Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 05/18/2017
REVISED AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., MAY 18, 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 20, 2017 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PL20160002736: A Resolution amending Development Order 85-5, as amended, the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section One: Extension Of Buildout Date And Expiration Date; Section Two: Findings Of Fact; Section Three: Conclusions Of Law; Section Four: Effect Of Previously Issued Development Order, Transmittal To The Department Of Economic Opportunity; and providing an effective date. The property is located at the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Naples Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] B. PL20150001776: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2011-08, the Addie’s Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow 349 multi-family dwelling units or Group Housing/Retirement uses in Tract C as shown on the Master Plan and 75,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development and Group Housing/Retirement Community uses in Tract A as shown on the Master Plan; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; by providing for revised development standards; and by providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 23.33+/- acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner] Note: This item was continued from the May 4, 2017 CCPC meeting to the June 1, 2017 CCPC meeting: C. 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: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp April 20, 2017 Page 1 of 30 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 20, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative (Absent for roll call.) April 20, 2017 Page 2 of 30 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. I didn't want to ask everybody to stand while you're still trying to sort out your wiring. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we do the roll call, just for the record, Patrick Dearborn noted he had another commitment today; he couldn't be here, so he has an excused absence. And with that, I'll turn to the secretary for roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is 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? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to addenda to the agenda. There is one item that's been requested by staff to be continued to sometime, most likely the June meeting, and it will be the Item 9A, the Collier County Land Development Code changes involving the resource protection -- I think it's Conservation Collier and items like that. MR. BOSI: Yes, the Conversation Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that -- you're going to readvertise for that, right? MR. BOSI: Yes, we most certainly -- we're going to extend out to the five years, so we most certainly will have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're not asking for a continuance. We're just withdrawing it for now, and it's going to be readvertised for the future, which brings us to the Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is May 4th. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on the May 4th meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't think I'm -- I'm not here May 4th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that means you can't be here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Huh? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't be here then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Then I'll make an affirmation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt will not be here on May 4th. We'll still have a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm out of town 3 through 5, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are no minutes in our packet for approval, so we'll move to the BCC report. And is there one, Mike, that you want to try? MR. BOSI: Yes. At the April 11th Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict was unanimously approved for transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity, as well as the Board adopted, on the second hearing, the stormwater management LDC amendments that relates to the amount of impervious allowed and when the requirements for an engineered stormwater plan would be required when you cross certain thresholds. That was adopted by the April 20, 2017 Page 3 of 30 Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. That takes us to chairman's report. I have nothing new to bring up today, so we'll move right into consent agenda. ***The first item and the only item on today's consent agenda is what we heard last time. It's PL20160001100/CP2016-2. It's the GMP amendment for the commercial at Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road to establish a commercial infill district. Now, this is a consent item. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter, because there will be some questions. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I see David at the podium, so you must want to start something out, David. MR. WEEKS: Sure. For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, the brief staff report that you have for consent agenda shows in double strikethrough and double underline version format, excuse me, the changes that were made to what was presented to you at your hearing on this item. And, of course, the purpose of the consent is so that you look and say, yes, staff, you got it right or, no, you didn't. But I really want to talk about the item on the staff report page itself. One of the changes the Planning Commission made was removal of reference to zoning district. As the petition was submitted, it indicated the C4 zoning district, and staff had recommended a reference to the C3 district. The uses that have been recommended for approval at your hearing two weeks ago does reflect the C3 zoning district, permitted and