would qualify. They April 6, 2017 Page 19 of 26 had the number of years in business, a number of different criteria. But as of now, there's a wide range of -- there's five bills right now that are circulating between the House and the Senate right now in the State of Florida that have a wide range of dispergants (phonetic). So what eventually comes out will be the basis that we will work from. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The counties adjacent to ours, Miami-Dade and Broward, have adopted ordinances already, as have some other counties in Florida. I assume that these ordinances contain the kinds of restrictions that are referenced in the material that was handed out to us. And I guess then, therefore, over this 12-month period, staff is going to be looking at those restrictions to determine whether they would be right for us; is that -- MR. BOSI: Oh, most certainly. We not only will look to various counties that have adopted their local restrictions and land use criteria, but we've also looked to some of the other states that have a head start, sort of, on the issue and how they've dealt with the -- in terms of their regulatory environments. And there's a lot of information out there. So we are in the process of accumulating a number of different data points and data sources, and we're going to base that as the beginning point of our discussion after the State gives us the framework as to what we need to be working with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will we or staff be hearing from concerned citizens as those restrictions evolve? MR. BOSI: I would imagine when we -- we will be -- we'll have a public process with our Land Development Code amendment team as to our outreach to the communities and asking them to participate within the development of these land use restriction process, and then we will advertise when we bring this back to the Planning Commission and the Board for their attendance to make them aware of their opportunities for another -- another stop to provide their input, especially to the Planning Commission and to the boards. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Two things. It's already been almost six months since this was passed. It seems like another year is a bit excessive. I could think you could write an ordinance up in six months. You know, by November it's been a year. To me that's plenty of time. And the second thing is, your definition of cannabis means all parts of any plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not. You know what that includes: Hemp; rope, sold by Lowe's and Home Depot. They can no longer do that. There are car parts made of hemp. You can't have car dealers in Collier County anymore. There's a whole bunch of stuff out there. I think -- who's your expert on cannabis sativa? MR. BOSI: Who is the expert? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who is your expert on cannabis sativa? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Morgan & Morgan. MR. BOSI: I don't believe that we have identified an expert on staff. We are trying to accumulate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Be careful who you -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm a child of the '60s. I mean, I'm high school class of '64, college was '68, and two years in the army, so I'm probably as much of an expert as any of you guys. You really need to Google the word "hemp," because that is cannabis sativa. It's just not as powerful as -- everybody here knows that. Your definition is just -- overreach. Very good, thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agreed. MR. BOSI: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why not use the definition that's in the state statute that was provided as -- define what's going to be eligible? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Legal marijuana. MR. BOSI: We -- and I'll remind the Planning Commission that we haven't even started to develop April 6, 2017 Page 20 of 26 the regulations nor the definitions for what will be imposed within the Land Development Code. This is simply a resolution that's going to put a stay on cannabis-dispensing facilities. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Somebody wrote that. Who wrote that? Somebody from the Attorney's Office? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Wrote which part? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who was smoking something when they wrote this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you talking about the ordinance? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The definition of cannabis. Who would have written that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the point is, Mike, whoever wrote it needs to tighten it up before it goes back to the Board. I think that's going to be a part of what the Planning Commission is trying to get the point -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. That was my point, yeah. MR. BOSI: So noted, so noted. And we will most certainly reach out to Mr. Chrzanowski as we get a little bit higher within the -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Higher. I like that word. Higher, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to move this forward in some manner with or without the clarifications requested by Stan? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Or the six months instead of a year. What do you guys think about -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Listen, I agree with a year. It's going to take a year to figure out -- get all -- first the State has to develop the criteria. It's going to be strictly controlled by State. It's licensed -- all the way from the growing through dispensing will be subject to inspections and control in order to preclude any type of elicit activity. We won't even -- you won't even get any of that till later this summer and late fall, and then it's going to take time to develop the standards of where it can go within the county. I think a year is appropriate. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I once found a very healthy marijuana plant growing in the median of Airport Road right at J&C Boulevard. It was about three feet tall and four feet wide, well cultivated. They don't call it a weed for nothing. I mean, yeah, they're growing it in farms, but they're growing it in houses and they're growing it everywhere, and you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Stan, there are areas in the county where it's growing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. They've spotted by helicopter. It's got a pretty color. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Stan, I have a question for you. How big is that plant now? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That was 10 years ago. It's probably up in smoke by now. Who knows. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to bring this to a solution. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I assume that after all the ducks are put in order and the hearings are held and the words are strung together that that 12-month period could be shortened. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it can be -- whenever they finally adopt an ordinance, it will end at that point, I would assume, so... Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did talk to Mike on this, to be honest with you, because it did concern me. I was too busy working in the '60s. I didn't have time for that. But I did ask him if we would be hearing from NCH, if we would be hearing from the Sheriff's Office. Those are the people I want to -- would like to hear from on this. MR. BOSI: And as I had indicated, Ms. Ebert, you know, we will reach out, and we've already had some communication with the NCH folks. They wanted to participate as we develop the regulations, so we would most certainly be as inclusive as possible to all the interested groups as we're developing those April 6, 2017 Page 21 of 26 regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Someone -- I think we can wrap up this. Does someone want to make a motion to whatever -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that -- with slight adjustment, to redefine or clearly define the word "cannabis" so it clearly identifies what the intent is for dispensing, that that be adjusted and then be forwarded to the Board with our recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, that takes care of that one. Then that gets through our items No. 9. ***We'll go to Item No. 10, new business. You had added a request for a handout that you provided concerning a requirement to have NIMs only heard during certain portions of the year. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi again, Planning and Zoning Director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is, by the way, a walk-on item. We won't have a formal vote. It would be a straw vote. MR. BOSI: On the March 28th hearing, as I indicated, when the Board of County Commissioners adopted the regulations regarding the conversion of golf courses, they imposed a restriction upon that process. If you remember, there was a stakeholders' outreach meeting that was associated with the golf course conversion before they could move forward, and they placed some restrictions from November 1st to April 31st as to when those stakeholder outreach meetings were allowed to be held. During that discussion point, it was suggested that those restrictions of nonseasonal months be also applicable to neighborhood information meetings. Later on during the hearing under 15 where it's general discussion with the board members, they brought up the idea potentially of limiting the neighborhood information meetings between the months June, July, and August. Yesterday I was before the DSAC presenting the language that you'll see within the visualizer that suggests that neighborhood informations can only be held between the months of September and May with one -- with an out or a waiver clause that the neighborhood information meeting could be held during the summer months if the applicant can provide evidence that less than a third of the property owners in the notification area are seasonal residents. Now, that -- there's some difficultly. We've kicked around some ideas as to how that might be able to be deferred or determined, whether it be from a homesteading, different aspects to make those determinations. But what we're looking for is just an unofficial position of the Planning Commission as to whether they believe limiting neighborhood information meetings from the non-summer months was a positive or a negative idea. DSAC provided a recommendation not to support the idea. Their concerns were we -- business goes on 12 months out of the year, and the entitlement process is already a lengthy process, and precluding three months, a quarter of the year, from that only adds time -- time to the process that already, in their perspective, can be elongated. So in that regard, we're looking for the Planning Commission to provide -- and just an unofficial April 6, 2017 Page 22 of 26 position on the proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comments from the Planning Commissioners? Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I think our biggest complaint from the citizens of Collier County is that some of these developers try and do things in the summer when they know most of the people are gone. So I'm hearing them. That's one of their loudest complaints. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? Stan, then Joe. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. We could always take vacation when the Board takes vacation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we -- I mean, that's -- I'm not sure that's part of the recommendation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I know. It's just if you're worried about summertime going on... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the object is find out we are worried about it, and I think you're -- are you worried about it? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm here all year long. I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I think the question is. Is this something that we are supporting in the sense, are we worried about it? And Diane expressed hers; you, Joe, and then Tom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You know, my years in the staff and, of course, now on the Planning Commission, it never ceases to be a complaint on how long it takes to go through the process. And if you were -- and I know at one time I had a chart that kind of graphically showed the process between the Planning Commission, the months, and then -- or the NIM, then the Planning Commission, and then the months it takes, and then the Board. It can take up to nine to 12 months to go through the rezoning process if you start from developer's concept plan to actually getting a zoning approval. It takes a while. This only will add to the time frame. And if we have -- if we don't have a NIM during the summer months, there's still opportunity for the public to engage if there's a NIM during the summer months, because they can attend the Planning Commission, and then they can attend any follow-on meeting with the Board. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agreed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't support having a NIM during the summer, but I see no reason to preclude it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That was my feelings on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I agree with Joe 100 percent. I think that business needs to go on. Our operations -- I mean, what else do you want to stop? Do you want to stop Planning Commission meetings and BCC meetings and school district meetings? I mean, a lot of decisions are made and the work of the people, it has to continue during that time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You know, our county budget process takes place during the summer and the budget hearings and other things, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- Mark, I was not really saying that I was for this. I just said this is the biggest complaint that the citizens have, especially if it is something that's very controversial. I think it's those particular ones. And you are right, we work all year long so, to me, it's not necessary. But if it's going to be real controversial, I did notice that the BCC is withholding something until next January or February, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have the prerogative to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: In an age of emails, I have, during the summertime, received many emails from Ohio and whatever. These -- if they have a problem, they communicate with their neighbors; they let us know. And the NIM minutes are available. They can be sent out to anyone. You April 6, 2017 Page 23 of 26 know, the fact that you're not there to ask your specific question, you know, if you're that concerned, and you know the NIM is coming up, you send the question to your neighbor and have him ask. I mean, you know, this electronic age is just -- the communication is mind blowing. I see no reason to stop any activity at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, Mike, I've got a series of questions. This is -- you presented this in the format of an admin code. Does that mean you're not -- and a short answer, please -- not intending to put it through as an LDC -- any kind of LDC amendment? MR. BOSI: No, just an administrative code change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is probably one of the failures of our admin code, because had it gone through as LDC amendment, it would have been vetted differently. Did you vet this to anybody beside DSAC? MR. BOSI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the stakeholders in this county who are permanent residents here haven't been part and parcel to this, that you know of? MR. BOSI: They've had no real opportunity to provide any input on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the first question. Second question: A lot of people in this county have -- who have permanent residences here have places up north, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, places like that. How many of those other municipalities up north hold off their meetings until we go up there? Any of them that you know of? MR. BOSI: I am not aware of any restrictions such as that, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know of any other municipality in the state of Florida that does this? MR. BOSI: I'm not aware, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you get an analysis of property rights issues involving this kind of potential delay to people who wanted to come through for an action that they're -- let's say they're argumentatively entitled to from the County Attorney's Office? MR. BOSI: Not at this time, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And echoing Stan's comment, where does it end? Because if we're going to hold up NIMs -- and those aren't open as much to the public as a public meeting in front of either us or the Board of County Commissioners, then we should look at shutting down government and laying our people off six or eight months of the year. That might -- or four months or whatever the time frame is. I think the ramifications of this are more problematic than the research that has been done to produce the language dictates. And so I think that until that other research is done, I would have to agree. I think it's a jump before we've seen all the issues and researched it completely, and I would think that would be dangerous to do. So that's my thoughts. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need any more input from us, or is that -- MR. BOSI: Well, the DSAC did provide an unofficial -- they did a straw ballot, and it was unanimous that they had suggested that they were not supporting the proposed change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then does someone want to suggest that as a straw vote for this board, or any motion for this board? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd make a motion that we not support this initiative -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- by vote. We will vote, and you can straw ballot. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe Schmitt made, and by Patrick. All those -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Patrick made the second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Third. April 6, 2017 Page 24 of 26 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 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 7-0. Okay. Thank you. That gets us to the -- no old business. I don't have any listed. Anybody have anything? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a comment, Mark, on your comments related to the moratorium ordinance, and I think it would have been a very good idea had the Board sent to us for comments some of the other issues involving land use for comment prior to their consideration, for instance, the 41 initiative and some of the other things. So I would support the fact that if the Board wants our opinion on it, I would welcome the opportunity to opine as a Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. And I was just surprised we get one but none of the others, and I couldn't figure out what the reasoning was. But, I mean, if it is because of the change in board, that may be something we'll start seeing more of then. That would be great. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Last time I brought up about this electronic thing that I get, and I was told that they don't put it into separate folders because it comes across as a PDF. I would like the first page of the PDF to be an index of the neighborhood information meeting, the submittal packet, letters of objection, you know, maybe five -- so I know what page I can go to to start that section when I'm in the middle of a meeting here; otherwise, I've got to go through, you know, and make my own index or something. You know what I mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do, but all you need to do is annotate a page, and then through the drop-down menu that picks out all your annotations, and go to that annotation, and you're done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, sure. That's easy for you to say. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You could do that -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Sure. All you've got to do is annotate a page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: PDF format, make comments, and find your comments. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm a Luddite, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or you could -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want an index. I just want an index. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's trying to write everything down you're saying, so let's take it a little -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think it's quite that simple. Here's what I went through with my very first thumb drive receipt. I found that much -- many of PDF files were, indeed, OCR. So I could make notes in there, and then I could -- I put my initials in, for instance, the places, and then I can search for initials and, boom, I come to the page that I'd like to ask a question or comment on. So my suggestion is -- and I'm sorry to be adding time to -- upon the shoulders -- or suggesting the doing of adding time to the shoulders of people who are so busy, but if you could do optical character read-out on these things -- for instance, that was not the case for the -- whatever it was, 375-page material we April 6, 2017 Page 25 of 26 had on the infill subdistrict. So I did it myself, which I can do and which I'll continue to do if no one else is interested in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're using an Apple, like I am. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all you've got to do is go into preview, and you can drop down -- you do your markup box, and you can mark it up all you want. I've never had -- I've never had that happen to me, and I'm getting the same documents you are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But when you annotate with a -- by putting a text box in an imagine that hasn't been OCR'ed and then you search for it, unless I'm doing it correctly, it doesn't search the contents of your text box. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't search. You hit the inspector, and it gives you all your hits right here, and you just click on the one you want to go to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And Adobe Reader will do the same thing in Microsoft. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You can do Abode Reader and do "paste" and put notes right on the document as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I withdraw my request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just -- I'm trying to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, it's a good -- thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't withdraw mine. I want an index. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it does it so well. Stan's using a brick over there. I'm not sure if his can do that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: My boat it -- it's my canoe anchor in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I haven't seen one that thick for a while except for Joe's, but he's government, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mine is an old one there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll figure it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be glad to show you real quick when we finish up. It works real well for me, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Maybe we can get the county to buy the Planning Commission those nice Apples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I actually tried that once, but the Planning Commission at the time refused to go electronic, and I couldn't get anybody but myself to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, when Stan recommended it, I went, absolutely. And that document would have been this (indicating) thick in that binder. Who got a binder this time? I mean -- this is absolutely great. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're not quite there yet. We cannot officially do that yet. Anybody else have any more old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have to officially ask -- and no one's in the room, but I have to ask, is there any public comment? That's a requirement of the state to have that on our agenda. And nobody's here, nobody's responding. So now, Patrick made a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. April 6, 2017 Page 26 of 26 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here, 7-0. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:22 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. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 1 of 19 April 26, 2017 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2017 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160000183 MATTAMY HOMES ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Agent: Mattamy Naples, LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 4107 Crescent Park Dr. Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Riverview, FL 33578 3800 Via Del Ray 4001 Tamiami Trail North, suite 300 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6- BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to 276 single-family, variable-lot-line for single-family, two-family, townhouse, and/or multi-family dwelling units on 37± acres. AGENDA ITEM 9-A Ta mia mi T R L E 5th AVE S Airport-Pulling RD SDavis BLVD Bayshore DRThomasson DR AVEVAN BUREN VAN BUREN AVE STLUNAR LINDA DR HARVEST CTH A L D E MA N C R E E K D R FULL MOON CTNEW MOON CTDRDRJEEPERS LIGH THOUSE LANE LIGHTHOUSESU NSET AVE BAYSHORESTLNLAKE AVE FLOR IDA AVE PINETHOMASS ON DRIVETHOMASSON DRIVE PALMETTO COURTCO TTAGE GROVE AVE KAREN DRIVE BAYSHORE DRREP UBLIC DRIVE CONSTITUTION DRIVE LNLIBERTYTRACT B 313335373839424647484952534839403736343154 55 2 561055771425 12265859 74480828487949635678291011125115014494815474645442216434217SOMERSETATWINDSTAR TRACT E 433932331834351936 BAYSHORECOMMERCIALCONDO 37 383130 39 4029 412827 202625 3221245223 552215 5712 10953TRACT A TRACT B TRACT B MO ORH EAD MANOR54 PARCEL ATRACT A 1 2 3 TR B4 TRACT B5TRACTITRACTJ6557 24 TRACT CTRACT A 64 66 56 4340 10557 TRACT B 30 27 TRACT A20 22 58 7 59 5 3 60 2 8 97 10 11 1245 1361 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4109826 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4928 1 17 2018191279368131416410111552 62 23 40 4137383926282933343536273130242532 63 99 44 53 64 52 54 55434251 41 50 49 4840 47 39 38 3765 33 3645 PH I PH II PH III PH IV PH VABACO BAYCONDO 61 PH 4PH 1 PH 2 PH 3 PH 12 BOTANICAL PLACE CONDO 108 OR 711/600 PH 8 PH 6PH 7PH 9 52 38 PH 13 SFWMD CONSRV ESMTOR 4491 PG 3216.12 TOTAL ACRES FIRE STATION#22 97 98 À29À30À32À34À36À40À41À43À44À45 À50À43À46À44À45À47À41À38À35À49À33À32À30À29À28À27À26À1À36 À9 À3À8À4À11À6À12À13À15À16À17À18À20À21À22À23À24 À3À4À5À6À7À8À9À10À11À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À24À25À56À27À1 À1.4À1.3 À1.5 À1.6 À1À1.7 À72À73À75À76À77À78À1.8 À79À81À83À85À86À88À89À90À91À92À93À95À1.9 À1.10 À9À1.2 À8À10À1.11 À99À1.12 À7À11 À3À4À5À6À12À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À22À23À24À25 À2À1.1 À1.14À1.15 À1.51 À1.50 À46 À47À100À1.16À1.49 À1 À24À1.48 À23 À25À2À1.17À1.47 À26À1.46 À48À45À45À101À47À1.45 À3À1.44 À21 À27À1.32 À44 À49À1.43 À44À42À41À40À38À1.33 À37À36À35À34À33À1.42 À32À31À30À29À28À27À26 À102 À4À1.34 À1.35 À46 À20 À28À1.36 À50À43À1.18À1.37 À103À1.38 À42 À51À19À1.39 À5À1.19 À29À1.40 À1.41À1 À104 À52À41À6À18À52.2 À30À1.31 À40 À53À105À17À1.30 À7 À31À1.29 À32À1.20À1.28 À54À39À16À106À1.27 À52À1.26 À1.21 À38À1.25 À9À52.1 À107À1.24 À33À1.23 À37 À56À1.22 À10 À14 À34À108 À36À11À13À35 À109À52.3 À109.1 À109.2 À1 À1.2 À1.2 À108.2 À108.1 À53 À1 À2 À3 À4 À5 À6 À7 À8 À9 À10 À11 À12 À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19 À1 À43 À1 À1 À1 À2 À3À1 À42 À41 À40 À39 À38 À37 À36 À35 À34 À33 À32 À31 À30 À29 À28 À27 À26 À25À4À6À7À107 À1 À1 À56À1 À57 À58 À59 À60 À61 À62 À63 À65 À56.1 À2 À55 À54 À53 À51 À50 À49 À48 À47 À46 À45À3 À44À4À34À35À36À37À39À41À42 À43 À5 À57 À33X21 À32 À31 À29 À28 À26 À25 À24 À23À6 À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19 À21À7À12À1 À8 À11 À10 À9 À8 À6 À5 À4 À3 À2 À1 À9 À1 X11 À10 X13 À103X12X18.1 X18 X14À6À4À3À2À22À1 À60.2À60.7 À60.3 À3 À6 À7 À11À5À4À9À10 À12 À60.4À60.8 À60 À2 À60.5À61.6 À60.6À60.9 À25 À61.3 À23 À22 À19 À18 À17 À16 À12 À11À20 À7 À6 À5 À4À10À9À8À61À60.1 À61.4À61.1 À61.5 À61.2 À27 À29 À30 À31 À38À32 À39À33À34À35À36 À44 À45 À46 À47 À48 À49À41À42À43 À61.10 À28À61.9 À100.43 À100.8À100.6À100.3À100.5À100.15À100.21À100.29À100.28À100.35À100.27À100.42À100.46À100.23À100.45À100.18À100.16À100.41À100.40À100.2 À62 À100.33 À100.1À100.9À100.4À100.7À100.30À100.10À100.13À100.17À100.11À100.36À100.22À100.25À100.14À100.19À100.37À100.20À100.44À100.12 À63 À99 À63.1 À64 À44X8À64.1 À55À54À53À43 À42À98.1 À52À41 À51 À65 À40 À50À39 À48 À38 À37 À45 À33 À36 À97.1À97 À66 À22 À8 À104.1 À61.11 À14 À106.1 À19 À23 À42 X14.1 À56 MUP CU V CU MUP PUD RMF-6-BMUD-R1 MH-BMUD-NC RSF-4-BMUD-R1 C-2-BMUD-NC RMF-6-BMUD-R1 PUD C-5-BMUD-NC C-3-BMUD-NC PUD RMF-6-BMUD-R2 RSF-3-BMUD-R1 RSF-4-BMUD-R4 C-5-BMUD-NC RMF-6-BMUD-R1 MH-BMUD-R3 C-2-BMUD-NCRMF-6-BMUD-R3 VR-BMUD-R3 MH-BMUD-R3 PUDC-3-BMUD-NC RPUD-BMU D-R2 C-4-BMUD-NC RSF-6-BMUD-R1 RMF-6-BMUD-NCRMF-6-BMUD-R1 RMF-6 RMF-6 RMF-6-BMUD-R2 C-4-BMUD-NC RMF-6-BMUD-R1 MPUD BOTANICALPLACE PINEBROOKLAKE CIRRUSPOINTE NAPLESBOTANICALGARDENS WINDSTAR CULTURALARTS VILLAGEAT BAYSHORE Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-183 PROJEC TLOCATION SITELOCATION ¹ Docu ment Path: M:\Graphics\Plats and Record dwgs\Mattamy Home s\PUDZ PL2 016000018 3\Initial Submittal 7-11-2016\workspace\site -locatio n.mxd PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 3 of 19 April 26, 2017 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject project proposes a density of 7.46 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the Mattamy Homes RPUD: North: Tract B (undeveloped), Tract C (undeveloped), and Windstar Boulevard right-of-way in Windstar PUD (1.71 DU/AC) East (to the north): Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is multi-family residential, zoned Botanical Place PUD (10.99 DU/AC) East: Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is multi-family residential, zoned Pinebrook Lake PUD (16 DU/AC) East (to the south): Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is undeveloped land, zoned Cirrus Pointe RPUD-BMUD-R2 (10.89 DU/AC) South (to the west): Right-of-way for Thomasson Drive, then farther south are a mix of vacant lots and single-family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R1 (4 DU/AC) South (to the east): Right-of-way for a cultural organization (Naples Botanical Gardens), zoned Naples Botanical Gardens PUD West: Right-of-way for Pine Street, then farthest west is the Sunset Homes subdivision, zoned RMF-6-MBUD-R1 and a mix of single-family and multi-family residential, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R2 (6 DU/AC) PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 4 of 19 April 26, 2017 Aerial (County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban – Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) and is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA), all of which are identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Both the RMF-6 and C-3-zoned portions of the site are deemed “consistent by policy” on the FLUM series. Pursuant to FLUE Policies 5.9 and 5.10, the RMF-6 and C-3 zoned portions are allowed to develop or redevelop in accordance with the maximum density allowed under the existing zoning classifications. For market-rate housing, the Density Rating System would allow four DU/AC on the C-3-zoned portion of the site, 19.92 dwelling units, and FLUE Policy 5.1 would allow six DU/AC on the RMF-6-zoned portion, 193.62 dwelling units. In total, the number of dwelling units allowed would be 213.54 or as rounded, 214 units. The additional 62 units needed to achieve the requested 276 units are derived from the density bonus pool available in the B/GTRO. The approval to use the 62 density bonus pool units is at the Board of County Commissioners (Board’s) discretion. See Attachment 3 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum for the entire analysis by Comprehensive Planning. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 5 of 19 April 26, 2017 Staff determined the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. However, as noted in Attachment 3 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum, a minor text correction to the PUD Document is needed and stipulated as such in the Recommendation section of this staff report, page 18. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states the following: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways. The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then- applicable, 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new residential development will generate approximately 138 PM peak hour two-way trips. The previous multi-family development contained 106 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed development will have 32 PM peak hour new trips as listed in Table 1 on page 6. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 6 of 19 April 26, 2017 Table 1. Road Capacity Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Existing LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2016 Remaining Capacity Bayshore Drive U.S. 41 to Thomasson Drive B 1,800/South 1,162 Thomasson Drive Bayshore Drive C 800/East 245 Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Applications to rezone to or amend RPUDs shall be in the form of an RPUD Master Plan of development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The RPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 7 of 19 April 26, 2017 or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” In the following sections, staff offers analysis of the application. Drainage Review: The current permitted downstream drainage infrastructure for this project, as proposed, will meet stormwater concurrency, provided the specific condition requiring the replacement of the drainage pipe under Pine Street is addressed at the time of site development (see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 18). Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. A preserve is not required on this site as there is no native vegetation that meets the definition in LDC Section 3.05.07.A.1-2. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Landscape Review: The project is required to provide a 15-foot wide, Type B buffer along the north property line. The Master Plan shows compliance with this requirement. The project is also required to provide 20-foot wide, Type D buffers along the south (Thomasson Drive), east (Bayshore Drive), and west (Pine Street) property lines. The petitioner is requesting a deviation to allow these buffers to be 15 feet wide instead of 20 feet. The petitioner’s justification for this request and staff’s recommendation are provided in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff report, page 9. Staff supports this deviation. Staff supports a 15-foot front yard setback for accessory structures with the additional condition that smaller canopy trees shall be used. The provision to reduce the front setback for porches, entry features, and roofed courtyards is only applicable when those accessory structures do not exceed 50% of the front façade (primary structure), excluding the garage, and a 20-foot area is provided to accommodate the smaller canopy trees (see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 18). A list of LDC-approved, smaller canopy trees, has been provided in the Developer Commitments, Exhibit F of the PUD Document. An alternative design option to ensure compliance with the canopy tree requirement is to have a street tree program as provided for in LDC Section 4.06.05.A.1. However, Deviation #2, which seeks to reduce the width of the right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet, essentially eliminates the possibility of implementing a successful street tree program. Also, the proposed side and rear yards are not able to accommodate the requisite trees either, due to their limited space. For example, rear building setbacks may be reduced to zero feet where abutting a landscape buffer easement (LBE). School District: There is sufficient capacity within the elementary, middle, and high school concurrency service areas for this proposed development. At the time of site development plan (SDP) or plat review (PPL), the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity within the concurrency service areas the development is located within or adjacent to concurrency service areas. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 8 of 19 April 26, 2017 Transportation Review: During the review process for this petition, the agent requested that this sidewalk requirement be addressed through the payment-in-lieu provisions of the LDC. Staff does not agree with this request. Staff’s recommended condition of approval is based on the August 2010, Collier MPO, Walkable Community Study that lists Pine Street as a Tier 1 rated facility. The study recommends a five-foot sidewalk on one side of the road as a phase one recommendation. Further, staff attended the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Meeting on April 4, 2017 at which time this sidewalk segment was discussed and a recommendation to construct was unanimously voted on and approved. Based on this information, it is staff’s opinion that this segment of sidewalk should be constructed instead of the payment-in- lieu proposed by the agent. Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Wastewater service is readily available via an existing eight-inch gravity sewer along Bayshore Drive with two existing stub- outs to the property. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of SDP or PPL permit review and will be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance. Zoning Services Review: The RPUD is currently comprised of two parcels. Aerial photography from the Collier County Property Appraiser reveals that the larger of the two was developed with multi-family buildings between 1975 and 1985 and subsequently razed sometime before the 2011 imagery was taken. The smaller of the two parcels has remained vacant. The subject parcels are located within the BMUD-NC Overlay District. The purpose and intent of the BMUD is to encourage revitalization of the Bayshore Drive portion of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area with pedestrian-oriented, interconnected projects. The BMUD encourages uses that support pedestrian activity, including a mix of residential, civic, and commercial uses that complement each other and provide for an increased presence and integration of the cultural arts and related support uses. When possible both commercial and residential buildings are located near the street and may have front porches and/or balconies. The purpose and intent of the BMUD- NC is to encourage a mix of low intensity commercial and residential uses, including mixed-use projects in a single building. This subdistrict provides for an increased presence and integration of the cultural arts and related support uses, including galleries, artists’ studios, and live-work units. Developments will be human-scale and pedestrian-oriented. With respect to project density, staff compared this RPUD with the densities of the abutting and adjacent properties (see Attachment 4 - Density Map). The maximum proposed density for this RPUD would be 7.46 dwelling units per acre. Staff determined the density proposed for this RPUD would be acceptable when compared with the abutting and adjacent properties. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 9 of 19 April 26, 2017 This RPUD proposes a range of residential uses including single-family detached, variable-lot-line single-family homes, two-family dwellings, townhouses, and multi-family dwellings. Staff compared the principal uses proposed in this RPUD to those allowed in the surrounding properties. Abutting the subject property to the north is Windstar PUD (Ordinance 1993-23) a residential development approved for 549 dwelling units. The south perimeter of the subject property fronts on Thomasson Drive. Much of the land south of Thomasson Drive is zoned Naples Botanical Gardens PUD; however, there is a small pocket of homes on lands zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R1 nestled in between the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. To the east of the subject property, across the street from Bayshore Drive, is Botanical Place PUD, which was approved for a maximum of 218 dwelling units pursuant to Ordinance 2003-38. To the south of Botanical Place PUD is Pinebrook Lake PUD, the 10-acre development that was approved for up to 160 multi-family dwelling units (Ordinance 1980-56). To the south of Pinebrook Lake PUD is Cirrus Pointe RPUD, which is currently the undeveloped 9.92-acre RPUD that was approved for up to 108 multi-family dwelling units, of which 44 are designated as workforce housing. To the west, adjacent to the subject property, is the Sunset Homes subdivision, which is zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1. This Zoning/Overlay District allows single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, duplexes, rowhouses, and multi-family dwellings. To the south of Sunset Homes subdivision is a strip of lots zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R2, allowing the same residential uses as those within the RMF-6- BMUD-R2 Zoning/Overlay District. The uses proposed in the RPUD are comparable and compatible with the surrounding properties. Staff evaluated the development standards for the principal and accessory uses/structures proposed in the RPUD and compared them to the same standards found in the residential tract of the Botanical Place PUD, the residential tract of Windstar PUD, the cluster housing provisions of the LDC Section 4.02.04, the townhouse provisions of LDC Section 5.05.07, and the applicable BMUD provisions of the LDC Section 4.02.16. With the exception of the front setbacks, staff determined that the proposed standards would be comparable and compatible with the aforementioned developments and relevant provisions of the LDC. Staff is recommending changes to the front setbacks as a condition of approval (see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 18). DEVIATION DISCUSSION: This petitioner is requesting three deviations, which are itemized in Exhibit E in the RPUD Document. The petitioner’s justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below: Proposed Deviation #1 A deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Table 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow Mattamy Homes to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards within their PUD. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows: PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 10 of 19 April 26, 2017 Mattamy Homes is rezoning to a PUD rather than using the MVP (sic) process, Mattamy Homes is an experienced homebuilder and has many unit types and floor plans which have established architectural standards. Mattamy Homes will utilize their proven development standards tailored for their products. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved and staff’s conditions of approval are accepted. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, contingent upon the acceptance of staff’s condition of approval #2 regarding the front setback, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #2 Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60-foot wide local road, to allow a minimum 50-foot wide local private road. This deviation applies when the developer proposes to develop local streets in lieu of a private drive or access way. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows: The proposed 50’ wide private road right-of-way is sufficiently wide to accommodate the required roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements outside the private right-of-way if necessary. The internal project roads will be private and the standard public right-of-way is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. Dual sidewalks will be provided on any platted local street. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #3 From LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, Buffer Requirements, which requires developments of 15 acres or more to provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way, to permit a 15-foot wide, Type D buffer adjacent to external rights-of-way. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows: This deviation is warranted because the site has been previously developed and it has three road frontages. The Bayshore Overlay permits roadway buffers to be 15’ in width for multi-family and commercial developments. The Mattamy Homes RPUD provides for a PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 11 of 19 April 26, 2017 variety of dwelling unit types, including multi-family units. The 15’ buffer will include the same amount of vegetation provided within a 20’ wide buffer. A 15’ wide right-of-way buffer will provide the flexibility necessary to redevelop the site with new residential product types meeting the market demand for sale product compared to the rental apartments, which previously occupied the site. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. The type of buffers proposed along Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive would be appropriate for this area. Along Pine Street, the petitioner is electing to install a 15-foot wide, Type B buffer instead of the 20-foot wide, Type D buffer. Staff determined this substitute would be acceptable as well. Therefore, the Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject site is located within the water service area of the City of Naples and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water distribution and wastewater collection facilities are readily available to the site and current treatment capacities are sufficient to serve the proposed RPUD. Drainage solutions will be evaluated at the time of development permit review. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 12 of 19 April 26, 2017 relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Analysis section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. Notwithstanding the fact the petitioner is requesting a landscape buffer deviation, it is the opinion of staff that the Master Plan proposes the appropriate type and size perimeter landscape buffers. Staff has concerns regarding the ability for each lot to accommodate the requisite canopy tree. As a solution, staff is making a condition of approval that would modify the Development Standards in Exhibit B of the PUD Document (see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 18). 