conditional uses, just certain ones within; however, part of the Planning Commission's motion was to remove the actual language that refers to the C3 zoning district and the subdistrict. Staff would like to see that language remain, tweaked a little bit, but still some reference to the C3 zoning district. We think the value is that in the future and when we're looking back on this petition, we can have some context to know that all of these uses that are allowed came from the C3 zoning district. Otherwise, with simply a list of uses, then, in the future it would take a person to spend the time looking at each individual use to see what zoning district it came from. And so we think there's a benefit of having that context. We also think that such a change would be outside of the scope of this review for consent because staff did not discuss this at your hearing, so it was not -- there's nothing on the record. This is a new issue for staff to bring to your attention. So we just wanted to give you the heads-up that we will, at the adoption hearing, be suggesting that some reference to the C3 zoning district be included in the language and, in so doing, if the Planning Commission endorses that C3 reference, then the result of it as far as the list of uses here is two uses could be withdrawn. There's a reference now of saying an accepted use, that is "not allowed use," is pawn shops and others, building materials. But if this district language changes to reference the C3 district, those aren't allowed in the C3 district anyway, so there would be no reason to have them listed as not allowed. So, really, it was just a heads-up, Commissioners, that these are a couple of minor concerns that we have, and we'll bring those up at the adoption hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you had said something that if this was referenced, if the C3 district was referenced, if somebody was looking back at this zoning they would understand better as to why the zoning was there, or something to that effect in one of your paragraphs you just read. Well, wouldn't they understand better what zoning is there by just simply reading the zoning that's allowed and not allowed? MR. WEEKS: But they won't know what zoning district to start with. They would have to look at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who cares? This is its own self-standing zoning district. MR. WEEKS: Well, one of the things we do, sometimes when an applicant comes in for a GMP amendment, they sometimes look at another subdistrict to mirror; that's one thing. The other is it provides context for the intensity of use that is allowed here. The language staff was thinking of would be something to the effect of uses that are derived from the April 20, 2017 Page 4 of 30 C3 permitted and conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, David, using the C3 as a reference brings to mind the discussion that you were in a meeting with me in last week involving that supposed grocery store up in North Naples. It's within a C3 district but it's, obviously, something that may not have been anticipated as an allowance in that district. I would suggest we should leave it more defined as we've attempted to do, and I think that is probably a better thing to do in the county than leaving the broader references that I know you're liking to put in. And along that, I did, in reviewing the staff's consent item, I found some other issues that I believe weren't addressed that had been brought up by the public, by the submittal, and that's in the personal services category. The personal services category is -- Page 2 it says, personal services miscellaneous SIC 7299, but we had received a confirmation from the applicant, Kevin Ratterree, in his work with John Nicola in the adjoining neighborhood that there was a series of personal services that they didn't mind striking, but that's not how this document came out. And I know we addressed that as one of the issues that was resolved through the neighborhood, but apparently it didn't get into the final version. MR. WEEKS: Corby, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the position was that that would be addressed during the PUD. MR. SMITH: That was my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I am fine with that as long as the record here today can be used to assure that we don't get any of the uses beyond the personal services that have been vetted through the public already. MR. WEEKS: I think specifically the one -- one particular use under that category was the day spa/massage parlor. We spent quite a few minutes talking about that particular use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for example, under that category is escort services. The applicant agreed they're not going to have escort services there. I would not want to see that pop back sometime in the future. So I'm willing to leave it that way, but the record is real clear, John Nicola's letter and acquisition by Kevin Ratterree to those -- acquiesce of Kevin Ratterree to those issues, I think, is clear, too, so we'll have to look at it. I don't have a problem with the PUD. I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. The other thing, if you turn to the next page of the consent item, and it says, eating places, it says SIC 5812 except for dinner theaters, drive-in restaurants, industrial feeding, and then theaters, comma, dinner. Do you need that restated that way? Isn't dinner theaters enough? MR. WEEKS: It would seem to be, but we were just going by what the SIC code listed. Even though it seems redundant, we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- we were just playing it safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, see, there you'll put exceptions, but you didn't put exceptions in the personal services. I just wonder why. MR. WEEKS: My recollection -- oh, go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we knew that upon adoption this would be companion to the Planned Unit Development itself, and those smaller or more detailed restrictions would be in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If during the adoption process some of the exceptions that aren't here but they're obviously still confirmed by the applicant as being acceptable, could they, during the adoption of the GMP, be modified in the GMP at that point? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe they could. MR. WEEKS: Yes, they could; certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we can see how that rolls out with the public. And if it becomes an issue, we can fix it at that point. MR. SCHMIDT: And one more remark, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, when staff approached this recommendation even before consent and established or produced this list of uses that would be allowed, it April 20, 2017 Page 5 of 30 was -- keep it in mind that that C3 district would be our bookends. So the concern is, not a large one if we take away the C3 brackets, that the list of uses that would be not allowed; the things that we're not looking for will become longer, because then we need to go outside the C3 district and look for those uses that are entirely possible with no brackets in other commercial districts but might go here one day. And there's no intention of doing that with this upscale. The specific list of uses has already been agreed to, and this does reflect, except for those smaller items you just mentioned, what the applicants are looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The prohibited uses -- well, the way we operate -- my understanding of the code is that if it's not a listed use, it's prohibited. And so you can't go into the LDC and say, well, we don't have -- all the uses that aren't listed in C3 are still allowed. No, they're prohibited because they're not specifically allowed. Now, if that's the case, when this comes back through with the PUD language and through the adoption, with the exception of those prohibited uses that are strictly allowed in C1, 2, or 3, we at that time could refine this list of prohibitions because we would be more locked down at that point. Is that a reasonable way to approach it? Because this idea of listing prohibitions when they're all prohibited anyway if they're not listed as allowed is getting us into the weeds a little bit in regards to, well, if we only think those are prohibited, why don't we just list those. And I'd rather not get into that if we don't have to. So maybe at the PUD level we could modify it, the adoption level. MR. WEEKS: One of the concerns, and I think we just talked about it when we met with you separately, is the comparable and compatible use determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And that's one of the reasons for wanting to actually more clearly define what the use -- or restrict uses, as Corby's term, the brackets or bookends, and that goes back to the C3, because if we know that all these uses are derived from the C3 district, that's telling us that's the restriction. If we simply go with the listing individually, that does beg the question, might there be a C4 or a C5 use that seems comparable to some of these that are actually listed here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but without comparable/compatible language added to the PUD as one of the principal uses, that door may not even be opened. And so that's -- I mean, that's the way it's been opened in other PUDs, and maybe that's where we will look at locking it down, so... MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if anybody else in the audience has any questions on this issue. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve the consent as submitted with discussion? It won't have any bearing on it, but I'm sure David's going to be talking to the Board about it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane, seconded by Ned. 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. April 20, 2017 Page 6 of 30 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. With that, we will move into our next item on the agenda, which is our regular advertised public hearings, and it will be 9B. 9A, as we said earlier, is continued. 9B -- or, actually, 9A is withdrawn and going to be readvertised for June. ***9B is PL20130002637/CPSP2013-11, and these are amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This is the adoption hearing. This board previously had heard this on transmittal. Transmittal went to Board of County Commissioners, it then went to the DEO, and we're looking at the results of those two actions for a final adoption here today. So I guess we'll move into staff report to start that out. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Thank you, Chair. For a description of where we're at within the process, this is the adoption hearing stage of the amendment cycle. Before you is the batch amendments. These are the traditional cleanup amendments that we have for our Growth Management Plan. There are a couple different tweaks and changes that have been made since the transmittal hearing, and I'm not going to give a full presentation on all of the -- all the amendments contained within, but myself and Corby or David would be here to answer any questions that you may have regarding the differences between the transmittal and what's being presented here for the adoption hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think since we heard it as a board, Ned is probably our only member that wasn't here at the time. Maybe Joe. Were you here for transmittal? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I was not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know you're familiar with transmittal adoption. And, Ned, this is kind of the second reading of these, so if there are issues that seem to stand out, we can vet those today. Previously the Board of County Commissioners has heard it as transmittal, and that's how it went forward, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did review it. I don't know if -- where anybody wants to start if anybody has any preferences to move into a certain page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have some questions into the document, but if we want to -- if you're going to through page by page -- but I do have questions on Page 23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Why don't we just turn to each one of -- because this is a second reading, let's go straight to the pages at question; otherwise, 236 pages, we could spend a lot of time just looking at them. So Page 23 is your first question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, Page 23. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Actually, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I did have an item on Page 10 if we're going to go by numbering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we'll go by individual first, then we'll go back. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had some questions. I have about 25 questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll go -- I'll just wait for you guys to get done, then I'll bring mine in. Joe, why don't we go -- Page 23, electronically is -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Policy 7.1.2, and it says revised text Page 37. So I'm not sure that -- I guess that references Page 37 of the GMP. MS. ASHTON: And which element are we in? In which element is that that you're looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be Page 7 of 12. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Goal 7, to protect and conserve the county's fisheries and wildlife, Objective 7.1. And this language is fairly -- is repeated in several places throughout this document, and April 20, 2017 Page 7 of 30 I -- just before the meeting I talked to Steve. We use terms "wildlife habitat management plans for listed species." My experience, typically when we talk about management plans, these are actually Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, not HMPs. And I don't -- I just want to make sure the intent is, what you state here, is a Habitat Management Plan, not a Habitat Conservation Plan. Again, second, you say "listed species," but I do not find any documentation nor did I really do any research on it, but I just want to make sure, are we talking about federally listed and state listed species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act? I think that needs to be clarified because it -- the underlined version then says, "and for protected species identified below shall be submitted to the county." But I want to make sure we identify what listed species. In accordance with the ESA, or is it a separate list from the county? I don't recall. And in that same paragraph, again, we talk about management plans. And, typically, these are HCPs when you're talking about a plan to protect listed species. If you're talking about a plan to protect habitat or vegetation or other types of -- then it might be a Habitat Management Plan. But typically when you're dealing with the ESA, Endangered Species Act, it's an HCP. So I turn it over to you, Steve. If you guys are comfortable with this language, I'm fine. I just want to make sure that since you're amending the Growth Management Plan language, we want to put the right language in. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Growth Management Plan Division. In regards to the listed species, it actually says in Objective 7.1 -- but you don't have a copy of that language -- and it refers to the endangered and threatened species listed by the Feds. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: And then also the endangered, threatened, and species of special concern listed by the State, so it's actually defined in there in Objective 7.1, which I don't think you have a copy of. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I didn't pull out the entire document. I was just looking at this. MR. LENBERGER: As far as the management, you know, the Habitat Conservation Plan would, you know, address a number of different things: The species, which areas you want to develop, which areas you want to preserve, things of this nature. It's a broad encompassing thing as far as what the Feds are using. As far as the management plan, what we have here is preserves which are already established in accordance with the Growth Management Plan, and it's to manage the habitat for listed species as well as the type habitat in general. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, when you're dealing with the ESA, and if you're dealing with panther habit, or you're dealing with the bonneted bat or some other listed species, if it's area-wide, typically you have to do a Habitat Conservation Plan, HCP. So I just -- if, you know, you guys are comfortable with this, I'm fine. I just want to make sure the language is -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, the Comprehensive Plan on listed species, we defer to the Feds as far as listed species -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: -- and what to do with them because they have the expertise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it would be -- typically the applicant would submit the HCP as a draft and would be part of the -- either the 404 process, the Clean Water Act, or the Endangered Species Act, and it goes to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for review, and they would eventually approve the HCP as part of the -- whether it's a federal, you know, 404 permit or whether it's a Title 10 permit or whatever. But, typically, it's an HCP. So I just leave that with you, and then if you want to continue to call it a Habitat Management Plan and you're comfortable with that, then I'm fine. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that, is that your only item, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On that paragraph, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that page and that section, I have a couple I had in there, April 20, 2017 Page 8 of 30 too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because it -- because back, again, in Paragraph C he calls it a Habitat Preservation Plan. So we change it from a Habitat Management Plan, down in Paragraph C we call it a Habitat Preservation Plan. And then we go back to the term habitat -- in D you go to Habitat Management Plan, and in E you go to Habitat Protection Plan. So we're using all these terms interchangeably in the document. And, like I said, if you're -- this same paragraph is repeated in many sections of this -- of these, quote, cleanup documents. If you're cleaning it up, you ought to have some consistency in the language. MR. LENBERGER: I'd have to read the context of every paragraph to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I want to make sure, I mean, if, in fact, you -- is it a Habitat Protection Plan, the Red-cockaded woodpecker? Typically, again, it's an HCP when you're talking listed species, the RCW. MR. LENBERGER: For the county it's a Habitat Management Plan. That's what we're concerned about when we look at preservation for the county is that the habitat's being managed for the listed species that were located in there or would utilize the habitat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in E you call it a Habitat Protection Plan. MR. LENBERGER: Which policy? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same paragraph. I'm going right down -- that's Policy 7.1.2. MR. LENBERGER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We seem to switch Habitat Management Plan in Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3. So Paragraph 2C it's called a Habitat Preservation Plan, and then in D it's called a Habitat Management Plan, and then in E it's called a Habitat Protection Plan. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, we'll work with the environmental staff to either clean that up or clear it up before it goes further. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I know what you mean. I just -- I think since you're cleaning it up, it ought to be consistent with the -- MR. LENBERGER: So noted. We'll go through it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the ESA, Endangered Species Act, and that terminology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be beneficial if you communicated with Joe to make sure your and his understanding are the same so that when you go to the Board with this, you know, we're on the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there's only, like -- me and Steve maybe understand exactly what I'm talking about, but -- that's dangerous, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the CCME, Joe, that section? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. That -- again, that same paragraph is repeated several times in this document, and you just have to do a word search to make sure it's consistent. That was really all I -- let me go through and see if I've got any more notes here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while we're on those pages, I had several questions about some of those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead, because I found another one on another policy I wrote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up in Policy 6.5.2 on the page that Joe started his questioning with, we refer a couple times previously, and now again under new underline, the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. How is that document modified? Outside of the GMP, obviously? So -- and the reason I'm asking is the implementation code for the GMP I had previously thought was mostly the Land Development Code. But now we're looking at a different reference, and I'm just wondering -- and this occurs often. But I want, for clarity, and understand how a reference like this is modified. Does it take a quasi-judicial hearing to modify it, does it take a supermajority vote to modify it, or does staff just modify it on the fly and then these proposed development projects would have to now fall under those new rules and regulations because of the way it's written in the GMP? MR. SCHMIDT: I think I can generally answer that concern. April 20, 2017 Page 9 of 30 The references to the manuals are suggested for change because the previous reference to the updated manual, Volume II, which is a State document, it replaces a previous document, and there's a long process that's gone through to review and approve those newer manuals. But in this case the county does not intend to refer to those new provisions but those specific provisions that were in place previously that we still intend to enforce, and the reference is cited back to that original Volume I and the specific cites. And I think there's more specificity here besides reference to the older document a number of places where you see it, and that was intentional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that part of it, but let's -- I thought that the Land Development Code was the implementing document of the policy -- objectives and policies in the Growth Management Plan. And wouldn't it be better to reference the section possibly of the LDC but put this kind of a specific document in the Land Development Code as applicable to this policy instead of putting something in the GMP because it's so much more time-consuming or, let's say, the GMP less frequently amended than the Land Development Code? MR. BOSI: That's an approach we most certainly can take. Normally, the LDC is the implementation aspect of the Growth Management Plan, but it's not the only implementation aspect of the Growth Management Plan. The policies, goals, and objectives of the GMP set the higher goals for the county. Sometimes those could be contained in other documents other than the Land Development Code; could be the code of laws and ordinance. Also, there's also a tie between the -- a tie between the administrative code and the