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The RPUD is required to provide at least 60% of the gross area for usable open space. The Master Plan indicates that 60% would be provided and no deviation from the open space requirement is being requested. Compliance would be further demonstrated at the time of SDP or platting. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or PPL), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. With respect to drainage, impacts from the site discharge will be addressed at time of SDP, PPL, or actual site development. Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has readily available supporting infrastructure, including public water distribution and wastewater collection systems, to service this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be continuously addressed as development approvals are sought. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 13 of 19 April 26, 2017 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is requesting three deviations, requiring an evaluation to the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this RPUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Each deviation requested by the petitioner is itemized and analyzed in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff report on page 9. Staff supports all deviations with one minor condition of approval related to the Master Plan regarding the landscape buffer. With the update to the Master Plan, it is the opinion of staff that the petitioner has demonstrated that “the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, and that the petitioner has demonstrated the deviations are “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations” in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable.” 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Lands zoned RPUD are located to the east of the subject property. In addition, there are PUDs located within close proximity of the subject property. For all intents and purposes, these lands that are zoned PUD are considered similar and related zoning classification, because the County did not adopt the RPUD zoning district until 2004 (pursuant to Ordinance 04-41). Therefore, the proposed petition would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 14 of 19 April 26, 2017 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The square-shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of the parcels assembled for the rezoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the RPUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The RPUD is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the petitioner coordinates with Collier County’s Road Maintenance Division to replace the drainage pipe under Pine Street that connects the project outfall to the adjacent Windstar PUD lake. The project’s stormwater management system should be designed to a discharge rate not to exceed 0.15 cubic feet per second/acre. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at time of SDP and/or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 15 of 19 April 26, 2017 external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The Cirrus Point RPUD to the east is currently undeveloped and staff does not anticipate this proposed RPUD would serve as a deterrent to its improvement. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed design standards cannot be achieved without rezoning to an RPUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff’s opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the RPUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 16 of 19 April 26, 2017 later as part of the building permit process. This RPUD is for redevelopment that is located within an established community redevelopment area and key portions of the stormwater drainage infrastructure, both on-site and off-site, are currently in place. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except what is exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service (LOS) will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the RPUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. The redevelopment of this site will maintain the intended LOS and direction of flow through the interconnected developments downstream in this part of the area known as Miscellaneous Coastal Basin (MCB-06), which does not have an official LOS established in the GMP. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on September 13, 2016 during a regular hearing of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board. The meeting was held at 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 2 in Naples, Florida. The applicant’s team consisted of Wayne Arnold, Matt O’Brien, Richard Yovanovich, Mike Delate, Jim Banks, and Marco Espinar, and the NIM summary is included in Attachment 2 - Application and Support Material. The public asked questions that included but were not limited to the proposed number (density) of dwelling units, access, whether the project would be gated, anticipated price range and size of the dwelling units, traffic lights, infrastructure, maximum building height, location of amenities, drainage, blasting during construction, lot sizes, and project phasing. According to the NIM summary, when discussing the project, Mr. O’Brien stated that no entrance was being proposed into the Windstar PUD; however, the Master Plan currently shows a potential interconnection into Windstar PUD. The Master Plan must be modified to remove this interconnection (see Recommendation section of the staff report, page 18). Another person asked if a traffic light is proposed at the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Bayshore Drive, to which Mr. Arnold responded that he thought the County would be installing a PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 17 of 19 April 26, 2017 roundabout. With respect to density, Mr. Arnold explained the previous project for this site was developed with 200 apartment units, to which an unidentified woman commented that the previous development “seemed pretty dense there, 200.” Later in the meeting, a resident of Windstar PUD mentioned the following regarding the proposed density and type of construction: A Windstar resident. I’m not officially representing the 550 people that live there, but the president of the master association board did ask me to come as a formal president of the board and point out that we’re concerned about the density and the type of construction. These are sort of standard townhome type things. We were hoping for more of an imaginative use of the property, you know, (indiscernible) or something like that, that would be more of an urban type feel rather than this sort of straight planned community type of thing, but the traffic and density are primary concerns. When asked if a barrier wall would be installed along the property line adjacent to Pine Street, Mr. Arnold responded by saying, “we’re proposing, I think, Matt, we’re pretty committed to having a wall along that part of our landscape buffer.” With respect to traffic, an attendee made the following comments about Bayshore Drive: Right now, it’s very tough coming out of Windstar to get out onto Bayshore Drive because the traffic is coming down all the time in the morning. It’s going to be a lot worse when you put another 200 plus homes in there. We’re also concerned about where you locate your amenities in terms of any pools and stuff that they not be too close to our entrance roads here. And, finally, I would point out that there is no agreement to allow that entry though Windstar at this point in time. It’s something that may be discussed down the road, but there’s no agreement now. More discussion ensued about the project being a gated development and the traffic impacts on Bayshore Drive. Mr. Arnold stated the following: On this concept, ma’am, and Mike Delate – on that design on Bayshore, we have a turn lane, a right turn lane on each side. So we would design a right turn lane southbound on this concept. The gate is actually here. So there would be stacking in the turn lane and then to the gated area before you get into our community. An unidentified female voice asked, “But what if they’re coming from the south?” Mr. Arnold started to respond, “If they’re coming from the south,” but another attendee interrupted and spoke for him saying, “There’s going to be a turn lane there.” Mr. Arnold affirmed the previous speaker’s comment by stating, “Correct. You’d probably have a turn lane there as well.” The NIM summary reflects additional discussion and concerns about traffic in the area as well as criticism about drainage. Later in the meeting, another attendee was worried that any unit constructed on-site that is assessed for less than $400,000 requires more in public services than it pays in taxes. When discussing the proposed water management areas, Mr. Delate promised there would be no blasting in the process of creating the lakes. PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 18 of 19 April 26, 2017 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on April 19, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval, contingent upon satisfying the following: 1. To obtain drainage concurrency, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the owner shall, at its sole cost, replace the existing 12-inch drainage pipe within the Pine Street right- of-way with an appropriately-sized drainage pipe that will accommodate stormwater from the RPUD and from property that currently flows through the Pine Street drainage pipe. Prior to construction, the Collier County Road Maintenance Department must review and approve the plans and the owner shall obtain a right-of-way permit. 2. Note #1 in Exhibit B of the PUD Document, which provides for a reduced setback for porches, entry features, and roofed courtyards, must be modified so that these elements shall not exceed 50% of the front building façade, exclusive of the garages. 3. The owner, or its successors or assigns, at its sole expense, shall construct a five-foot wide sidewalk along the RPUD's frontage on Pine Street prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the RPUD. 4. Deviation #3 in the PUD Document must be updated to indicate that a 15-foot wide, Type D buffer is the minimum required where adjacent to rights-of-way. 5. Revise Exhibit F, #2.b of the PUD Document to read: A maximum of 62 density bonus pool units, as provided for in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven years from the date of approval of this RPUD. If after seven years the bonus units have not been utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless reauthorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 6. The Master Plan must be modified to delete the Potential Interconnection into Windstar PUD. 7. A wall shall be installed within the Type B buffer along Pine Street. 8. As promised at the NIM, no blasting shall be used in the process of creating the water management areas. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) FLUE Consistency Memorandum 4) Density Map 5) City of Naples Letter 6) Legal Notifications 7) Emails_Letters from Public ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY -6 ZONING DISTRICT (RMF-6- BMUD-NC) AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE ZONING DISTRICT (C-3-BMUD-NC) TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MATTAMY HOMES RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 276 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF BAYSHORE DRIVE AND THOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 37+/- ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL201600001831 WHEREAS, Mattamy Naples, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, PA and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi -Family -6 Zoning District (RMF-6-BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial [16 -CPS -01 5721 54 Mattamy Homes / PL20160000183 4/3/17 Page 1 of 2 Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to allow construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK M. , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: L � Heidi Ashton-Cicko Al U Managing Assistant County Attorney 2017. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — Deviations Exhibit F — List of Developer Commitments [16 -CPS -015721 54 Mattamy Homes / PL20160000183 4/3/17 Page 2 of 2 PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman EXHIBIT A FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD Regulations for development of the Mattamy Homes RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum total of 276 residential dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units — Multiple family, townhouse, variable zero lot line, two family and single family. 2. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Customary accessory uses associated with the principal uses permitted in this RPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas, screen enclosures and utility buildings. 2. Gatehouses, and access control structures. 3. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 5. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. AMENITY AREA A. Principal Uses: Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 1 of 10 March 31, 2017 1. Clubhouses with cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 2. Community administrative and recreation facilities. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis/pickle ball courts and basketball courts, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 3. Tennis clubs, health spas, fitness facilities and other indoor recreational uses (private, intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 2. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined bythe Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 2 of 10 March 31, 2017 EXHIBIT B FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Mattamy Homes RPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE VARIABLE LOT LINE FOR SINGLE FAMILY TWO-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI- FAMILY AMENITY AREA Minimum Lot Area 1,200 SF 3,000 SF 2,625 SF 3,000 SF 10,800 SF 5,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 20 feet 40 feet 35 feet 40 feet 120 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 60 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 90 feet N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback*1, *6 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet N/A Minimum Side Yard Setback 0/10 feet 0/10 feet*4 5 feet*2 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback*3 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Lake Maintenance Easement Setback*3 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned Actual 42 feet 50 feet 30 feet 35 feet 30 feet 35 feet 30 feet 35 feet 42 feet 50 feet 42 feet 50 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 feet*7 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet*7 10 feet Floor Area Min. (S.F,), per unit, ground floor 700 SF 900 SF 900 SF 900 SF 700 SF N/A Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Front Yard Setback*1 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Drainage Easement Setback 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 15 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 0/10 feet*5 0/5 feet*5 0/10 feet*5 10 feet*5 0/10 feet*5 10 feet Maximum Height Zoned Actual 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type, and not the minimum lot area, shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. *1 — Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23' from back of sidewalk. Porches, entry features and roofed courtyards that do not exceed 50% of the facade width may be reduced to 15'. All parking areas must remain clear of sidewalks. *2 — Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units, if attached, may be 0'. *3 — The Landscape Buffer Easements shall be located within open space tracts and Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within lake tracts and not be located within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adjacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts, the structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero (0) feet where it abuts the easement. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 3 of 10 March 31, 2017 *4 —The side setback may be variable between zero feet (0') to five feet (5') as long as a 10 -foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. If the variable lot line for single-family option is utilized, the owner shall provide with the building permit application, the setback of the principal structures on the abutting lots of all sides. *5 —Zero Feet (0') if attached and five feet (5') if detached; However detached structures must maintain a minimum ten foot (10') separation. *6 — For corner lots, only one frontage shall be considered a front yard. The other frontage setback shall be % the front yard setback. *7 — any building exceeding 2 stories shall maintain minimum building separation of twenty feet (20'). Note: nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 4 of 10 March 31, 2017 TOTAL SITE AREA: 37.27± ACRE Q RESIDENTIAL 18.5± AC (50%) AMENITY AREA 1.0± AC (3%) WATER MANAGEMENT 9.22± AC (25%) BUFFERS/OPEN SPACE 4.25± AC (I I%) ROW 4.3± AC (11 %) MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 276 OPEN SPACE: 15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER REQUIRED: 60% ON PROVIDED: 60% 1 , LL I LU F Q w o � Lu � NOTES ZONED: PUD (WINDSTAR) USE: RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER R / ---- — -- T R ii POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTION R — 15' WIDE TYPED' BUFFER I R LR/A I R — — ---------- R I WATER 5l j MANAGEMENT ; I I j j R , I i R R/A WATER MANAGEMENT! R ■ .1 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO L15' WIDE POTENTIAL TYPE 'D' THOMASSON DRIVE MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING BUFFER ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO ZONED: RSF-4-BMUD-R1 AND PUD (NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS) MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN USE: RESIDENTIAL AND BOTANICAL GARDENS ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. I N i oloo, 2W ® SCALE: I"= 200' ZONED: PUD (BOTANICAL PLACE) USE: RESIDENTIAL "( ACCESS I Q ZONED: PUD (PINEBROOK LAKE) uj � USE: RESIDENTIAL 2 m 115' WIDE TYPE'D' BUFFER ZONED: RPUD-BMUD-R2 (CIRRUS POINTE) USE: RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE 'D' BUFFER L c Q w U)i o W Ff cn Z o LU li 0 1. ° A m w �P ca U) Z) DEVIATIONS (APPLIES TO ENTIRE PROJECT, SEE EXH. E) R/A =RESIDENTIAL OR AMENITY 3 03 20v REVISEo PER REVI a COMMENTS 2017 REVISE PER RFV 3 COMM S.u. °"^ U it Engineers . Land Surve. yors Planners - Land cape \rchitects M „s CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN 1. DESIGN STANDARD IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY j016 ^� TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA 0 2. STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND APPENDIX B z O 3. BUFFER REQUIREMENTS N Dote asc,vt NOTES ZONED: PUD (WINDSTAR) USE: RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER R / ---- — -- T R ii POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTION R — 15' WIDE TYPED' BUFFER I R LR/A I R — — ---------- R I WATER 5l j MANAGEMENT ; I I j j R , I i R R/A WATER MANAGEMENT! R ■ .1 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO L15' WIDE POTENTIAL TYPE 'D' THOMASSON DRIVE MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING BUFFER ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO ZONED: RSF-4-BMUD-R1 AND PUD (NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS) MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN USE: RESIDENTIAL AND BOTANICAL GARDENS ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. I N i oloo, 2W ® SCALE: I"= 200' ZONED: PUD (BOTANICAL PLACE) USE: RESIDENTIAL "( ACCESS I Q ZONED: PUD (PINEBROOK LAKE) uj � USE: RESIDENTIAL 2 m 115' WIDE TYPE'D' BUFFER ZONED: RPUD-BMUD-R2 (CIRRUS POINTE) USE: RESIDENTIAL 15' WIDE TYPE 'D' BUFFER L c a.�. MATTAMY HOMES RPUD w` ® = DEVIATION ®GradyMinor 0 1. ° A R =RESIDENTIAL �P EXHIBIT C" R/A =RESIDENTIAL OR AMENITY 3 03 20v REVISEo PER REVI a COMMENTS 2017 REVISE PER RFV 3 COMM S.u. °"^ U it Engineers . Land Surve. yors Planners - Land cape \rchitects M „s CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN j016 ^� 1 09 201 R IS PFR R 1 C ENTS S.U. xuaPU0 "QONE AREA Dote asc,vt a w a a G Dring 2355J] Ilal x_G r/v l—l",". 239650A38n SHEER I OP 7 EXHIBIT D FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 59 OF NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27A, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 LINE OF SECTION 14 AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 59 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, NORTH 0°13'10" WEST 50.0 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S-858 (THOMASSON DRIVE); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 89°45'16" EAST, 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF- WAY LINE, NORTH 0°13'10" WEST 1282.27 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 56 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 89°41'31" EAST 1265.08 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S-858 (KELLY ROAD); THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 0°17'51" EAST 800.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°41'31" WEST 451.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°17'51" EAST 483.12 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID S-858 (THOMASSON DRIVE); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE, SOUTH 89°45'16" WEST 815.00 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; BEING A PART OF LOT 56, A PART OF LOT 57, A PART OF LOT 58, AND A PART OF LOT 59 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 2: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 59 OF NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 59, OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS 2, NORTH 00°13'10" WEST 50.00 FEET, TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF S-858 (THOMASSON DRIVE); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 89°45'15" EAST 845.00 FEET FOR THE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 00°17'51" WEST, 483.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°41'31" EAST, 451.76 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S-858 (KELLY ROAD); THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 00°17'51" EAST, 433.61 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTHWESTERLY, 78.58 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, RADIUS 50.00 FEET, SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44°43'42" WEST, 70.74 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF S-858 (THOMASSON DRIVE), SOUTH 89°45'16" WEST, 401.76 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; BEING A PART OF LOT 58, AND A PART OF LOT 59 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 6 of 10 March 31, 2017 EXHIBIT E FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. From LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Table 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow Mattamy Homes to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards as set forth in this PUD. 2. From LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right -of -Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 -foot wide local road, to allow a minimum 50' wide local private road. This deviation applies when the developer proposes to develop local platted streets in lieu of a private drive or access way. See Typical Street Section. 3. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, Buffer Requirements, which requires developments of 15 acres or more to provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way, to permit a 15' wide Type 'D' buffer adjacent to external right-of-ways. Mattomy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 7 of 10 March 31, 2017 BUILDING 0 20' SETBACK I I 10' P.U.E. 4 0 50' RIGHT—OF—WAY (ROW) 20' SETBACK � I I 10' 10' 5' 11—.111 4' 2' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 2' 4' 5' 4' 11. tall 10' P.U.E. SIDEWALK V.G. V.G. SIDEWALK i I BUILDING I E I ! � WATER MAIN FORCE MAIN 3 O7.5' (MIN) (MIN) SANITARY SEWER O NOTE: GARAGE TO BELLOFSIDEWAL]K MIN. FROM BA MATTAMY HOMES RPUD SCALE Q. Grady Minor and Aaeoclams. PA. ' • _ ' d ¢ © GradyMinor 3800 Via Dei Rev OB °DE Bon. 9, AW. Florida 34134 oATaz Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors Planners . LandscapeArchiiects TYPICAL STREET SECTION F A� 2017 �.rrl. ,,I A11tB. EB WM5131 I.I-rI.. 11—til. La UW5151 Ll: 28°W2Bti aSr4F£i-SCiN 8oWUI Sprmp. 239.947.1144 www.Gf9CpMiRof.com Fort Aly— 239.6911.1380 SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT F FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Mattamy Homes, LLC, 4107 Crescent Park Drive, Riverview, FL 33578. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2. PLANNING a. Amenity areas shown are approximate locations and final location shall be determined at time of SDP or Plat. The northernmost amenity area will be developed in the event an interconnection with Windstar is constructed. One of the potential amenity areas may be developed with residential dwellings. b. A maximum of 62 density bonus pool units as provided for in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP may be utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless reauthorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner. 3. TRANSPORTATION Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the PUD is limited to the two-way, unadjusted, average weekday, pm peak hour trip entering/exiting generation of 138 total trips consistent with the TIS dated July 6, 2016 (gross trips). The term "unadjusted" references pass -by and internal capture trip reductions that are not included in the above calculation. 4. MISCELLANEOUS a. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain Maffamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 9 of 10 March 31, 2017 requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. b. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development 5. LANDSCAPING In order to avoid conflicts with utilities and sidewalks, the required canopy tree for an individual lot shall be on from the following list: Wax Myrtle 1:1 Green Buttonwood 1:1 Satin Leaf 1:1 Pigeon Plum 1:1 Geiger Tree 1:1 Silver Buttonwood 1:1 Pitch Apple (Clusia) 1:1 Dahoon Holly 2:1 Where it can be demonstrated that another tree species can be planted without conflict, staff may approve this alternative species. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 10 of 10 March 31, 2017 1 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Memorandum To: Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 10, 2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20160000183 REV: 5 (electronic) PETITION NAME: Mattamy RPUD REQUEST: Rezone +37.25 acres from RMF-6-BMUD-NC, Residential Multi-family zoning district and Bayshore Mixed Use District – Neighborhood Center (+32.27 acres) zoning overlay, and C-3- BMUD-NC, Commercial Intermediate zoning district and Bayshore Mixed Use District – Neighborhood Center (+4.98 acres) zoning overlay, to Mattamy RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development, to permit a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units at a density of 7.41 units per acre. LOCATION: The subject site is at the northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban – Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) and is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA) - all as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Both the RMF-6 and C-3 portions of the site are deemed “consistent by policy” on the FLUM series and thus, per FLUE Policies 5.9 and 5.10, allowed to develop or re-develop per the existing zoning. For market rate housing, the Density Rating System would allow 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) on the C-3 portion of the site (19.92 units); and, per FLUE Policy 5.1, the RMF-6 portion of the site is eligible for 6 DU/A (193.62 units) – for a total of 213.54 units, rounded to 214 units. See further density explanation below. This petition proposes 276 DUs or 7.41 DU/A (276 DUs/37.25 acres = 7.41 DU/A). The B/GTRO encourages development and redevelopment. One means of doing so is through a density bonus incentive. The prior zoning of the Botanical Gardens PUD site would have allowed 388 dwelling units. Those units were placed into a density pool that may be allocated by the Board of County Commissioners on a project by project basis, either for a mixed use project or a residential-only project. The subject petition relies upon this density pool, in part, to achieve the requested density of 7.41 DU/A (276 DUs). The provisions for residential-only projects and for density calculations are provided below, with staff analysis following in [bold]. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport-Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential-only project at a maximum 2 density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11 except that no project may utilize more than 97 units – 25% of the 388 total density pool units available. [The subject site has frontage on Bayshore Drive; this petition proposes a density <8 DU/A (7.41); and, this petition requests <97 units from the bonus pool (62).] The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. [The subject request is for PUD zoning.] b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. [The subject site comprises +37.25 acres.] c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. [The RMF-6 portion of the site was previously developed with apartment buildings which, based upon review of Property Appraiser online records, were demolished in 2010. The C -3 portion of the site contains, or previously contained, some infrastructure dating to the early 1990s. It is staff’s opinion that this project does constitute redevelopment of the site.] d. All residential units shall be market rate units. [Inasmuch as this petition does not seek the density bonus for provision of affordable-workforce housing, a component of the density rating system in the FLUE, and there is no mention in the petition of state or federal subsidies, the project will be developed with market rate units.] 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs #4 and #5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. [The RMF-6 portion of the site yields 193.62 DUs (6 DU/A X 32.27acres). The C-3 portion has no density by right but is eligible for 19.92 DUs under the FLUE’s density rating system (base density of 4 DU/A, less 1 DU/A for lying in the CHHA, +1 DU/A for conversion of commercial zoning bonus = 4 DU/A X 4.98 acres). Combined, this yields 213.54 rounded to 214 DUs. This petition ’s proposed 276 DUs total (7.41 DU/A) less the eligible density of 214 DUs yields a request for 62 DUs from the density bonus pool. PUD Exhibit F, #2.b., states that the project uses 62 density bonus pool units.] Because there is a finite supply of density bonus pool units (388 total, less about 10 bonus units previously utilized, yielding about 378 units) to award as an incentive for redevelopment, careful consideration should be given to each request to use the density bonus pool. In staff’s opinion, this is an appropriate project in which to do so. Aside from complying with the criteria allowing the use of density bonus pool units, staff notes this is one of the few sites within the entire B/GTRO of considerable size without necessity of aggregating numerous parcels – which can be difficult to achieve. Also, staff notes this very site was previously (2006) awarded 232 density bonus pool units, prior to establishment of the present cap of 97 units, for a mixed use project known as Arboretum Village (447 DUs total plus 150,000 square feet of commercial development). That project did not come to fruition, the development order expired, and the awarded density bonus pool units were returned to the pool. On that note, staff believes it appropriate for this PUD to include a provision for return of any unused density bonus pool units within a specified time period; such is found in Exhibit F, #2.b. - though words are inadvertently missing. This insures that any unused units are not permanently attached to the land, rather are returned to the pool so that they can be awarded to incentivize some other development(s) in the B/GTRO. The CHHA prohibits new rezoning to allow mobile home development; th e proposed PUD does not allow mobile homes. 3 Certain FLUE policies are provided below, with staff analysis following in [bold]. Policy 5.4 New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surroundin g or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.] Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C, PUD Conceptual Master Plan, depicts a potential access to Bayshore Drive which is a collector road, as identified within the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C, PUD Conceptual Master Plan, depicts a loop road to provide internal access for all residential lots or tracts.] Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Interconnections are potentially possible to the north and west. To the west is a small neighborhood (+50 lots) zoned RMF-6, mostly developed with single family DUs, with access from Thomasson Drive and containing all dead-end streets. In staff’s opinion, an interconnection to this neighborhood would provide minimal benefit. To the north is a portion of the Windstar PUD containing the entrance road (Windstar Blvd.) and ponds; the PUD is built-out. Exhibit C, PUD Conceptual Master Plan, depicts a potential interconnection to Windstar Blvd.] Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD allows for multi-family, townhouse, two family and single-family; allows for typical accessory uses which could include a clubhouse building – which are sometimes used for civic purposes, e.g. voting precinct; and, provides for open space. Regarding provision of sidewalks, no deviation is sought so sidewalks must be provided per the Land Development Code.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff determines that the proposed PUD rezone may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, a text revision is needed as shown below. 1. Revise Exhibit F, #2.b., to read: A maximum of 62 density bonus pool units, as provided for in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, are available to the developer for a period of 7 years from the date of PUD approval. If after 7 years the bonus units have not been may be utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless reauthorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner. IN CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy RPUD – REV5 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2017\PUDZ dw/4-10-17 p 0 300 600 900150 Feet RPUD RMF-6 RMF-6 C-4 MH MHC-2 VR RMF-6 RMF-6 RMF-6 RMF-6 VR RSF-3 C-5 C-3 RMF-6 RSF-4 RSF-4 RMF-6 C-3 Bayshore DRPUD MPUD MH-BMUD-R3 PUD GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ³ SUBJECT PROPERTY:MATTAMY HOMES RPUD Naples Botanical Gardens Botanical PlaceDensity:10.99 WindstarDensity:1.71 Cultural Arts Village Pinebrook LakeDensity:16 Cirrus PointeDensity:10.89 Density: 7.2 Density: 3 Density: 3 Density: 6 Density: 6 Density: 6 Density: 6 Density: 3 Density: 4 City of Naples UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 295 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE ● NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 TELEPHONE (239) 213-5051 ● FAX (239) 213-5010 Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do. Page 1 of 2 April 21, 2017 Mr. Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section 2800 Horseshoe Dr. North Naples, FL 34104 EricJohnson@colliergov.net Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for Mattamy Homes Folio # 61836520007 – 2765 Thomasson Dr. Folio # 61836480008 – 4490 Bayshore Dr. Dear Mr. Johnson: In response to the request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service (domestic and /or irrigation use) for the proposed residential dwelling units at Mattamy Homes received via email on April 18, 2017, this office has reviewed the subject site for available potable water service. Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following: 1. The subject property is located within the City of Naples potable water service area. 2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project. 3. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. 4. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project’s engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate reviews and analysis. This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site development shall remain the developer’s responsibility to design, permit and construct. Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District. Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office, please do not hesitate to call this office at telephone (239) 213-5051 or email jmartinez@naplesgov.com. Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do. Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, Javier Martinez Utilities Permit Coordinator Cc: Allyson Holland, P.E., Deputy Utilities Director David Banter, Utilities Inspector rs / aiLij .rttto NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun- ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre- ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1562681 PUBLIC HEARING 45-176563 Pub Dates April 14,2017 Sign ure of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me 1 /On* IVONNE GORI This April 24, 17 Notary Public-State o1 Florida •till Commission *FF 900010 f= My Comm.Expires Jul 16.2019 r41 • er: Bonded through National Notary Assn. Signatur of affiant) ' 24A Friday,April 14,2017 Naples Daily News 4 dead of injuries consistent PUBLIC HEARING with methods used by gang Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M.,on Thursday,May 4,2017,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FRANK ELTMAN FL.,to consider: ASSOCIATED MESS A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CENTRAL ISLIP,N.Y.-Four young 4 i • f s AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE WOLF CREEK RPUD,ORDINANCE men found dead in a park from injuries :ions.NO.2007-46,AS AMENDED,TO ADD A PRESERVE EXHIBIT THAT REVISES killedinflicted by a sharp-edged object were ,,'/p..-THE PRESERVE CONFIGURATION FOR PARCELS 3B AND 9 ONLY, FOR methods a way thatM is 3stret consistent gang, wigthe of the MS-13 street ac- 1 PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, cording to police,who declared war i j ,_,-,"` f` APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD,IN against gang violence in the suburbs of r - '°:,, • Long Island. SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY The victims,ranging in age from l6m Jw.- FLORIDA.CONSISTING OF I89±ACRES.[PDI-PL2010NNx404] 20,were discovered in a wooded area near a soccer field in Central Islip,Suf- SETH wsMic/AP folk County Police Commissioner Timo- Suffolk County Police Commissioner Timothy thy Sini said.He said the bodies had"sig- Sini says the victims were 16-20 years old. nificant trauma"wounds,and he be- MA.*RD Heves all the victims were killed there. He did not definitively say the killings FBI began pouring resources into a PROJECT were the work of the MS-13 gang but said crackdown after the killings of the girls,p an LOCATION the tactics-using sharp instruments along with two other Brentwood High is and extreme violence-were consistent School students. with the gang,which has been gaining a Prosecutors said Kayla Cuevas,16, n' g foothold on Long Island for years. was targeted last summer by a group of I This is a long-term war and make no four gang members because she had H a 4 8 mistake about it it's a war,"Sini told re- been feuding with MS-13 members at I a 0.10n O.scorn porters,announcing a$25,000 reward school and on social media.The group, for information about the killings."To- which had been driving around looking day is a sad day in Suffolk County,partic- for gang enemies,attacked when they w„ ularly for the loved ones and the family came across her walking with Nisa i members and the friends of those who Mickens,15,in the street.The insepara- weremurdered,but we maintain our re- ble best friends wereattacked nitro ma- All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed solve."chete and baseball bats,officials said. William Tigre told reporters near the Nisa"was simply at the wrong place RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office, scene that an acquaintance told him at the wrong time,hanging out with her fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401, Wednesday night that his 18-year-old childhood friend;'former U.S.Attorney Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be tiled with brother,Jorge,was among those killed. Robert Capers said in announcing the or- the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,April 20th,2017.The acquaintance also indicated he knew rests. of the killings because he had been there. Anthony Rubenstein, a 29-year-old Ifs son decides toappeal an decision madethe Collier Coon Planning CommissionTheacquaintance"called saying that electrician who graduated from Brent- person y byCounty g my brother was here,dead,"Tigre,21, wood High School and lives near where with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of said."He just said,'I saw your brother the bodies were found,shook his head in that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the dying,and I escaped.'That's the only frustration about the killings. proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the thing he said.He didn't say nothing else." We had violence back then when I Sini confirmed to The Associated was in high school but never like this.I appeal is to be based. Press that police had begun a missing- don't know what it is,but it's definitely person's investigation for Jorge Tigre on getting worse,"he said. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate Tuesday. He would not comment on The MS-13 gang,also called Mara Sal- in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance, whether the teenager was among those vatrucha,is believed to have been found- killed. contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami WiTh, Angelesegs a in he mid 19rhood street gang in Los Trail Rant,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to theThediscoveayoftherrestsceight ] c the mid-1980s by immigrants grewaboutamonthafterthearrestofeightfleeingacivilwarinEISalvador.It grew meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of MS-13 gang members in connection with after some members were deported to El County Commissioners Office. the September killings of two teenage Salvador,helping turn that country into girls in nearby Brentwood. one of the most violent places in the conic,.County Planning CommissionGangviolencehasbeenaprobleminworld.It's now an international criminal Central Islip,Brentwood and other Long enterprise with tens of thousands of Mark Strain,Chairman Island communities for more than a dec- members in several Central American ade,but Suffolk County police and the countries and many U.S.states. April 14,2017 ND-1565605 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 AM.,on Thursday,May 4th,2017.in the Board of County Commissioner§ Commission at 9:00 AM.,on Thursday,May 4th,2017,in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL,to Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL.,to consider: consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE ALLOW A FACILITY FOR THE COLLECTION,TRANSFER PROCESSING,AND COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA REDUCTION OF SOLID WASTE AND AN ACCESSORY USE OF INCIDENTAL OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING RETAIL SALE OF PROCESSED HORTICULTURAL MATERIAL WITHIN A RURAL ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE OVERLAY- HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RECEIVING LANDS(A/RFMUO-RECEIVING LANDS)PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE 2.03.08.A2A.(3)(C)IV.OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-6 ZONING DISTRICT(RMF-6-BMUD-NC)AND THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED U.S.41 EAST AND RIGGS ROAD,IN SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 27 USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE ZONING DISTRICT EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.(PETITION NO.CU-PL20130000320) C-3-BMUD-NC)TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MATTAMY HOMES RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA MAXIMUM OF 276 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST T QUADRANT OF BAYSIIORE DRIVE AND TIIOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CONSISTING OF T o 37+/-ACRES;AND PROVIDING ANEFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20160000183] 00r 'n a9 I1msq/, d Dams BLVD I1 a E I1- 1 PROJECT 11 cg 1 LOCATION 1L' co 6L40 1111 Tmm...rn,og E.t.a°Ha,nmcH ftO r *-4'. qa r, ..-r--r,iir F ' e All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,fourth floor,Collier will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,May 4th,2017. Section,pnor to Thursday,May 4th,2017.If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Phoning Commission If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that with respect to my matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings proceeding,and for such purpose he 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. is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate If you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. m this Proceeding,you arc entitled,at no cost you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days pnor to the Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board ot'County meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hcanng impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman Mark Strain,Chairman April 14,2017 ND-1562881 April 14,2017 ND-1562406 COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department April 14, 2017 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on May 4, 2017,in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the project to be known as Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development, to allow construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units on property located in the northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37+/- acres; and providing an effective date. [PL20160000183] [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner] You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing. 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 COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW , 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 Collier County Planning Commission 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition, and other pertinent inform ation related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the staff member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, Eric Johnson Eric Johnson Principal Planner Ta mia mi T R L E 5th AVE S Airport-Pulling RD SDavis BLVD Bayshore DRThomasson DR AVEVAN BUREN VAN BUREN AVE STLUNAR LINDA DR HARVEST CTH A L D E MA N C R E E K D R FULL MOON CTNEW MOON CTDRDRJEEPERS LIGH THOUSE LANE LIGHTHOUSESU NSET AVE BAYSHORESTLNLAKE AVE FLOR IDA AVE PINETHOMASS ON DRIVETHOMASSON DRIVE PALMETTO COURTCO TTAGE GROVE AVE KAREN DRIVE BAYSHORE DRREP UBLIC DRIVE CONSTITUTION DRIVE LNLIBERTYTRACT B 313335373839424647484952534839403736343154 55 2 561055771425 12265859 74480828487949635678291011125115014494815474645442216434217SOMERSETATWINDSTAR TRACT E 433932331834351936 BAYSHORECOMMERCIALCONDO 37 383130 39 4029 412827 202625 3221245223 552215 5712 10953TRACT A TRACT B TRACT B MO ORH EAD MANOR54 PARCEL ATRACT A 1 2 3 TR B4 TRACT B5TRACTITRACTJ6557 24 TRACT CTRACT A 64 66 56 4340 10557 TRACT B 30 27 TRACT A20 22 58 7 59 5 3 60 2 8 97 10 11 1245 1361 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4109826 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4928 1 17 2018191279368131416410111552 62 23 40 4137383926282933343536273130242532 63 99 44 53 64 52 54 55434251 41 50 49 4840 47 39 38 3765 33 3645 PH I PH II PH III PH IV PH VABACO BAYCONDO 61 PH 4PH 1 PH 2 PH 3 PH 12 BOTANICAL PLACE CONDO 108 OR 711/600 PH 8 PH 6PH 7PH 9 52 38 PH 13 SFWMD CONSRV ESMTOR 4491 PG 3216.12 TOTAL ACRES FIRE STATION#22 97 98 À29À30À32À34À36À40À41À43À44À45 À50À43À46À44À45À47À41À38À35À49À33À32À30À29À28À27À26À1À36 À9 À3À8À4À11À6À12À13À15À16À17À18À20À21À22À23À24 À3À4À5À6À7À8À9À10À11À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À24À25À56À27À1 À1.4À1.3 À1.5 À1.6 À1À1.7 À72À73À75À76À77À78À1.8 À79À81À83À85À86À88À89À90À91À92À93À95À1.9 À1.10 À9À1.2 À8À10À1.11 À99À1.12 À7À11 À3À4À5À6À12À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À22À23À24À25 À2À1.1 À1.14À1.15 À1.51 À1.50 À46 À47À100À1.16À1.49 À1 À24À1.48 À23 À25À2À1.17À1.47 À26À1.46 À48À45À45À101À47À1.45 À3À1.44 À21 À27À1.32 À44 À49À1.43 À44À42À41À40À38À1.33 À37À36À35À34À33À1.42 À32À31À30À29À28À27À26 À102 À4À1.34 À1.35 À46 À20 À28À1.36 À50À43À1.18À1.37 À103À1.38 À42 À51À19À1.39 À5À1.19 À29À1.40 À1.41À1 À104 À52À41À6À18À52.2 À30À1.31 À40 À53À105À17À1.30 À7 À31À1.29 À32À1.20À1.28 À54À39À16À106À1.27 À52À1.26 À1.21 À38À1.25 À9À52.1 À107À1.24 À33À1.23 À37 À56À1.22 À10 À14 À34À108 À36À11À13À35 À109À52.3 À109.1 À109.2 À1 À1.2 À1.2 À108.2 À108.1 À53 À1 À2 À3 À4 À5 À6 À7 À8 À9 À10 À11 À12 À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19 À1 À43 À1 À1 À1 À2 À3À1 À42 À41 À40 À39 À38 À37 À36 À35 À34 À33 À32 À31 À30 À29 À28 À27 À26 À25À4À6À7À107 À1 À1 À56À1 À57 À58 À59 À60 À61 À62 À63 À65 À56.1 À2 À55 À54 À53 À51 À50 À49 À48 À47 À46 À45À3 À44À4À34À35À36À37À39À41À42 À43 À5 À57 À33X21 À32 À31 À29 À28 À26 À25 À24 À23À6 À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19 À21À7À12À1 À8 À11 À10 À9 À8 À6 À5 À4 À3 À2 À1 À9 À1 X11 À10 X13 À103X12X18.1 X18 X14À6À4À3À2À22À1 À60.2À60.7 À60.3 À3 À6 À7 À11À5À4À9À10 À12 À60.4À60.8 À60 À2 À60.5À61.6 À60.6À60.9 À25 À61.3 À23 À22 À19 À18 À17 À16 À12 À11À20 À7 À6 À5 À4À10À9À8À61À60.1 À61.4À61.1 À61.5 À61.2 À27 À29 À30 À31 À38À32 À39À33À34À35À36 À44 À45 À46 À47 À48 À49À41À42À43 À61.10 À28À61.9 À100.43 À100.8À100.6À100.3À100.5À100.15À100.21À100.29À100.28À100.35À100.27À100.42À100.46À100.23À100.45À100.18À100.16À100.41À100.40À100.2 À62 À100.33 À100.1À100.9À100.4À100.7À100.30À100.10À100.13À100.17À100.11À100.36À100.22À100.25À100.14À100.19À100.37À100.20À100.44À100.12 À63 À99 À63.1 À64 À44X8À64.1 À55À54À53À43 À42À98.1 À52À41 À51 À65 À40 À50À39 À48 À38 À37 À45 À33 À36 À97.1À97 À66 À22 À8 À104.1 À61.11 À14 À106.1 À19 À23 À42 X14.1 À56 MUP CU V CU MUP PUD RMF-6-BMUD-R1 MH-BMUD-NC RSF-4-BMUD-R1 C-2-BMUD-NC RMF-6-BMUD-R1 PUD C-5-BMUD-NC C-3-BMUD-NC PUD RMF-6-BMUD-R2 RSF-3-BMUD-R1 RSF-4-BMUD-R4 C-5-BMUD-NC RMF-6-BMUD-R1 MH-BMUD-R3 C-2-BMUD-NCRMF-6-BMUD-R3 VR-BMUD-R3 MH-BMUD-R3 PUDC-3-BMUD-NC RPUD-BMU D-R2 C-4-BMUD-NC RSF-6-BMUD-R1 RMF-6-BMUD-NC RMF-6-BMUD-R1 RMF-6 RMF-6 RMF-6-BMUD-R2 C-4-BMUD-NC RMF-6-BMUD-R1 MPUD BOTANICALPLACE PINEBROOKLAKE CIRRUS POINTE NAPLESBOTANICALGARDENS WINDSTAR CULTURALARTS VILLAGEAT BAYSHORE Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-20160000183 PROJEC TLOCATION SITELOCATION ¹ Docu ment Path: M:\UrbanPlanning\PetitionMgmt\2 016 PLs\Zoning\PL201 60000183-PUDZ-Mattamy Homes\wo rkspace\site-lo cation.mxd 04/10/201704/10/201704/10/201704/10/2017 04/10/2017 1 JohnsonEric From:Mike Rosen <Mikerosen66@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:44 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Re: Mattamy Homes Thank you Eric Sent from my iPhone On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:26 AM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Mr. Rosen, Please see the attached PUD Application. Below is a screenshot of other documents submitted by the applicant in connection with this petition. Feel free to let me know if there are any others that you want. <image003.jpg> I copied these files from accessing CityView, which you are allowed to access this yourself by clicking the following link: http://cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb The link will prompt you to indicate the PL #. The PL # for this project is PL20160000183. With respect to the NIM, it is the applicant’s responsibility to do the advertising and public noticing. For a list of property owners, I’m assuming they requested this information from our GIS staff who routinely performs such mapping or from the property appraiser’s office. Our GIS staff produced the attached map and property owner list (for County purposes when it comes time for the County to advertise for public hearing). I assume the applicant used a duplicate list for their NIM. I will reach out to the applicant and request this information. They are required to provide me this information anyway, so I might as well ask for it now. When I receive it, I will forward it to you. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: Mike Rosen [mailto:Mikerosen66@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:31 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Mattamy Homes Thank you Eric, I received Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F, However, I did not receive the PUD Application? I was called after our telephone call today from a member of the Windstar community, who said , in a conversation today with the MATTAMY rep. that there is a scheduled Neighborhood meeting on Sept. 13 ?? 2 Is this correct and has Windstar residents been Notified? Thank you Mike Rosen 239-450-0969 Sent from my iPhone On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:21 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Mr. Rosen, Please see the proposed PUD Document. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-2931 office (239) 252-6503 fax The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. <Submittal 1 MHA RPUD Exhibits A-F - Prepared.pdf> <Submittal 1 MHA Application PUDR - Prepared.pdf> <POList.xlsx> <Tax Roll Map PL2016-183.pdf> 1 JohnsonEric From:Mike Rosen <Mikerosen66@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:40 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Re: Mattamy Homes Thank you Eric, Mike Rosen Sent from my iPhone On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:55 AM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Mr. Rosen, Please see attached affidavit and supporting documents regarding the NIM. The attached is from the applicant. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: Mike Rosen [mailto:Mikerosen66@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:31 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Mattamy Homes Thank you Eric, I received Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F, However, I did not receive the PUD Application? I was called after our telephone call today from a member of the Windstar community, who said , in a conversation today with the MATTAMY rep. that there is a scheduled Neighborhood meeting on Sept. 13 ?? Is this correct and has Windstar residents been Notified? Thank you Mike Rosen 239-450-0969 Sent from my iPhone On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:21 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Mr. Rosen, Please see the proposed PUD Document. Respectfully, 2 Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-2931 office (239) 252-6503 fax The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. <Submittal 1 MHA RPUD Exhibits A-F - Prepared.pdf> <Affidavit of Compliance 08-29-2016.pdf> 1 JohnsonEric From:Mike Rosen <Mikerosen66@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:31 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Re: Mattamy Homes Thank you Eric, I received Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F, However, I did not receive the PUD Application? I was called after our telephone call today from a member of the Windstar community, who said , in a conversation today with the MATTAMY rep. that there is a scheduled Neighborhood meeting on Sept. 13 ?? Is this correct and has Windstar residents been Notified? Thank you Mike Rosen 239-450-0969 Sent from my iPhone On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:21 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Mr. Rosen, Please see the proposed PUD Document. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Department Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-2931 office (239) 252-6503 fax The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. <Submittal 1 MHA RPUD Exhibits A-F - Prepared.pdf> CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 1 of 14 April 25, 2017 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2017 SUBJECT: CU-PL20130000320 CAMMUSO GREEN WASTE TRANSFER STATION PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENTS: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Agent: Dominick Cammuso R. Bruce Anderson Michael Delate, P.E. 6350 Davis Blvd, Suite 102 Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Naples, FL 34104 821 Fifth Avenue South 3800 Via Del Ray Naples, FL 34102 Bonita Sprints, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: Dominick Cammuso requests a Conditional Use to allow a facility for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste and an accessory use of incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands (A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands) pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of U.S. 41 East and Riggs Road in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East (See location map on page 2 and Conditional Use Plan on page 3). AGENDA ITEM 9-C CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 4 of 14 April 25, 2017 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petitioner seeks Conditional Use approval to allow for a facility for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of horticultural, solid waste, and incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material (top soil and mulch) as an accessory use. The drawing labeled Conditional Use Plan (see Attachment 2 – Application and Support Material) illustrates the location of the staging area, off-street parking lot, landscape buffers, and preserve area. No buildings are proposed. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject property: North: Residential property, zoned A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands. East: Land dedicated to Collier County, then farther east is agricultural use (6 L’s Farm), all of which are zoned A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands. South: Right-of-way for Tamiami Canal, then farther south is right-of-way for U.S. 41 East, then farther south are Tracts A and B, including the Academy Golf & Driving Range at Eagle Lakes Golf Course in Royal Palm Golf Estates Unit One and Tract A (Open Space) and right-of-way for Royal Hammock Boulevard in Royal Palm Golf Estates Replat #3, all of which are zoned Boyne South PUD (RPUD) with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Neutral Lands (A/RFMUO-Neutral Lands). Tract A of Royal Palm Golf Estates Unit One has Conditional Use approval for the establishment of a driving range (R-96-16) and a time extension (R-97-71). West: Right-of-way for Riggs Road, then farther west is a wholesale plant nursery at 11825 Riggs Road, zoned A. CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 5 of 14 April 25, 2017 Aerial (County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Receiving Lands, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and addressed in the Future FLUE of the Collier County GMP. The Receiving Lands designation allows participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, including Rural Villages and residential clustering, single-family residences at a density of one dwelling unit per five acres or legally nonconforming parcel, agricultural uses, and other non-residential uses including facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste. Based on staff’s analysis, the proposed Conditional Use is consistent with the FLUE. Additional analysis is provided in Attachment 3 – FLUE Consistency Review. Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP, which states the following: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as Subject Property CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 6 of 14 April 25, 2017 identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways. The waste transfer station, as proposed, will generate a projected total of 92 2-way daily trips and +/- 4 AM peak hour and +/- 7 PM, peak hour, 2-way trips for the proposed facility on the adjacent local roadway, Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41 E). The TIS provided with this petition utilized the then-applicable 2013 AUIR data. Staff reviewed and approved the petition based on that provided data. Additionally, staff updated that evaluation of the request based on the now, current 2016 AUIR, which indicates that Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41 E) has a service volume of 1,075 and a remaining capacity of approximately 230 trips between Greenway Lane and San Marco Drive; and has a current LOS (level of service) “D.” Therefore, the subject Conditional Use has been found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year planning period. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with CCME. In accordance with CCME Policy 6.1.2 [minimum preservation and native vegetation retention standards and criteria for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)], a minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, but not to exceed 25% of the total site, is required to be retained. For this site, a minimum of 2.55 acres of native vegetation is required to be retained. Agricultural Clearing Permit number ACP-PL20130002368 was issued for the subject property in accordance with LDC Sections 3.05.07.A.6 and 10.02.06.C to legalize the clearing of 7.78 acres of land for agricultural purposes by the previous owner. The 7.78 acres also met the 10-year, change-in-use limitation previously identified in the GMP and LDC for land cleared for agricultural purposes. Another 2.29 acres of the subject property met the criteria for the exemption from Agricultural Clearing Permit, pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.06.C.1.d. The native vegetation retention requirement for the site is, therefore, based on the remaining 6.37 acres. For this site, a minimum of 2.55 acres of native vegetation (40% of the native vegetation present on site) is required to be retained. Since additional unpermitted clearing occurred on-site by the previous CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 7 of 14 April 25, 2017 owner, not meeting the 25-year change-in-use limitation currently included in the GMP and LDC for land cleared for agricultural purposes, approximately 1.58 acres of preserve will have to be created on-site to satisfy the minimum native vegetation retention requirement, since only approximately 0.98 acre of native vegetation occurs on-site. Soil sampling has been submitted with the application for Conditional Use (CU) in accordance with LDC Section 3.08.00. Additional soil and/or ground water sampling will be required at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP), the requirement for such has been included as a condition of approval (see Recommendation section of this staff report). ANALYSIS: The subject property is located in the A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands (see Attachment 5 – Rural Fringe Map). The RFMU Receiving Lands are those lands within the RFMU district that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from RFMU sending lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, RFMU receiving lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than RFMU sending lands and generally have been disturbed through development or previous or existing agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into RFMU receiving lands and away from RFMU sending lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) process, clustered development, density bonus incentives, and provisions for central sewer and water. Pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv, the proposed use, Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste is allowed at the subject site as a Conditional Use. A Conditional Use is defined as a use that due to special circumstances, is not permissible in a zoning district but may be appropriate if controlled as to the number, area, location, or relation to the neighborhood. The applicant also wants to have the ability to conduct retail sales (i.e., top soil and mulch). Staff determined this would not be an issue because retailing activity is considered as an accessory use. An accessory use is defined as a use located on the same lot or parcel and incidental and subordinate to the principal use. However, unlike other projects, which may set aside no more than 20% of the floor area, this project contains no building, so it will be challenging to limit the retail activity. As a solution, staff and the applicant have agreed that retailing activity will only occur one day per week (see Recommendation section of the staff report, page 12). At the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) the applicant suggested, that Saturday would be the day in which this activity would likely occur. In August 2011, Dominick Cammuso purchased the subject property from Flamingo Bend Nursery, Incorporated. In the same month, Mr. Cammuso formed a profit corporation called Peewee’s Disposal Incorporated of Florida, which was later renamed to Professional Disposal Incorporated. A pre-application meeting was held later in 2011 for the purpose of submitting a petition for Conditional Use approval. Because no application was submitted within nine months of the pre-application meeting, another pre-application meeting was required. In 2012, the County issued a Land Use and Zoning Certificate (Non-residential) for Anna’s Green Acres for a wholesale nursery (see Attachment 6 – Anna’s Green Acres Zoning Certificate). The stipulations in the Certificate included the requirement for the petitioner to provide a Site Improvement Plan (SIP) for structures proposed on-site. The Certificate also stipulated that the wholesaling of CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 8 of 14 April 25, 2017 compost material (soil) would be allowed as an accessory use to the principal use, a wholesale nursery. Conditional Use approval would be required if a retail plant nursery (SIC #5261) or the collection/transfer site for resource recovery of yard waste for recycling is proposed in the future. The Certificate allowed the wholesale nursery owner to bring yard waste on-site for the purpose of composting to improve soil for the nursery, and it also allowed the wholesaling of the compost material. It should be noted, however, that the accessory composting activity is limited to no more than 20% of the land area for the wholesale nursery. Also, the concrete debris found on-site was to be removed or buried pursuant to the applicable DEP and LDC requirements. The County Code Enforcement Division opened a case (CENA20120000965) on January 20, 2012 against Anna’s Green Acres for the unauthorized accumulation of litter consisting of concrete and other construction material, and the excessive storage of vegetative material. According to the case notes, more than 75% of the property had an accumulation of litter consisting of but not limited to yard waste, wood, concrete, and rebar. The notes indicated that the prior owner, Flamingo Bend Nursery, operated an unapproved recycling facility that accepted yard waste. Code Enforcement staff determined Anna’s Green Acres accepted payment for the receipt of the aforementioned litter, which was unauthorized. Also, they mulched/grinded the yard waste to form top soil product with the intent to sell. The problem was that Anna’s Green Acres was licensed as a wholesale plant nursery, and that a junk yard and/or the recycling of construction materials (e.g., concrete) are not allowed in the A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands zoning district, neither as a permitted or Conditional Use. The case notes recommended the property owner take the following measures to bring the property into compliance: 1. Obtain an Occupational License to operate a wholesale plant nursery. 2. Approval of a SIP for any structures associated with the wholesale plant nursery. 3. The wholesaling of the existing compost material (soil) is deemed to be an accessory use to the wholesale plant nursery. 4. Conditional Use approval is required for a retail plant nursery (SIC #5261) or to operate a collection and transfer site for resource recovery/recycling of yard waste material. 5. Outside parties or businesses are not permitted to bring yard waste material on-site for composting for the purpose of improving the soil for use at the nursery. Compost material may be sold wholesale as an accessory use, contingent upon the SIP showing that no more than twenty percent (20%) of the site is dedicated to such use. All functions associated with the accessory use are to be maintained within the designated boundaries for the accessory use. The fire department wind rows, the equipment used to process the compost material, the piles of yard waste, the process material, and the final product top soil shall only occur within the area designated for the accessory use. 6. The concrete debris must be removed. The debris may be buried if it is done so in accordance with the applicable Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and LDC requirements. The Code Enforcement Division closed the case on November 15, 2012. The Land Development Services Division approved an SIP (PL20120000406) in May 2012 (see Attachment 7 – SIP). CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 9 of 14 April 25, 2017 Another pre-application meeting was conducted in April 2013. Michael R. N. McDonnell from McDonnell Trial Law submitted this petition in September 2014; however, Michael Delate became the agent in July 2016. Another code enforcement case (CELU201600016958) was opened in October 2016. The complainant stated the property was being used as a transfer station and that the processing and hauling of concrete, clearing materials, and construction-related debris was not permitted. The case is currently pending the outcome of this request for Conditional Use. Professional Disposal Incorporated is currently conducting business under the name Anna’s Green Acres. They possess an active Business Tax Receipt (BTR) for a wholesale nursery. Pursuant to LDC Section 10.08.00.D., before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property of uses in the same district of neighborhood; 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). As previously mentioned, the proposed use is allowed as a Conditional Use at the subject site pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv. Comprehensive Planning staff determined this use is allowed under the FLUE of the GMP. The Conditional Use Plan illustrates the proposed location of the water management area, landscape buffers, and preserves. With respect to drainage, the applicant will be required to submit a permit application to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The County will more thoroughly evaluate for stormwater management during the SDP process. Since the drawing will be required to be compliant with the LDC during the SDP review process, this petition is considered consistent with both the LDC and the GMP. 2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time (i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review). The project’s development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of SDP or SIP review. Access to the subject property would be limited to one point of ingress/egress along Riggs Road as shown on the Conditional Use Plan. The Conditional Use Plan also indicates the closest fire hydrant is located along U.S. 41 East, approximately 320 feet west of its intersection with Riggs Road. The off-street parking area would be sufficient in size for a fire-truck turn around. 