Growth Management Plan as well. But your suggestion would be to remove the specific reference to these -- to these manuals from the -- from the GMP and have an implementation policy within the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was what I'm thinking only because if anybody wants to know how to interpret the GMP, it would be great to be able to know, go to the Land Development Code; that takes it across the board for everything. And then in that Land Development Code, then we find any other documents that we can bring in and out easier and modify easier than we can in the GMP. I know it's too late to do that on this one. I'm not saying change it today. I'm suggesting maybe that -- if that's a philosophical thing that hasn't been thought out, maybe we just need to think it out, a step, and whatever you end up doing with it, I'll work with it. I just -- it just came to mind in reading this and thinking how these things fit together. On the following page, when you get into the various species that have to fall under these new plans, whether -- no matter what Joe wants to call them, it says, for example, under No. B on the following page, for parcels containing gopher tortoises. Priority -- it used to say priorities shall be given to protecting largest, most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat. Now it says, Habitat Management Plans are required and shall give priority. That is a little bit changed in the way you approach these species from the fact -- for example, what if we have take permits? What if the applicant has take permits? Does this now supersede the take permit? Because basically a take permit means you don't have to do any of this because they're taking them. And I was just wondering, how does that fit into this equation if we've strengthened the language to make it all required instead of shall give priority. "Shall give priority" could be subject to the way these species' viability is, and that's what generally leads to a take plan. So how does that fit into this? How do those exceptions fit into this? And, again, you've given us snippets of the GMP, not all the language, so it may be addressed in another policy. I just don't have -- I haven't had the opportunity to go back and memorize the GMP. MR. LENBERGER: I understand. Again, Stephen Lenberger. You know, the GMP, you know, has language to where we defer permitting to these state and federal agencies. In the Land Development Code it allows you to take tortoises offsite in accordance with the state regulations. And, you know, there is a Gopher Tortoise Management Plan approved by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and that allows you to take it off. So, you know, if they're allowed, given the April 20, 2017 Page 10 of 30 number of tortoises, for example, they're not a viable population, they're allowed by state law to take them offsite, and they can do that. It's actually spelled out in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that kind of leads me to what -- some of the kind of phraseology Joe was hinting at, and I think you responded that the Habitat Management Plans here are the county's referenced plans. So is the county saying that they've still got to -- if gopher tortoises are seen on a parcel -- and I'm just using that as one of the species, and they all seem to have the same language requirements -- then a habitat management plan -- a county habitat management plan is required? And I know you just said the LDC can exempt it, but how does the LDC exempt something required by the GMP? MR. LENBERGER: I'll have to take a look at that with comp planning general language but, you know, these are if species occur on site and are not going to be relocated, obviously, and some of these species are wide-ranging animals which could use the habitat. So that's a good question. MR. BOSI: I would suggest that within that scenario that you described, if there is a take permit that's being issued by the State, we have a policy that we defer these issues to the State. When that's presented to us, that would -- that would supersede the requirement that they have to submit a management plan because we realize that the State is allowing those -- that species to be taken offsite and, therefore, the need is invalidated for that management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're basically saying is the GMP may say it's required, but when we get to implementation through the Land Development Code, because the Land Development Code would allow exemptions as allowed by the State, that would supersede the GMP. MR. BOSI: Well, the GMP says you defer to the State. It's not the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that language isn't here. So these plans are all subject to the State -- how ever the State would look at them for exceptions; is that a fair statement? MR. BOSI: That's a fair statement. MR. LENBERGER: Correct, because we defer -- in the comp plan it actually says it defers to the agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm fine with that section. Joe, did you have anything else before we move to Ned or -- Stan? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a comment on page -- let me go back here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I got one on that thing we were just on if you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I can see the difference between a prevention plan and a management -- I did the word search that Joe was talking about for "habitat." I can see a preservation plan means you preserve it. A management plan means after you preserve it, you've got to manage it. But what's a protection plan? You've got, like, a bunch of references to management and preservation, and you've got a few to protection. Is a protection plan a preservation plan? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, I would say so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but to avoid that confusion, why don't we just say, where the word "protection" is referenced as a plan, change it to "preservation." Wouldn't that be, then, consistent? And that would help clarify Joe's issues and now Stan's. MR. LENBERGER: We could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think you just need to go back and see where you're using that language and make sure there's clarity and consistency in the language. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, and also I have to look at the context of each place it's put. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because that -- this whole section is repeated in other elements of this transmittal related to other pieces in the transmittals. And I -- you're going to have to go back and look at this policy and make sure it's consistent for the language -- when you look at the entire GMP, to make sure there's consistency in the language. MR. LENBERGER: It would all be in RLSA Future Land Use Element, similar language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else in this section of the -- April 20, 2017 Page 11 of 30 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm at Page 12 of 12 of this section. That's all I'm reading here. I can't figure out -- it's page -- I think it's Page 28 again. I don't know what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 28 electronically, but it's Page 12 of 12 of the same section. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just again, you use the -- this is Policy 12.3.3, and you're being specific on the positions, as it says, the Recovery Task Force shall include the Sheriff, the Growth Management Plan Department Head, and Zoning Director. Given that, over time, some of these position titles change, I would recommend possibly a more generic definition here with the specificity in the LDC. That's just a recommendation. I -- because the person -- that Growth Management Plan Department Head may be called a Division Administrator again six months from now; I don't know. And I look at that and say, it's GMP language. Make it a little -- say, you know, as directed by the County Manager or something to that effect. I would just -- because, again, the difficulty in changing the GMP language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, that does bring in an interesting thing. If you think about how Growth Management's currently organized, we have Jamie French, who's in charge of the actual building, and then we had David Wilkison in charge of both buildings. So which person would it be here, just out of curiosity? MR. BOSI: It would be the department head, the position that was previously occupied by David Wilkison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So he's be -- he's head of both buildings, Transportation and Growth Management? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's all Growth Management Plan now, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It changes like -- MR. BOSI: It is all Growth Management. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's why I'm recommending maybe some sort of generality because, again, this language could be six months from now -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And what I'd seen in the past is they put the County Manager and his -- or his appointed designee resigns or moves or something, and the County Manager never reappoints a designee, and that gets real dicey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, having been the, at that time was called the Community Development Environmental Services Administrator, I'm very familiar with the Recovery Task Force and what this is. And I know why you're being this specific, because it has to do directly with building recovery in the event of a disaster. But, again, you're using definitive language that could change. I would just think you might want to look at that before you send it to the Board, or you can leave it like it is and just live with the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those 12 pages, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, on Page 10 of 12, Policy 10.5.4, the second sentence -- well, first of all, the first sentence says, the county shall not allow construction of any structures seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Line, then it says, exceptions shall be for passive recreational structures. Now, it says, exceptions shall be allowed for passive recreational structures. It's kind of strengthened that. Is there a reason we couldn't say "exceptions may be allowed"? There are possibly somebody that may deem that if they apply for it, it's got to be allowed because of the strength of that language. And it did get stronger in the way you've written it. MR. SCHMIDT: We tried to keep with the original intent of the provision, and the provision didn't use a "shall" or a "may." It just matter-of-factly stated these are the exceptions, those recreational structures, those crossovers and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why don't we just drop the word "allowed" if it was better the way it was? MR. SCHMIDT: This is one of those items that came back to you since transmittal that's in the April 20, 2017 Page 12 of 30 double underlined/strikethrough previously where we had trouble with the language using the "shalls," or in some cases use "mays" and "musts" and "wills." And when this comes to the implementation of the policy, the staff members who do this don't give exceptions to things that "shall not" be. So the first part of this was changed to "allow." Then they can give exceptions to things that are not allowed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? MR. SCHMIDT: It's just a matter of restating what they really do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: For what it's worth, this was a question that I had as well, and my proposed solution was the same as yours, substitute the word "may." It's my understanding that a word like "shall" makes it a ministerial act, and "may" makes it discretionary. And