3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. The abutting properties to the east and west have agricultural uses, and many of the properties within the immediate vicinity of the subject property can be characterized as either agricultural CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 10 of 14 April 25, 2017 or low-intensity commercial. Staff does not have any reason to anticipate negative effects on the abutting non-residential properties. The abutting property, to the north, is zoned A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands and has been developed with a single-family home. The Conditional Use Plan proposes a Type C buffer along the north property line where abutting this property. The Conditional Use Plan also shows the location of an existing lake and proposed off-street parking area. Just west of the existing lake is an area labeled “Ag Resource Transfer Area.” Staff understands this area would serve as the place where top soil, trees, and potted plants would be displayed for retail purposes. The landscape buffer, lake, retail display area, and off-street parking area would separate the wind rows (on the subject property) from the dwelling on the abutting property to the north. Staff does not anticipate the Conditional Use would have a negative effect on the abutting A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands-zoned property to the north. The Conditional Use Plan illustrates the location of a 2.55-acre preserve along the south property line of the subject property (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5 in Attachment 3 – Staff Photograph Exhibit). Where the preserve is absent along this property line, the Conditional Use Plan proposes a 20-foot wide Type C buffer. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC Sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07. For areas along the southern property line that require the establishment of a Type C buffer, these areas shall reach the 80% opacity requirement as specified in the LDC within six months of the approval of the SDP (see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 12). The proposed Conditional Use would be effectively separated from the adjacent residences of Boyne South PUD due to the following mitigating factors: 1) the presence of the aforementioned preserve and Type C buffer along the south property line of the subject property; 2) the right-of-way of U.S. 41 East is approximately 200 feet wide; and 3) the northeast area of Boyne South PUD (along U.S. 41 East) is primarily comprised of a natural area and a golf driving range (see Photograph 7 in Attachment 3 – Staff Photograph Exhibit). During the course of the review, staff requested applicant provide a response to this criterion, which is quoted below: Abutting properties have the same agricultural zoning as the subject property and consists of active farm fields, a nursery, and farm worker housing. Except adjacent to the farm fields where a 15-foot landscape buffer is provided, all other sides of the property provide for a 20-foot buffer. In addition to a minimum 20-foot landscape buffer, most of the property’s frontage on US 41 across from the entrance to Boyne South PUD, consists of a 2.55 preserve area. The applicant further responded to this criterion as follows: The present use of the property already includes a green waste transfer station that is limited to horticultural debris generated from the owner’s roll off waste container rental operation. When they empty their horticultural containers from their customers, it is hauled in the owner’s trucks to their facility on Riggs Road for processing. Approval of CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 11 of 14 April 25, 2017 this Conditional Use would allow the owner to accept and process horticultural waste from others. The resulting material from the processing is topsoil. In evaluating their response, staff notes that the transfer station activity described above is currently allowed as an accessory use only and that the land area allocated to such use is limited to 20%. Staff is unsure if the operator is keeping within the restraints of this limitation; however, regardless, staff does not anticipate the Conditional Use (as a principal use with greater intensity) would generate an unexpected level of noise, glare, or odor to the homes in Boyne South PUD. Economic effects are subjective and difficult to quantify, but staff does not anticipate approval of the Conditional Use to negatively influence the economics of the local area. 4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. As previously mentioned, the abutting properties to the east and west have agricultural uses, and many of the properties within the immediate vicinity of the subject property can be characterized as either agricultural or low-intensity commercial. The abutting property to the north is zoned A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands, which allows for a number of agricultural activities. The proposed wind rows on the subject site would be separated from the homes in the adjacent Boyne South PUD by a preserve and landscape buffer on the subject property, in combination with the approximate 200-foot wide expanse of the U.S. 41 East right-of-way, and the existing non-developed areas of Boyne South PUD. Staff does not anticipate a compatibility issue between the proposed Conditional Use and the adjacent properties. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): A NIM was held on February 1, 2017 at the East Naples Public Library, located at 8787 Tamiami Trail East (see Attachment 2 – Application and Support Material). The meeting commenced at 5:28 p.m. A total of 19 people registered on the sign-in sheet including the petitioner’s team members, County staff, and members of the public. The petitioner opened the meeting by summarizing the Conditional Use application details and highlighting the changes in business operations if the Conditional Use is approved. The petitioner described the incoming waste as “yard clippings, palm fronds,” and “anything that’s cut that can be degraded down into a material that ends up as a finished product as top soil is what we’re allowed to bring.” Members of the public asked the operator if the project intent is to burn materials on-site. Mr. Matthew Cammuso responded to this inquiry that there be no burning of materials on-site. While discussing the anticipated traffic, with a drawing on display at the meeting, the petitioner told the attendees: Right now, we're using approximately, and I don't have the exact numbers, so don't quote me on this, I believe it's right around 30% of the property is what we can use for the operation. And as you can see, that 30%, I don't know if you've got a better picture of CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 12 of 14 April 25, 2017 approximately what it might look like right now. This might be a better idea of what it looks like. This portion right here is approximately the maximum amount that we can use for that. The only difference would be, is that this portion would be able to be used, which might double, if our approximate dimensions are correct, about how much waste we can have there. And this amount of material might take 12 months for it to turn. So it might take 12 months for us to get enough material here, and we might be talking about, and we have no way of knowing to be exact, but there might be, earlier in the week, not very many customers bringing material to the property because yard waste companies in Collier County typically combine their waste and then they dump at the end of the week. So a Thursday, Friday, might be a more, it would be the busier time, and we may see six trucks a day, and they're not 18-wheelers. They’re a yard truck that might have waste in the back of it. With respect to the same discussion, another unidentified male voice immediately said, “Typical landscaping truck.” The applicant further stated, It might be 12 trucks, but as soon as we reach a maximum amount of material on the property, we won’t be able to take any additional. So it would be customers picking up finished topsoil and it would be normal customers. The public continued to ask questions, including but not limited to the operator’s anticipated volume of materials to be stored on-site, proposed access point(s), location and noise of shredders/mulching machines, odor, the business’ operational compliance with applicable codes and inspections, the possibility of fires, hours of operation, landscaping/buffering and the public’s ability to see the property when looking northward from U.S. 41 East, and public notice requirements. With respect to noise, one member of the public complained that she hears a “beep, beep, beep” sound. An unidentified male voice from the audience commented that the noise was attributed to the “back up alarm on the loader.” The meeting ended at 6:20 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on April 19, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval, contingent upon the following: 1) The following are conditions of approval offered by the applicant as the NIM: a. No burning of any waste b. No inorganic solid waste shall be brought to the site, including demolition debris c. No tractor-trailers will be brought on-site d. The wind rows shall not exceed a maximum height of 25 feet e. The operation will be closed on Sundays 2) In order to ensure the retailing component of the operation remains as an accessory use to the waste transfer station, retailing activity shall be limited to one day per week; CU-PL20130000320 – Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Page 13 of 14 April 25, 2017 3) Provide at least one permanent bathroom facility (e.g., port-o-john) on-site. The location will be required to be shown on the subsequent SDP application; 4) Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC Sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. For areas along the southern property line that require the establishment of a Type C buffer, these areas shall reach the 80% opacity requirement as specified in the LDC within six months of the approval of the SDP; 5) All soil sample results reported in the soil sampling report dated August 7, 2015 were below the commercial soil cleanup target levels established in the FAC 62-777. However, soil samples HA-1, HA-3, and HA-6 indicated organochlorine pesticide levels above the established leachability levels in FAC 62-777. Additional assessment is warranted to establish if groundwater contamination for these constituents is present. The applicant may pursue one of two options, the results of which shall be provided at the time of SDP submittal: 1) resample these areas at a greater depth above the water table and provide the County with the results for review; or 2) collect groundwater samples and provide the County with the results to confirm that the groundwater in these areas is not contaminated. If the applicant chooses to pursue Option 1 and organochlorine pesticide results remain above the leachability levels, groundwater sampling will be required in the areas were results are elevated. Additionally, the report provided did not indicate results for silver, one of the eight Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) metals, as required per LDC Section 3.08.00.A.4.d.ii. Results for silver will need to be provided at the time of SDP submittal. If soil or groundwater contamination is discovered through additional sampling, the County will require the applicant to coordinate any needed remediation with the DEP; and 6) The property owner shall provide quarterly reports to the Collier County Solid Hazardous Waste Management Division identifying the types and amounts of recyclable material collected. Attachments: 1) Proposed Resolution 2) Application and Support Material 3) Staff Photograph Exhibit 4) FLU Consistency Review 5) Rural Fringe Map 6) Anna’s Green Acres Zoning Certificate 7) SIP 8) Legal Notifications 9) Emails_Letters from Public PREPARED BY: A ray. W(' ^y > w )--tC7 CD ^ O n C CCD .�� d Q— O C U4 0 O O p cn 0 � Q ►+� O = v, ►t CO i=.. C� ,�� Cj' w A� • .�'.. Q CD CD CD CD w CD�° x `° CD x a r, CD t o C A� q° ts' Q v' `� (Cilqq z Cry pn� ' m C ((DD'* d G O C17 �� 'D� R CD N ' CD O p ¢. CA A CD CL CD o o°Q rn � a 'p O 'C3 �q 0 CD P� r. p (D O °Z' n A*' � � C7 fs. 0 CCD ° CCD -'� � CD C, 0 CD.. N ja, t., "CSD C7 Q D .oy Q- O � lf CD p O O•'O O N CD ~y Ar .CD `C Q CD CD CD c-4 o aC �. voc cD CD 0" � CW � CDo � y o o o '� BaaCD CD Cn s (:r c) D CD (D0 N CSD CD ¢; CD U4 p '.a 'q2. O CD ¢ ^ O CSD vp�, s� CD CD N o CL w p 0 0 CD CD CD Uq CD CD CD CD CQ CD N C CCD N C C N LU �� N v,vCD p QO ���" o'CCDD C" CD o �%�. , 10.W CD SD CD �. ID v. 1 CD CD 0P. �3 D CD o� • Ci CD O~ n O 0 g OUQ CD 00 � CD O ' CD as CD O O Vc CD CD CD CD O wa. 0,�. CD ° ►CDs v' ?r � CD v� �. Uo CD CD � S"T im,� r,�Or�JzOO�>��xJz,dY0> or�0�,-�yn�rC�nt�nrr0 w�NRrA zyxi�y Nno0(,��c7d�., op -34 �c azo y0o��,�wo0CA �G�''�z0 M oily� 0.1x�Oi�Atri�r021w 'M 0 OV* 0-4 wonror� z4 yz� �r�z�roo� �pyyA,=�r zrzzr��� by Ao zoo yor�0 Crix �'dpd dyrrAyziC!►rJ ,d rA �J�p C0 y Z��yA"�� 0 A C 00 0 � z� "m 0 b rr,�-d �yzlx►C�dcn>> 00P�lx� Az N U bd Cri n N O' �� 0 owe "=� Oil xyy �� `d 00 w -i CD Orz ar y o o Q. oa �d iT7 t� -3 J CAD CD CD .-�„ �, .. CD CD n K'N ° Ox CD CL 0 CD ,.. x .� O' aCD �d u qQ CD CD CDCD CD CD CL n N d an ° i o < o C' O O ^ Q., " w v, 9t CD CDr CD CD t -J CD Abd C Cad o o o d ¢(D . °� CD �C O"d a. En.CD 8 .8 a 2- COD �3 - W CD CD CD nCD ¢ UQo c`nu `c O ° CD o 0 CD a 0 0 El l. W CD Z CD CD 00 a� CD CD 0 j=. 0 cr CD w O .�p >1 + CD a C •-..`sem N O 0 Pt O J QO Ot 7 O n Cro w� C° C ro o n a 4.0 �, ^,nay ? z �' cm o p-y�iayj w T coort A v_ O N 0 O o 0 �p rt F o w l< a �'• NJ. O ��O y7 OlAO �, W n w A O 7 O Zo O ff+ NO � (o Ex n .N. O Pt O O ^� o 'no D t^ p w n O F n ^•� O -C O ••� i,J M N vi QO .,�. O mw oon 3R•c�i(• [/] 0 Ki w �+M� o XC a o R F - o � C z `< •v o 0 0 o w `�° N O a ° a• < C.� O -e cy CL 0 �. do N 1 0Z S m o c 41 a) = rL to w ' o'o ?�? °c c> ti w O o Dnp; om d _5 C w .O 5 Ov P3 CD 0 5r :o o ao 8cn m� c x as � y •' _ p' o. o �'7ow n 0 c_5'X- w to O w w o y a 00 0 It ❑' rLIN N f7 !-1 a C) d i-0 b H O z �n A� �(l) CO N TO wo 3 m ca -4U) C O =j m c�0 0 Gi W a r- 1 m m z R• w X moo N zZ am�� c7)0m mco m -u x m m Z 00 (nm zcc co (n 8 -4 <I. �' { D C, Z r� �7 mv0) w O T N O z �D m O 3n v z C (_n T� vm C v c4 mb ,y 0c D N xk\ mm trl7 -n T� Z D mm m AI i \ // �� \ �' (_nD Z �m Z 0 (n M zSSSi/i o >zOD\\ z me (i z0m m Qd02i SrJrJI2I D m co D A /� ,SD. > -nM 0 i x m \ Vim) v D� F m �n A� �(l) 3 m ca -4U) C O =j m 0 Gi Y A T O u ,a3i a r- 1 m m z R• w X w www N zZ am�� vm .:a c 0 m0 m Z 00 (nm zcc (n (n r (n 8 -4 D D x D C, Z r� �7 c v tTj T O z 'U -4 m O o z C (_n K D O r ,y c m z N m N V m m D z C� y z w c in O i z 0 m 0 m z m �m m D 4 �� R D D y \ / m X \ / v z \\ x C7 z D \ r X m z mWfc v(n0 C) ZT Xm -i*-jm z 70z 0 0m� D �m Fn C)x A AX 31 mz m Dm >mm x O n MM -i Lo D N.'G� 5 Fn C: � �� m <zD � z Co". m 0Dm m c��� 00! � mczr mM > 'f'1 N�Z x00 M n o z D m rn mo m ZIZ5�x a, r En Tn cm W m 7D0C TOm W m �m n'mc ZZ < 7o mvm o m om 0 z �Q•o m� m U) OOx !n D W D 'n K � m�0 C w70 X m =0x ac n c zvv m ,mac � �1 0 M m m ;o -0 TAm-4T moxom <00�< mSzmm N m i II Z v m cnzmAD >�mwD « tDi n mm c <D m G) O =1 Dz O Z �O N Ow zD X m mz z> qG Om z u m rn V Z O O x z A ;p om n OC N �M 0z �(l) ca -4U) C O =j m 0 Gi a r- 1 m m z w X 0�A ;o -n a2 V T < 00 D m a (n (n r (n 8 -4 D D C, Z m0 T O D N 'U -4 m O o C (_n K o -c - O 0 z N N m m z TAm-4T moxom <00�< mSzmm N m i II Z v m cnzmAD >�mwD « tDi n mm c <D m G) O =1 Dz O Z �O N Ow zD X m mz z> qG Om z u m rn V Z O O x z A ;p om n OC N �M 0z PI -PI, W CD CL v' w P" CD� O C7 u D� a� v �' C" (D b 'd O CL CD p„ d o 0, o W ° O O a � d .0 d aQ CD 't3 �C Q 'd oo c �. C� � A �' CD v, V d � C7 C ECD n � fD � CD O :1~-. O �. . r vii �. 0. O ►� N �- n O O ¢. O v' O n CD .G ty ... ° `c (� p �. 'x CCD CD v, CD O ,�*... ,�� �' . O •t v, �. p N r H • ~ �- OC C . CD Oray 0 CD CD o ° "� 7d ° �• CD ° CD 11EJ 8. ° W o ?r %Z'� CCD o CD Ln CD 5 9 CD d° aQ w. po (D O c ctD Cil CD C n iu' c CD x 0 CD Q. C- CD y �' F` '� c ID D' 0 � p o w' Q, y� c y .� r¢ a+ N `r CD d n CD '°'3* CD CD � �ys gyp° � fD � � � n CL � *0 ,� � Cep C0 � �• � O O CD CDc c COD -k UQ CD �c O p N O, O CD CD N 0 C Q O O O "°*, o M "~ ,O__ ao4 CSD 8:1 N .0 �. C .O f -L " O Q Q v' ° `C � (' CCD v' C�j O " t O p ... GQ �. ?� CD N 9 VOi "O O .T O.0 CD C' CD COD n r~. ¢ O 00 .— '..3' N O Q P CD C�' CSD cCD Or p ' "s CD O OR. -MO O" S O CD A Q" ,ph po R"'O O CCD p, O "~� p .�-r `� O VA CD 'rah O ..3 .►� C . N 1 ON CO pJj Q. OO J O C� O 'v� D = O 'I a C N O+ C¢D CCD �~i CCD O" N N (.Aspl aQ Z 0 CD. " CD CD A. n � a✓ p O p CD o� CD CD CD N Ot p. ° 0 CD ... aQ .� �pCL0 7 CD C CD CD c�D O O ¢• (zrO tz O p ~- � O 8 O o' CD CCD UQ - ¢' ° En � °, � •� CD CD _ �on v,5; A0 p r+ CD • O � 0 m CD CA O c O s O o p.CD O �. CD O ►•� UQ r°0 fes... e�•r cr N 'r CD .y O -- CD ►+,. N "�' • p� to �, Or+ O COD i tz y W-1 00 -4 01 CD (D 0 0 ° "' ° N CD � y CSD o CD CD CD 0 CD G O CDCD �- tOi� O C)CD CD C CSD CD CSD ' O CD 9 CD o -'r r* O r -s n N O CD CD CD O A� CCD W �• ((DD C C •~OS CD CD 'C C/� a 3 CD O CD CD .fl o'+'�'� ° ° ¢' e� � IR � CD o oC:k.t ti CD CD O CSD C . kc -* w 0rCD CD O `0 � CD ° v' `C O CC"D CD OQ CCD N CD ° (CD .S O O CD fy "9 cn `CCD.t� CD ` O CD O A� ' 7 CD CD CDvCDi (p CD 0-00 Oa s Ca -- p, fy .� C7 F� as " 0 CD CDCCD ° 'm 11) u " a: Photograph 1 View of subject property from Riggs Road (Staff Photograph) Photograph 2 View of subject property from Riggs Road (Staff Photograph) Photograph 3 View of existing preserve from adjacent property to the south – U.S. 41 East in foreground Photograph 4 View of existing preserve from adjacent property to the south – U.S. 41 East in foreground Photograph 5 View of existing preserve from adjacent property to the south – U.S. 41 East in foreground Photograph 6 View of existing preserve from adjacent property to the south – U.S. 41 East in foreground Photograph 7 View of natural area of adjacent property – U.S. 41 East in foreground ‒ 1 ‒ Growth Management Department Zoning Division C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M To: Mike Sawyer, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: June 2, 2015 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: CU-PL20130000320 PETITION NAME: Cammuso Green Waste Transfer Station Conditional Use REQUEST: A Conditional Use (CU) request to receive green vegetation waste from contractors and others, convert it to dirt through composting, and to sell the resulting product, in the Rural Agricultural District (A) zoning district, with RFMU Receiving Lands Overlay, of the Land Development Code (LDC). The property is currently being used for all of the uses allowed except only the owner’s green waste is being received. LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of 16.46 acres, is located on the northeast corner of US 41 East and Riggs Road, opposite Boyne South PUD, in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Receiving Lands, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and addressed in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Receiving Lands designation allows participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, including Rural Villages and residential clustering, single-family residences at a density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres or legally nonconforming parcel, agricultural uses, and other non-residential uses including facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. OBJECTIVE 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The site has access via Riggs Road to US 41 which is identified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element.] ‒ 2 ‒ 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. [Given the small size of the site relative to the nature of the project, there are no roads, only parking lot and activity areas.] 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. [Given the small size of the site relative to the nature of the project, there are no streets or interconnections.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed Conditional Use may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2015 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2015\CU\CU-13-320 Green Waste Transfer Station REV3_FNL.docx RURAL FRINGE AREAS LEE COUNTY I MMOKALEE ROAD 1 :z J w ■ J GOLDEN GATE LEE COUNTY IMMOKALFB I RD. n Of Cc u.t 1 0 m 1 RANDALL BLVD BOULEVARD GS Q �r i' -ALE - LEOENO T IAL FFWCLt J H i A IAL FRINGE EO Ust r, : F- . 1 U� �•U�.CS �hP ]CUwK4 y.Oh(f1 4[Ch.W urll tM+ A Unrot 5G'n[is pWpM 004 ril L WA- ANO -7* ftr0 1 :z J w ■ J GOLDEN GATE LEE COUNTY IMMOKALFB I RD. n Of Cc u.t 1 0 m 1 RANDALL BLVD BOULEVARD CA -Ir County COLLIER COONTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GRCWTH MANAi�FMENT DIVISIONI NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLA MINING AND REV�U,.ATION 239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.colliergov.net LAND USE AND ZONING CERTIFICATE NON-RESIDENTIAL Please tete the time to fill out this form as completely as possible. If you don't know the answer, indicate "unknown"; if the item aoesn't apply, indicate "not applicable" or "N/A". Your application can't be processed without all of the necessary information. Zoning approval of this application can be expedited if a site plan of the property to be occupied showing parking and surrour d,,ng uses is submitted with the application. ZONING CERTIFICATE # Date: I ` l L s New Business [fir Relocating Existing Business ❑ Additional development orders may be required by the County for any changes in use and/or interior and exterior remodeli .: ase be advised that Impact Fees may be due at time of Building Permit. Please contact Impact Fee A inistrat' n at (239) 252-2369 and Public Utilities at (239) 252-6237 to verify if any impact fee will be assessed (applicant's initials) Business Name Business Address: VN.,. c. S CLIA� Business Phone: Z3S 1- E S4 ,�C lllz:!4 5 Q04•4 & 6-i (a " PG g+ t, -( Business Owner or Qualifier's Name \-�>A.` c,a,-, .W^v- S C Applicant's Name (person completing form) ���-� Phone: Complex Name`(If any;: Type of Business: _ _ 4) * Check below if the business is any of the following business types. F-1 Restaurant/Eatinfi Places (SIC 5812) ❑ Bar/Night Club/Drirking Places (SIC 5813) - will require a distance waiver. ❑ Restaurant/Bar witt 1 150 seats or more *Alcohol License will nct be signed off by Zoning until the Business Tax Receipt has been issued. If license is for consumption on premises a floor plan will be required showing the location of all serving areas and seating. Additional County Review may he required. Type and Name of Business Previously or Presently Occupying Location: If Vacant, Provide Longth of Vacancy: Property Owner or Lea: ing Agent Name: Owner / Agent Address Phone: Co er c'."y Type cof Building: Single -Occupancy Building ❑ '; tail ,Shopping Center ❑ rr.ice / Professional / Busi.,ess Center BUILDING USE (Indicate the approximate square footage the unit ;,, ►) e:,lding is used for: Retail Office sq. ft. Storage sq. ft. Manufacturing / Repair Other (describe) Total Building Floor Ares.: Auto Repair / Service Station: Number of Bays For Restaurant / Church / Beauty Salon: Number of Seats Number of Parking Space for Building / Complex (if over 100 spaces state "common"): Number of spaces availablE: for unit, if specified: I DECLARE UNDER PFNAI._TY OF PERJ APPLICANT SIGNAVURE FOREGOING FACTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. sq. ft. sq- ft. DATE Z.C. REVIEW FEE: $125.0() CHECKS PAYABLE TO: "BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS" TO BE COMPLETED BY COUNTY STAFF SIC # S �� Zon;ncl: �+t� ,��� t-�-- ti Property ID #: � r If available: Building Permi` # SDP # Site Visit Required: Yes / No S `'�a4e..' !R i'.c g.M�.d�� ivrVc c i cv� f tri !1 3rzC,►z. PLAN ER '`DATE APPROVED X HOLD DENIED COMMENTS/RESTRICTIONS nu csaT'� �s .fit i M��� Yk.sG ,rip l �R GcnS�culc�� i �. 'e' r W1 t0.t� 1 4` 3. a is e V c� s r -l@ rwrse d ec � s cQ ('2tz,Verof 4. As ®�n c c e.ssary , �r c��ha (pig �, �e. nctt- er +>^e nurse o cave 6 • �. �' w�,r- may brin •,/ac J sae s t (gyp r,%k1`54 _r o nc� rn I.a fn C. An ; r - of `! ieSc,I E' Vie. SLCe ci 2 �rcvtkt ts`r c on1Pa.in� pdet o l�,i'vQ.C� + S'�•eL '�� G _.d. t!►� v+ Sr'�t?v iM t'egpyyl2 " '; �n ��ap_ Sha.', h;1 r'p,moVP- ci ►>ca^r+Qci 1^St�0.�� �o P pian. r t tr NASsti. WilloughbyChristine From: PerezCristina Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:25 PM To: WilloughbyChristine Subject: FW: Anna's Green Acres - aka Flamingo Bend Nursery From: PerezCristina Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:45 PM To: BellowsRay Cc: LorenzWilliam; FlaggDiane Subject: RE: Anna's Green Acres - aka Flamingo Bend Nursery Ray, I want to thank you for taking the additional time today to discuss in length several Code issues and for always being available when I need assistance with my land use code cases. Per our conversation I will contact Mr. Cammuso and advise him of the information you verified below and that we will provide the determination of violation by end of the week. Thanks again, Cristina Perez From: PerezCristina Sent: Wednesday, January 104, 2012 5:16 PM To: BellowsRay Subject: Anna's Green Acres - aka Flamingo Bend Nursery Ray, I am going to contact Mr. Cammuso this evening to make him aware we reviewed his property issue in great length today and will have the determination completed soon. Is it possible to have it ready by tomorrow? In the mean time I wanted to advise him as for the soil material that is currently on his property own WAN -0-0 IM t. The concrete he will have to receive written documentation from State and Federal agencies before authorizations is give. Please advise; thank you, Cristina Perez, Estates District Investigative Supervisor Growth Management Division Planning and Regulation Code Enforcement Department Office: 239.252.6865 WilloughbyChristine From: PerezCristina Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:24 PM To: WilloughbyChristine Subject: FW: 11820 Riggs Road SIP requirement information. From: BellowsRay Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:56 PM To: PerezCristina Subject: RE: 11820 Riggs Road Hi Cristina, did some more checking and it appears that the County has historically Ray From: PerezCristina Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:42 PM To: BellowsRay Subject: FW: 11820 Riggs Road Ray, Fire Department is meeting; with Mr. Cammuso on site today at 2pm. I spoke with John Bigica from E Naples Fire who asked if County was requiring; a site plan to be submitted for the wholesale nursery. I advise I told him I didn't believe we were at this time for a wholesale nursery but wanted to confirm with you. Cristina From: John Bigica mailto: bi.gica- enfd.orgl Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37 AM To: PerezCristina Subject: 11820 Riggs Road Hello Christina, I just had a meeting with Paul Comuso. He is the owner of the Wholesale nursery on Riggs Road. I'm meeting him out there later today at 2:00 and was hoping to discuss a couple of my concerns with you. If you would be able to contact me when you are free I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you 239-405-5850 ,john B.{gica Lt. Frre Inspector East Naples Fire Control & Rescue Distract Tele: (239)774,2800 Ext.- 2812 Fav (239)774.3116 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses <irr: public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic €nail to this entity. Instead, cor tact this office by telephone or in writing. Growth Management Division Land Development Services Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning & Zoning Services ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Thursday, May 24, 2012 Q Grady Minor & Associates 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 RE: Site Improvement Plan No.PL20120000406 ANNA'S GREEN ACRES WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY Dear Mr. Arnold: This is in response to your submittal of plans showing that the SIP has been revised to identify the entire site as a wholesale plant nursery operation. This office has reviewed the plans and has no objection to the changes shown unless noted under stipulations. STIPULATIONS: Zoning Accessory uses to the Principal Use of Wholesale Nursery are limited to the area labeled as "Accessory Uses" on the SIP. Transportation Planning 3/21/12 Stipulation for Approval: Prior to commencement of construction, a Right of Way permit must be presented for the driveway entrance on Riggs Road. All applicable MUTCD Requirement must be met as part of the ROW permit. Fire Department Based on 04/26/12, phone call with ENFD Fire Marshal, Nick Biondo, it was verified that the ENFD has permitted and agreed to the following: (1) the current available water supply for the site even though a current flow test was not provided with the re-submittal as was required, but was scheduled to be performed; (2) that the closest fire hydrant is nearly 1000-feet away from the proposed shed structure on US41 northwest of Riggs Road ; (3) the proposed use of crushed concrete for the fire lane surface providing it supports a 32-ton apparatus; (4) that all these allowances from the ENFD are for this site as specifically proposed in this SIP-PL2012-0406 design and that any other or future improvements shall be subject to current Fire Code and local Policy and Procedure requirements. Please contact Peggy Jarrell at (239) 252-2482 to coordinate possible addressing changes. "Be advised that this project has been reviewed by staff in accordance with the applicant's description of work as identified in the cover letter. The applicant bears full responsibility for identifying all proposed work, and building permits for any work shown changed on the plans but not identified in the cover letter may be rejected pending further staff review." Six (6) copies of the approved plans are being returned for your use. Please call me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Jack McKenna, P.E., Engineering Review and Inspections Manager cc: Engineering Inspector Supervisor, w/attachment Customer Service, Addressing, w/attachment SIP-PL20120000406, w/attachment Fire Code Official, w/attachment Growth Management Division Land Development Services Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning & Zoning Services ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Utilities rcH PRH LS 1772 CONCRETE h'CAOIIALL SE::CTIDN 16 sE:cTitiN eo ANCHOR. 1~ .~ ' I 4 . '7169e0.6114 ~~ ~$SQUARE: F££T :t 1' ... 16.46 ACRE:S :t 1 . <! I ' 1. ' q ~- •l ~1 ~~ ' " ' '1' ~~ ~ I 1' ~- of! 1¢ ; ~ ' 7 ~~· ~ '-' ' ' ..... CQ M ;;:; -. 1.,_J ' • If 't \'"> ..,. "' • ' I i3 V) .. \ '"' s ' ;;:; tri lij -. 1.,_J ' -. ~ i3 • "' "' V) FPKD LS J772 . ON CAST LINE OF' SECTION 20 "' (\J G i:c [;j (..j ~ ~ .... -J h V) L5 AND SDUTH R/11 J.I\IY 41 e1 (\] < Sl h (J ~ ~ kl 3; -J h V) ~ SECTION 17 FOUND SPIK€ NORTHeAST C[}RNER SE:CT/ON 20 : TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH . RANG£ 27 EAST_ SECTION 21 SIP-PL20120000406 REV· ANNA'S GREEN ACRES \NHOLESALEi PLANT NURSERY DUE: 2/24/12 DATE: 3/21/12 LEGAL Df;SCRIPTION BEING THATPART OF THAT PORTION OF THE:. NORTHWE:ST QUARTE:R OF IHE:.NORTHE:ASt QUARTE:R LYING NORTH OF U.S HIGHWAY #41 <TAHIA/11 TRAIL) IN SECTION eo, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH RANG£ E7 E:AST £XC£PT THAT PARCE:L. OF D£DICAT£D TO CDLLJE:R COUNTY AND USE:D PRESENTLY AS A STREET NAMED RIGGS ROAD ACCORDING TO THE:· Df:DJCA TIDN FILED· IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOk 382, AT PAG£807 AND 808 AND THE: 30 FDDT WID£ STRIP DF LAND CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY IN QUIT -CLAIM DEED FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK' 8'1'9, PAGt 1693, ALL OF. THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY;· FLORIDA AND B£ING HDR£ ·PARTICULARLY D£SCRIB£D AS . FDLLOWS; . . . . . CDMNENC!Nr:J AT THE: NORTHEAST CORNER OF SE:CT/DN eo, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANG£ 27 EAST . COLLJE:R. COUNTY, FLORIDA THE:NC£ RUN N89'05'03'W 1354.36 FE:ET TD THE: POINT OF BEGINNING; TH£NCE: S00'00'41'£ 1305.31 F££T TO A PD/NT ON THE NORTH RIGHT~OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY 41; TH£NCCALONG THE: NORTHE:RLY RIGHT-DF,;.WAY OF_ .S41D HIGHWAY_N53'29'06'W 1052.78F££T; . . TH£NC£ N36'24'50'£ ALONG THE £AST£RL Y RIGHT Dr WAY OF SAID RIGGS ROAD FOR 410.89 F££TJ. TH[NC[ N00'01'30'W ALONG THE: E:ASTE:RLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SA1JJ RIGGS ROAD 357.83 F££T TO A POINT DN THE: NORTH LIN£ DF SAil) SE:CTIDN 20; THE:NC£ S89'05'03' ALONG THE: NORTH LINE DF SAID S£CTIDN.20 FDR 602.18 F££T ANJJ THE: POINT DF BEGINNING SAIJJ PARCE:L CONTAINING 716920.6114 SQUARE: FEU DR 16.46 ACRE:S MDR£ DR L£SS. . . . . . ' . w.- ~- 0 . eo ~a eo 160 GRAPHIC SCALE AI!:BREylATJONS BOD • BASIS OF' BEARING EOP • EDGE OF' PAVCMENT· · -~M • CONCRETE ~ONUHENt CIL • CENTE.Rl.lNt . D = DEED FIR • FOUND IRON ROD fN • fOUND NAIL . FND • fOUND NAIL AND DISC . fPL .. fLORIDA PO'w'ER AND LlCiHT H = MEASURED . ME ~ MAINTENANCE EAS~MENT NGVD "' NATIONAL GEODETIC · VERTICAL DATUM OH'w' ,. OVERHEAD 'WIRES P " PLAT I'.O.C. • POINT Of COHMENCEHE:NT P.O.B. = POINT OF" BEGINNING X.X • NATURAL GROUND El..EVATlCNS llilill . . .. . . PCP · • PERMANENT CONTROL POINT PK • PK NAIL . . PP . • PO'w'ER POLE PRM • PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT PUS.DE • PU:&LIC UTILilY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT R/'w' "' RIGHT OF IJAY LINE . SIR .. SET lRON ROD AND CAP "I.Bit 689"7 VPP = YOOO PO\riER POLE" . . CO • SANITARY CLEAN OUT UE • UTILITY EASEMENT UTS • UNITED TE:LEPHONE SYSTEM BOX· 'W'Mtl : 'w'ATER METER BOX PSM ,;, PROF'ESSIONAL SURVEYOR . AND HAPPtR . . 1. BEARINGS ARE !lASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION. 20, BEING N99•05'03''w', ·.e. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON N.G.V.D., 1929 UNLESS NOTED. 3. fiELD MEASUREMENTS ARE If-! SUBSTANTIAL AGREEME:NT 'w'iTH ~LAT AND/OR DEED CALLS UNLESS NOTED. 4. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD. 5. ABST~ACT NOT REVIE'w'ED. . 6. SURVEYORS CERTJF"ICATION DDE:S N!JT APPLY TO MATTERS Of TITLE, · ZONING, OR FREEDOM cr· ENCUMBRANCES, AND IS NOT VALID 'WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF" A fLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYDR AND MAPPER. . . ' 7. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, FDUHDATtONS OR OTHER UNDERGROUND lNSTALLATIDNS 'w'ERE LOCATED UNLESS SHO\IN. e. NO OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES, OTHER THAN SHOW'N, MAY RELY ON THIS SURVEY. · . 9. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF, UNLESS OTHE:R'w'ISE NOTED. 10. LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN fURNISHED BY CLIENT. flQOD ZONE! PANE! NO.I AE 7 l2021C 0650G CERTIFICATION' I CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY 'WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND THAT IT MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 61G17-6, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT CHAPTER 472.027, FLORIDA STATUTES. JOHN SCOTT RHODES PSM #5739 NDARY ·SURVEY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CERTIFIED TO' clro Wn' C.\-/,R. PARTNERSHIP .. . CAF BARBARA CDNNDCL Y, DARGA!. TRUSTEE OF THE ED 'WARD L CONNDLL Y, check eel' JR. TRUST UNDER .DEt;Li'-'~ATIDN DEED JUNE 16, 1993. JLA AND C.\-/, MEYERS;.-:JR.::----_'y. ococl #1. >====·=====··==· :.;·· ,~. :.....,-::§'','."'"" -;:=:;;::r.;:r==;;;;:;:;===r~~=====< 2006-1183 "ii"<====--:--"* ..... .... r--~.:...r.~~;----1 clo te: view: -"'·'' 64 35-39 JULY 31, 2006 PLOT RHODES, &· S!i!JDli'S LAND ~URVIi!)'ING, INC,,-~~ 1-15 18-19 sco.lr:. = eo· project#' LICENSE -"!169?'"' · ·_. '·· f----t----'"--.:....,.-t::-:-:::-!-.i.=---'=-:::__~--jjz006~1183 " cogo #• . · 1---+--'--'~---1 2000~239 she e It' 1440 RAIL HEAD BOULEVARD, #1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110 (239) 593-0570 (239) 593-0581 FAX 1 of 1 file #1 006-1163 I I I I nna's reen cres o esa e Located in Collier County Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East Owner/Developer: Dominick Cammuso 9168 The Lane Naples, FL 341 09-1561 Tel: (239) 775-9908 ZONING: A (AGRICULTURE), RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT USE: WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY SFWMD ERP No. 11-02637-P FOLIO NUMBER: 00770080800, 11820 RIGGS ROAD BUILDING INFORMATION FBC BUILDING TYPE VB AREA: 200 SF NOT SPRINKLERED PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: B£/NG THAT PART OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER LYING NORTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY #41 (TAM/AMI TRAIL) IN SECllON 20, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST EXCEPT THAT PARCEL OF D£0/CA TED TO COI..L!ER COUNTY AND USED PRESENTLY AS A STREET NAMED RIGGS ROAD ACCORDING TO THE D£DIC4TION FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 382, AT PAGE 807 AND 808 AND THE 30 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY IN OUIT CLAIM DEED FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 879, PAGE 1693, ALL OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CO/..LIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST COMER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA THENCE RUN NORTH 89'05'03" WEST 1354.36 FEU TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00'00 '41" EAST 1305.31 FEU TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY 41; THENCE ALONG THE NORrHERL Y RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID HIGHWAY NORTH 56'29'06" WEST 1052.78 FEE~ THENCE NORTH 36'24'50" EAST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID RIGGS ROAD FOR 410.89 FW;· THENCE NORTH 00'01 '30" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID RIGGS ROAD 357.83 FEU TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20; THENCE SOUTH 89'05'03" ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20 FOR 602.18 FEU AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING SAID PARCEL \ FIDDLER'S CREEK N "'*,:/ E j?~ s PROJECT LOCATION Location Map N.T.S. Prepared by: Bonita Springs 239.947.1144 Fort Myers 239.690.4380 North Port 941.426.5858 GradyMinor Naples 239.444.2397 Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects CERT. OF AUTH. EB 0005151 CERT. OF AUTH. LB 0005151 BUSINESS LC 26000266 www.GradyMinor.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates. P.A. Revision 1 urse Index of Sheets Dwg. No. Description Date 04/12 1. COVER SHEET AND INDEX OF DRAWINGS 2. 3. 4. AERIAL SITE PLAN BOUNDARY SURVEY (COPY) Revisions Description REDUCE BUILDING SIZE AND USE OF LAND SIP~ Pl20120000406 REV: 2 ANNA'S GREEN ACRES WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY DUE: 4/25/12 DATE: 5/21/12 By su MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. FLORIDA P.E. UCENSE NO. 49442 c (j,) rJl l---1 ~ z ~ ~ C'd ~ ~ (J) c (j,) ro ~ -C'd 0.... rJl +-' (j,) c ~ Q) 0 E ..0 ~ Q) > 0 rJl ~ (j,) 0... l---1 E < Q) +-' ·-~ U) (j,) (j,) l---1 c:J rJl -C'd ~ ~ Revision Date Descrip•\ion GradyMinor ANNA'S GREEN ACRES WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY AERIAL DATE AERIAL FLOWN: DECEMBER 2010 MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOC., P.A. VIA DEL REY SPRINGS, FL 34134 P.E. LICENSE NO. 49442 1 FEBRUARY 2012 FILE NAME: . AGASIP-SITE (REV1) (3 0: SHEET 2 OF 4 ~ 0 .. • a I "' - 9'-0" I. 1 ~WHEEL STOP STANDARD TYPICAL . I 6" WHITE STR'IPE .J (OUTSIDE) 12'-0" STOP e 6" BLUE STRIPE (INSIDE) HANDICAPPED • I HANDICAP SIGN $250 FINE • a I "' - PARKING SPACES DETAIL (18' LENGTH) N.T.S. ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: FLAMINGO BEND NURSERY ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE / / / ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: NURSERY / / WHOLESALE NURSERY OPERATIONS - LAND USE: FLAMINGO BEND NURSERY / / / / / / EXISTING LAKE H/C PARKING / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: 6 L'S FARM \ \ WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY OPERATIONS \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ GENERAL NOTES: \ \ 1. EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE BURIED n1ROUGHOUT n1E SITE. 2. 12" CRUSHED CONCRETE, ROLLED AND COMPACTED TO PROVIDE LBR OF 100. NO PROTRUSIONS ABOVIE FINAL GRADED SURFACE OF MORE THAN 1" FOR PARKING AND DRIVIE AISLE. 0 30' 60' 11x17 SCALE: 1" = 60' 24x36 SCALE: 1" = 30' ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE SITE IN FORMA II ON: TOTAL AREA BUILDING = 16.43+/-ACRES (100%) = 200 S.F. APPROX. (0.002%) PARKING MATRIX: USE: NURSERY REQUIRED 1 PER SPACE PER EMPLOYEE (3) + 1 SPACE/10,000 SF OF DISPLAY AREA ( 48,763 SF) AND 1 SPACE/1 ACRE OF GROWING AREA (16 ACRES) EMPLOYEES = 3 SPACES DISPLAY AREA = 5 SPACES GROWING AREA = 16 SPACES H/C = 1 SPACES TOTAL = 25 SPACES PROVIDED 1 PER SPACE PER EMPLOYEE (3) + 1 SPACE/10,000 SF OF DISPLAY AREA ( 48,763 SF) AND 1 SPACE/1 ACRE OF GROWING AREA (16 ACRES) EMPLOYEES = 3 SPACES DISPLAY AREA = 5 SPACES GROWING AREA = 16 SPACES H/C = 1 SPACES TOTAL = 25 SPACES NO LOADING REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS: ZONED USE NORTH A RESIDENTIAL SOUTH ROW TAMIAMI TRAIL PUD RESIDENTIAL EAST A CROP FIELDS WEST A RIGGS ROAD MINIMUM SETBACKS REQUIRED PROVIDED FRONT (S) 50' 150' REAR (N) N.A. N.A. SIDE (N) 30' > 100' SIDE (E) 30' > 100' WASTE DISPOSAL: WASTE MANAGEMENT BUFFER TYPE NO BUFFER REQUIRED 20' TYPE D NO BUFFER REQUIRED 10' TYPE D \ LAND USE: 6 L'S FARM \ \ \ \ \ \ -------------------·---------- 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER \ ~ "' I; Cl.. ! ·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--·--· , .. 320' (APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT LEGEND DENOTES 12" CRUSHED CONCRETE, ROLLED AND COMPACTED TO PROVIDE LBR OF 100. NO PROTRUSIONS ABOVIE FINAL GRADED SURFACE OF MORE THAN 1" FOR PARKING AND DRIVIE AISLE. ZONED: BOYNE SOUTH PUD LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 04/12 REDUCE SIZE OF BUILDING AND USE OF LAND GradyMinor ZONED: BOYNE SOUTH PUD LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL C> z =~==~~=~~-~====:::c=======:s====il ({" in f:] a:: 'l z w w ~ Ul ~ SIP SUBMITTAL~ MUNICIPAUTY: o.. Bonita Springs 239.94 7.1144 COLLIER COUNTY !l1 ForL Myers 239.690.4380 lcs:::E=c;-;:TWN=s=HP:=:'-7./RN==a---1 ~ ANNA'S GREEN ACRES North Port 941.426.5858 20 ;51 s;z7 E z: Naples 239.444.2397 W H 0 LESALE PLANT NURSERY t;;D::-;ATE;;=: '-=-"".'--='--=----1 z ·----------1 s Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects SITE 1M PROVEM ENT PLAN MICHAEL J. DELATE. P.E. ~;:;;;-;;-FE';;;s~Ru~ARcc_Y-=.2 ~01 -=-2 ---1 o.. Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOC., P.A. FILE NAME: BONITA SPRINGS. FL 34134 AGASIP-SITE REV1 ,0 ~=::;::=t~ilict====~~~~D~~~~~~~====+~q[SC!li:E:--~~=-i CERT. OF AUTH. EB0005151 CERT. OF AUTH. LB 0005151 BUSINESS LC 26000266 3800 VIA DEL REY ( ) www.GradyMinor.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. FLORIDA P.E. LICENSE NO. 49442 if L------------------------------------------------------------L:Re~v:is:io~nl-~D~a~te~~D:e:sc~r!ip~ti~on~----------------------------~~~------~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------L--------------------------------------- __ 3 __ o_F __ 4-J~ LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS CALCULATION REQUIRED PROVIDED I. VEHICULAR USE AREA (SECTION 2.4.5.2) 10% X 12,000 S.F. = 1,200 S.F./250 ~ 5 5 ~ 5 TREES 2. RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING (SECTION 2.4.7.4) ~ 59 TREES 59TREEES LABELED AS "BUFFER" 1760LF/30~ 1173 SHRUBS 1173 SHRUBS 3. ~Bll~ uv,H4.7.4 & TABLE 2.4) >AS " N.A. ~ N.A. N.A. 4. BUILDING PERIMETER PLANTINGS (BASED ON 2.4.6.4) 10+20+10+20-60x25% -15 ~ 50 50 LABELED AS BFP A X 10 5. MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN N.A. N.A. CO:M:MERCIAL-ONE TREE PER 3,000 S.F. PERVIOUS AREA ~ PLANT SCHEDULE SYM I TAG I QTY I COMMON NAME I BOT ANI CAL NAME I SPECIFJCA TION TREES 01 QV I 64 I Live Oak I Quercus virg:iniana I 10' o.a., 4'-5' SPR., 1 3/4" cal. min. SHRUBS I ACCENTS CHR I 1193 I Cocoplum I Chrysobalanus icaco I 3 gallon, 24"' HT, full to base GROUNDCOVERS/VINES/OTHERS I I T.B.D. I Mulch I I Florimuch, 3" thick after watering in LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION NOTES 1. A SET OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND/OR APPROVED CODE-REQUIRED PLANS SHALL BE ON SlllE AT ALL TIMES. 2. ALL UTILITIES, EASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY, OWNERSHIP, AND/OR OTHER SURVEY DATA SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SITEWORK CONTRACTOR, AND/OR LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. 3. COMPLIANCE / PERMIT ACQUISITION AND/OR DISPLAY IS REQUIRED FOR CODE-RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS (SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: REMOVALS, TRIMMING, REPLACEMENT, ETC.). 4. VERIFY PLANT QUANTITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (ALSO REFERENCED AS "L.A." HEREAFTER). NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF DISCREPANCIES ARE NOTED. PLANTING PLAN SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER 'PLANT LIST QUANTITIES.' THE L.A. RESERVES THE RIGHT FOR MAllERIAL REJECTION IF THE INSTALLATION DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE PLANT LIST 'SPECIFICATION / REMARK'. 5. PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE FLORIDA GRADE 1/1 MINIMUM AND FLORIDA FANCY FOR PLANT MATERIAL SPECIFIED AS "SPECIMEN." TREES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED SINGLE TRUNK AND MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD FOR CODE WITHIN THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTION. 6. SIZES/SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONSIDERED MINIMUM. INSTALLATION MATERIAL IS TO MEET OR EXCEED THESE REQUIREMENTS -VERIFY ANY DISCREPANCY PRIOR TO MATERIAL PURCHASE, DELIVERY, AND/OR INSTALLATION. 7. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION -CONTACT THE L.A. FOR SPECIFIC GUIDELINES. IF A SITE CONFLICT / POTENTIAL IS NOTED. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO MAllERIAL INSTALLATION. THE L.A. RESERVES THE RIGHT FOR MAllERIAL RELOCATION IF THE INSTALLATION DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE PLANTING PLAN. B. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND/OR IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGED SlllE UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, ETC. REPAIR / REPLACE SHALL BE A REQUIREMENT. 9. VERIFY SITE REMOVALS, RELOCATIONS, AND/OR PROTECllED ITEMS PRIOR TO BID PREPARATION. THIS MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO: SOD, SOIL, PLANT MATERIAL, STUMPS, ETC. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WORK AS OUTLINED WITH THE PLANTING PLAN(S), SPECIFICATIONS, AND NOTES. 10. QUANTITIES AND SPECIFICATION ARE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT, RELOCATION, AND/OR REMOVAL DURING OR AFTER THE INSTALLATION AND SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL PROCESS BY THE LA. 11. EXOTIC(S) OR NUISANCE PLANTS AS DEFINED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY(IES) SHALL SUPERCEDE STATE REQUIREMENTS: HOWEVER, THE FLORIDA EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL (FLEPPC) AND/OR UF-IFAS STANDARDS SHALL BE USED AS A DATABASE TO JUSTIFY REMOVALS IF NO LOCAL ORDINANCE/CODE REQUIREMENT EXISTS. 12. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXECUTE PRUNING VIA A CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND USING STANDARDS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE. ALL PRUNING, UPON REQUEST, SHALL BE ADVISED BY THE L.A. 13. TREES AND PALMS OVER 1 0' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE STAKED. 14. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND/OR IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR: A. PLANT WARRANTIES AND REPLACEMENTS, AS SPECIFlED WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE AGREEMENT(S) B. PLANT MATERIAL MAINTENANCE UNTIL "SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION" C. PLANT MATERIAL PROllECllON ADEQUACY D. SCOPE OF WORK VERIFICATION AND EXECUTION E. COORDINATION OF ALL SUBCONTRACTOR(S) 15. THE OWNER / GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR: 1-PROVIDING FlNAL GRADE, SITE ACCESS, SECURITY OF THE SlllE 2-CONTRACT REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS 3-PLANT / IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE COORDINATION 4-PAYMENT MILESTONES. GENERAL SOP NOTES 1. MULCH MIN. 2" LAYER (AFllER WATERING IN) REQUIRED, EXTENDING MIN. 12" RING FROM TRUNK IN ALL DIRECTIONS. 25% MAX. ALLOWABLE CYPRESS MULCH. 2. BERMS FOR GRASS STABILIZED: MAX. 4:1 SLOPE, FOR GROUNDCOVER STABILIZED: 3:1 MAX. WITH THE TOE OF THE SLOPE SET BACK 5' FOR THE EDGE OF R.O.W./PROPERTY LINES. BERMS ARE PERMITTED IN EASEMENTS PROVIDED WRITTEN APPROVAL RECEIVED FROM ALL INllERESTS UNDER SAID EASEMENT. BERMS ADJACENT TO 1-75 HAVE EXEMPTIONS TO THESE REQUIREMENTS. 3. STAKING RE-STAKED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF A BLOW OVER / STAKING FAILURE. REMOVE BETWEEN 6 AND 12 MONTHS AFTER PLANTING. 4. LIGHT POLES MIN. 12.5' FROM TREES. 5. EASEMENTS WRITllEN PERMISSION MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ANY PLANTING. 6. LIMEROCK SHALL BE EXCAVATED FROM PLANTING HOLES / PLANTING AREAS IN PARKING LOTS. 7. SIGNAGE INDICATE TO REDUCE CONFLICTS. B. MAINTENANCE SHALL ABIDE BY ALL CODES. REMOVALS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH PERTINENT CODES, SURVEYS, PER MITS, ETC. PRIOR TO ACTION. 9. IRRIGATION 100% COVERAGE REQUIRED, TIMERS WITH AUTOMATIC OVERRIDES FOR RAIN, SEPARATE ZONING IS REQUIRED FOR DIFFERENT WATER USE AREAS, AND WATERING WITHIN GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE SFWMD AND/OR LOCAL MUNICIPALITY. 10. PLANTINGS PLANTINGS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 24" FROM THE BACK OF CURB. I NATIVE I y I y GENERAL NOTES: 1. EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE BURIED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. 2. 12" CRUSHED CONCRETE, ROLLED AND COMPACTED TO PROVIDE LBR OF 1 DO. NO PROTRUSIONS ABOVE FINAL GRADED SURFACE OF MORE THAN 1" FOR PARKING AND DRIVE AISLE. IRRIGATION NOTES: 1. IRRIGATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE USE OF THE EXISllNG LAKE AS PERMITTED BY SFWMD CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT. / / / / / WHOLESALE NURSERY OPERATIONS 1 0' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO REMAIN • ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: FLAMINGO BEND NURSERY ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: FLAMINGO BEND NURSERY 1 0' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION TO REMAIN IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL NATIVE VEGETATION PROVIDES ADAQUATE BUFFER PROPOSED LANDSCAPING MAY BE REDUCED 320' (APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEAREST FIRE HYDRANT / / / / EXISTING LAKE / / PAVED H/C PARKING OUTDOOR DISPLAY AREA ZONED: BOYNE SOUTH PUD LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ a 30' 60' 120' SCALE: 1" = 60' ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: 6 L'S FARM \ \ ' \ \ WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY OPERATIONS 20' TYPE D LA,NDSCAPE BUFFER EXISTING NATIVE 1!/EGETATION TO REMAIN IF AFTER EXOT'IC REMOVAL NATIVE VEGETATION PROVIDES ADAQUATE BUFFER PROPOSED LANDSCAPING MAY BE REDUCED \ \ \ \ SITE INFORMATION: TOTAL AREA BUILDING pARKING MAJRIX: USE: NURSERY 16.43+/-ACRES (100%) = 200 S.F. APPROX. (0.002%) REQUIRED 1 PER SPACE PER EMPLOYEE (3) + 1 SPACE/10,000 SF OF DISPLAY AREA ( 4B, 763 SF) AND 1 SPACE/1 ACRE OF GRO'MNG AREA (16 ACRES) EMPLOYEES 3 SPACES DISPLAY AREA = 5 SPACES GR0\11 NG AREA = 16 SPACES H/C 1 SPACES TOTAL = 25 SPACES PROVIDED 1 PER SPACE PER EMPLOYEE (3) + 1 SPACE/10,DOO SF OF DISPLAY AREA (4B,763 SF) AND 1 SPACE/1 ACRE OF GR0\\1NG AREA (16 ACRES) EMPLOYEES 3 SPACES DISPLAY AREA = 5 SPACES GRO'MNG AREA = 16 SPACES H/C 1 SPACES TOTAL = 25 SPACES NO LOADING REQUIRED L.A~CS!::AEE BUFFEBS; ZQt;EP. ~ BUFFEB TYPE NORTH A SOUTH ROW RESIDENTIAL TAMIAMI TRAIL NO BUFFER REQUIRED 20' TYPE D. PUD RESIDENTIAL EAST A CROP FIELDS 'MEST A RIGGS ROAD MINIMUM SETBACKS B~!lUIB~~ FRONT (S) 50' REAR (N) N.A. SIDE (N) 30' SIDE (E) 30' W!\SIE C!SEOSAL.; WASllE MANAGEMENT \ \ \ \ \ \ EBQYI~~~ 150' N.A. > 100' > 100' \ \ \ ZONED: BOYNE SOUTH PUD LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL \ NO BUFFER REQUIRED 10' TYPE D \ \ \ \ w 0 8 I N SIP SUBMITTAL & t-----------------------------------------------------------------------------,-------,--------r-------------------------------------------------,----1rr;.;~~~~------r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEGEND BonttaSprings 239.947.1144 ANNA'S GREEN ACRES MU~~~:~~UNTY ~ DESIGNED BY: DENOTES 12" CRUSHED CONCREllE, ROLLED AND COMPACllED TO PROVIDE LBR OF 100. NO PROTRUSIONS ABOVE FlNAL GRADED SURFACE OF MORE THAN 1" FOR PARKING AND DRIVE AISLE. Revision Date Descripticon By KC DRAWN BY: TW APPROVED: KC JOB CODE: AGASIP SCALE: 1" = 60' GradyMinor ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~:~~~:~~~~ ~~ .!1,_,( SEC~:~:;~~G ~ Naples 239.444.2397 WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY " ""I'L-DATE: ~ z Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects LANDSCAPE PLAN DAVID KENT CARLYLE, R.L.A .• A.S.LA MARCH 2012 "f• Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOC., P .A. FILE NAME: o.. CERT. OF AUTH. EB 0005151 CERT. OF AUTH. LB 0005151 BUSINESS LC 26000266 3800 VIA DEL REY iii SIP· PL20120000406 REV: 2 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 AGASIP-LA PLAN 2 5/: .. ANNA'SGREENACRES FLORIDA LICENSE NO. LA1517 SHEET 1 OF - WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY •--....IL,;E,;,B/~LB;,;,..,;,OO;.,O..,s.15;.,1 ____________ .... ________________ .. x DUE: 4/25/12 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. www.GradyMinor.com DATE: 5/21/12 MODELINST-06 -------.r--+- SPRAYHEAD 1/2" STREET ELLS-----. 1/2" SCH 80 NIPPLE --, (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) 1/2" STREET ELL PVC LATERAL LINE -o DO:In:Cw:r" INST-06 SPRAY HEAD NO SCALE INSTALLATION DETAIL SWING MODEL INST~12 SPRAY HEAD PVC LATERAL LINE 1/2" SCH 80 NIPPLE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) 1/2" STREET ELLS ~· -o l..l.JJ...U.lkt INST -12 SPRAY HEAD NO SCALE INSTALLATION DETAIL SWING FINISH GRADE _ _..::!/Bti.~~ RUBBER COVER--- MODEL I-20 6"~;----~== GEARED ROTOR POLY PIPE---- (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) POLY ELL -o lll:I:n11aJf 1-20 6" GEAR DRIVE NO SCALE INSTALLATION DETAIL POLY PIPE LEGEND -LEAD WIRES TO CONTROLLER NOTE: MOUNT RAIN-CLIK ON ANY SURFACE WHERE IT WILL BE EXPOSED TO UNOBSTRUCTED RAINFALL, BUT NOT IN THE PATH OF SPRINKLER SPRAY. --o D!lm:t1:a:F• RAIN-CLIK ~o scALE INSTALLATION DETAIL ' 6-1/2"min. (16cm) HINGE PIN CLEARANCE FOR 13"min (33 em) DOOR CLEARANCE 3/4"(19mm) CONDUIT FOR 1201230 VAC 1-1/4", 11-1/2" OR2" (32, 40 OR50mm) C:ONDUIT FOR VALVE WIRES 01Jm:nkm>• ICC-PL --o NOS<CALE INSTALLATION DETAIL Arbor Brace· (305) 992-4104 ArborAnchor9 ArborAnchor driven below grade to necessary depth determined by soil. (1.5 to 2.5 feet as required) Tree Guying System NOT TO SCALE Revision Date Description Buckle Loop loose end of webbing around leading branch of tree. Tie 1/2 knot onto backside of buckle. Pull buckle towards ArborAnchor to tension line. By DESIGNED BY: KC DRAWN BY: 1W APPROVED: KC JOB CODE: AGASIP SCALE: AS SHOWN • -WIND-CLIK NOTE: WIND OBSTRUCTION SHOULD BE AVOIDED, OF COURSE; HOWEVER, WHEN BUILDINGS ARE NEARBY, THE WIND-CLIK SHOULD BE LOCATED SO THAT THE PREVAILING WIND DIRECTION IS NOT OBSTRUCTED. GOING UP HIGH IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY; HOWEVER, IT IS A GOOD WAY TO AVOID OBSTRUCTIONS. WIND SPEEDS OFTEN VARY ACCORDING TO GROUND HEIGHT, AND FOR IRRJGA TION SYSTEM CONTROL THE WIND SPEED ABOUT 6 FEET ABOVE GROUND WOULD BE A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE HEIGHT FOR THE WIND-CLIK PLACEMENT. WIND-CLIK INSTALLATION DETAIL GradyMinor Civil Engineers CERT. OF AUTH. EB 0005151 • Land Surveyors • CERT. OF AUTH. LB 0005151 ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: NURSERY Bonita Springs Fort Myers North Port Naples Planners • 239.947.1144 239.690.4380 941.426.5858 239.444.2397 Landscape Architects BUSINESS LC 26000266 www.GradyMinor.com Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. ANNA'S GREEN ACRES WHOLESALE PLANT NURSERY AERIAL DATE AERIAL FLOWN: DECEMBER 2010 0 N 10' 20' SCALE: 1" -20' ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE LAND USE: 6 L'S FARM 40' :5 I D.. • I w ::> ::> 8 w 0 0 (.) I "' SIP SUBMITTAL~ MUNICIPAUTY: ';;l 1----=:CO:.;LL:=::;I E"'R"'C:..:Oc::U.:.:NTY.:..:.._~ ~ MAn /),11 sEc/TWNSHP/RNG ~ mil ~~~3I'J41rv I-D-AT...:;~:.::.~/c..::5..:.;1 S:~.../::.;27-.::E_--1 ~ ___..f'-';~---'-'----1----'----l MARCH 2012 1 DAVID KENT CARLYLE, R.LA., A.S.L.Af:=:::,::,::::::-=o=---1 o.. Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOC., P.A. FILE NAME: - 3800 VIA DEL REY AGASIP-LA PLAN ~ BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134 ~ FLORIDA LICENSE NO. LA1517 ~ EB/LB 0005151 SHEET 2 OF 2 ;( 4apiapLrø Battu srWE1 NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun- ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre- ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement;and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1562406 PUBLIC HEARING 45-176563 Pub Dates April 14,2017 0tAr._, lie‘ e`,,r'2Signureofaffiant) ghadirdikailbAhmaralhAlholdbialwabasodhoir Sworn to and subscribed before me 1 "On,,•., IVONNE GOBI I This April 18, 17 1'• Notary Public-State at Florida 0 1 I Commission s FF 900870 ddi My Comm.Expires Jul 16,2019 Q r`' Bonded through National Wary Assn. Signatur of affiant) ' 24A Friday,April 14,2017 Naples Daily News 4 dead of injuries consistent PUBLIC HEARING with methods used by gang Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00A.M.,on Thursday,Mayo,2017,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FRANK ELTMAN FL.,to consider: ASSOCIATED PRESS 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CENTRAL ISLIP,N.Y.-Four young r - AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE WOLF CREEK RPUD,ORDINANCE men found dead in a park from injurieswere NO.2007-46,AS AMENDED,TO ADD A PRESERVE EXHIBIT THAT REVISESinflictedbyasharp-edged object were " killed in a way that is consistent with the '`1 THE PRESERVE CONFIGURATION FOR PARCELS 3B AND 9 ONLY, FOR methods of the MS-13 street gang,ac-PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, cording to police, who declared war APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN against gang violence in the suburbs of SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,Long Island. The victims,ranging in age from 16 to FLORIDA.CONSISTING OF 189±ACRES.[PDI-PL20160000404] 20,were discovered in a wooded area near a soccer field in Central Islip,Sud- SETH WENIG/AP folk County Police Commissioner Timo- Suffolk county Polka Commissioner Timothy thy Sini said.He said the bodies had"sig- Sini says the victims were 16-20 years old. nificant trauma"wounds,and he be- RD lieves all the victims were killed there. He didnot definitively say the killings FBI began pouring resources into a PROJECT were the work of the MS-13 gang but said crackdown after the killings of the girls, the tactics—using sharp instruments along with two other Brentwood High 5 LOCATION extreme violence—were consistent School students. v.,a«w, r. inwiththegang,which has been gaining a Prosecutors said Kayla Cuevas,16,afootholdonLongIslandforyears. was targeted last summer by a group of 8 This is a long-term war and make no four gang members because she had b r. E a mistake about it it's a war,"Sini told re- been feuding with MS-13 members at D,a.nHA.NW porters,announcing a$25,000 reward school and on social media.The group, iforinformationaboutthekillings."To- which had been driving around looking day is a sad day in Suffolk County,partic- for gang enemies,attacked when they 4" ,ularly for the loved ones and the family came across her walking with Nisa members and the friends of those who Mickens,15,in the street.The insepara- were murdered,but we maintain our re- ble best friends were attacked witha ma-All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed solve."chetei and" wasball bats,officialsrsaid. RESOLUTION will be made available for impaction at the Collier Count Clerk's office,Tigre told reporters near the Nisa"was simply at the wrong place P y scene that an acquaintance told him at the wrong time,hanging out with her fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401, Wednesday night that his 18-year-old childhood friend,"former U.S.Attorney Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be bled withbrother,Jorge,was among those killed. Robert Capers said N announcing the ar- the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,April 20th.2017.The acquaintance also indicated he knew rests. of the killings because he had been there. Anthony Rubenstein, a 29-year-old The acquaintance"called saying that electrician who graduated from Brent- If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning commission my brother was here,dead,"Tigre,21, wood High School and lives near where with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of said."He just said,'I saw your brother the bodies were found,shook his head in that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of thedying,and I escaped.'That's the only frustration about the killings. proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which thethinghesaid.He didn't say nothing else." 'We had violence back then when I Sod confirmed to The Associated was in high school but never like this.I appeal is to be based. Press that police had begun a missing- don't know what it is,but it's definitely person's investigation for Jorge Tigre on getting worse,"he said. If you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate Tuesday. He would not comment on The MS-13 gang,also called Mara Sal- in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. whether the teenager was among those vatrucha,is believed to have been found- killed. ound- please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiamiki Theh.Aeas aa neighborhooditmid- street gang in Los Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252.8380,at least two daysdiscoveryofthebodiescomesAngelesinthemid-1980s by immigrants prior to the about a month after the arrest of eight fleeing a civil war in El Salvador.It grew meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of MS-13 gang members in connection with after some members were deported to El County Commissioners Office.the September killings of two teenage Salvador,helping turn that country into girls in nearby Brentwood. one of the most violent places in the Collin County Planning CommissionGangviolencehasbeenaprobleminworld.It's now an international criminal Central Islip,Brentwood and other Long enterprise with tens of thousands of Mark Strain,Chairman Island communities for more than a dec- members in several Central American ade,but Suffolk County police and the countries and many U.S.states. April 14,2017 ND-1565603 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Nonce is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County PlanningCommissionat9:00 A.M.,on Thursday,May 4th,2017.in the Board of County Commissioner's Commission at 9:00 AM.,on Thursday,May 4th,2017,in the Board of County Commissioner'sMeetingRoom,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL.,to Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collim Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL.,to consider: consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE ALLOW A FACILITY FOR THE COLLECTION,TRANSFER,PROCESSING,AND COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA REDUCTION OF SOLID WASTE AND AN ACCESSORY USE OF INCIDENTAL OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING RETAIL SALE OF PROCESSED HORTICULTURAL MATERIAL WITHIN A RURAL ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE OVERLAY. HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RECEIVING LANDS(A/RFMUO-RECEIVING LANDS)PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONSUBDISTRICTOFTHEBAYSHOREDRIVEMIXEDUSEOVERLAYDISTRICTOFTHE2,03,08.A.2.A.(3)(C)N OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-6 ZONING DISTRICT(RMF-6-BMUD-NC)AND THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THERE DRIVE MIXED U.S.41 EAST AND RIGGS ROAD,IN SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 27USEOVERLAYDISTRICTOFTHECOMMERCIALINTERMEDIATEZONINGDISTRICTEAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.(PETITION NO.CU-PL20130000320) C-3-BMUD-NC)TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT FOR TILE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MATTAMY HOMES RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA MAXIMUM OF 276 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST T QUADRANT OF BAYSHORE DRIVE AND TIIOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14, oTOWNSHIP50SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 11*): 9 37+/-ACRES;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20160000183] we a lin a i ,, 1 De.,,BLVD u stnAAs a 6 r f PROJECT i S m 2 LOCATION A sVDrlw,naumog Ranewelca HvnmocF NO COilt b n n 4 .As r All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,fourth floor,Collier will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prim to Thursday,May 4th,2017. Section,poor to Thursday,May 4th,2017. Ifa person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Cotter County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record ot'that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings proceeding,and fur such purpose he 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. is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. in this proceeding,you arc entitled,et no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contactthe Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,State 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days poor to the Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County mating.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired arc available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman Matt Strain,Chairman April 14,2017 ND-1662661 April 14,2017 ND-1562406 COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department April 14, 2017 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on May 4, 2017, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a facility for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste and an accessory use of incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material within a Rural Agricu ltural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands (A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands) pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv. of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersec tion of U.S. 41 East and Riggs Road, in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petition No. CU - PL20130000320) You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing. 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 COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW, 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 Collier County Planning Commission 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition, and other pertinent inform ation related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the staff member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, Eric Johnson Eric Johnson Principal Planner 04/19/201704/19/201704/19/201704/19/2017 04/19/201704/19/201704/19/2017 1 JohnsonEric From:Michele M. Gowdy <mmgowdy@napleslaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:45 PM To:JohnsonEric Cc:R. Bruce Anderson Subject:Item of Support; Petition No. PL20130000320; Horticultural (Plant Materials) Waste Recycling & Transfer Station Attachments:letter of support for Annie's Green Acres Riggs Rd and 41 Good afternoon, Eric. Attached please find an email of support for the above referenced Petition. Kindly include it in your Agenda Materials. Thanks. Michele M. Gowdy Assistant to R. Bruce Anderson Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile mmgowdy@napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. 1 JohnsonEric From:hjsdds@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 9:04 AM To:Michele M. Gowdy Subject:letter of support for Annie's Green Acres Riggs Rd and 41 January 24, 2017 To whom it may concern: I have been owning property on Riggs Road for over 25 years and nearby on Auto Ranch Road for over 13 years. I have purchased material from Mike over at Annie's Green Acres on the corner of Riggs Road and 10 Miami Trl. for several years and have been very impressed with the cleanliness, quietness, and professionalism of his operation. I understand that his company is seeking to expand their operation and I am supportive of this. I think it is a very needed service for this part of Collier County and will have very little, if any, effect on the surrounding property values. I can be reached at 239-290-8004 if there are any questions. Sincerely, Hermann Schulze DDS