I'd think you'd want to retain the discretion, would you not? MR. SCHMIDT: It is not discretionary. The way it is written, it says, these are the exceptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we don't know to what extent those exceptions can really be implemented. For example, if someone comes in with a recreational structure that has so much decking in the -- past the CCSL -- and I can tell you there's a couple projects out there that came through with this -- they had more decking to do things that they really needed to do past that, and the decking was excessive. It was something that was seaward of the CCSL. I would suggest someone would argue that because they put it on plan, it's now allowed. And I'm suggesting it may be allowed, as Ned is suggesting. MR. SCHMIDT: Now we're back to discretionary again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is supposed to be discretionary on the part of the applicant convincing the administration or the staff and everybody else that it's a necessity. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, the discretion now lies in the second portion of the same provision, and it tells when you they won't be allowed. If you change it to be "may be," then there's other reasons, too, besides the specific ones inside the policy that may come up. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: And if we don't know to address those specifically... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I get Jeff's opinion as to "shall," "must," or "will"? MR. SCHMIDT: Or "may." COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, "may" is definitely not "shall," "must," or "will." MR. KLATZKOW: "Shall" and "must" are the same. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me? MR. KLATZKOW: "Shall" and "must" are the same. MR. SCHMIDT: For some people yes, but, however -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. "You shall do this" or "you must do this" is the same. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: He's the attorney. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me. Many times when we work with these documents and we specifically choose the language, "shall" usually means "will" and "must." COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're both saying the same thing. MR. SCHMIDT: Most people who read these provisions, "shall" is clear, but when we say things like a certain provision "will" be applied, it typically means that that occurrence may never take place, but when it does, it shall be applied. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you explain it then? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: "Shall" means you will do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I thought, okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what's got me concerned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You must do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've been through this many times. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure the difference between "thou shalt not steal" and "thou will not April 20, 2017 Page 13 of 30 steal," so there you go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, the base density in the urban area is four. Is that a "shall" or a "may"? MR. SCHMIDT: It's a "may." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why can't this be a "may" then? MR. SCHMIDT: (Shrugs shoulders.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what several of us are hinting at. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: "May" means that there are procedures to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To go through and you've got -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to allow for a deviation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The predicate of this sentence is passive recreational structures, and it seems to me that the county would want to reserve some discretion with respect to the exact nature of those rather than be obligated to approve each and every one just because it is a passive recreational structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this -- MR. BOSI: We will modify the language to say "may." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think we should use "shalt." COMMISSIONER FRYER: And thou? It's old English. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thou. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- I think my last question in this section is on Page 11 of 12, Policy 12.1.14. I had -- I did not realize this language necessarily was in the GMP. I know we have addressed certain types of facilities in the LDC, but this particular one, it says, all new nursing homes and assisted living facilities that are licensed shall have a core area to shelter residents/staff on site. At what stage of the process, since this would need to be implemented in the Land Development Code, is this checked by staff? Because we have 56 senior living facilities in Collier County, and there's 7,500 units in those 56, and we have 10 more approved that have not yet been built. So with that quantity, are you telling me that all of those are built, including Bradford Square, which is up on Livingston and -- it's Vanderbilt Beach Road? There's two of them there. They were -- the construction of those was different than what we typically see in South Florida, at least from what I'm used to seeing. I'm just wondering, has anybody checked to see if they meet this criteria? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page are you on? MR. BOSI: I haven't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11 of 12. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At one time, when you submitted a building permit, it did go over to Emergency Services for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if it does anymore, but they used to do a cursory review for -- MR. BOSI: All -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. All ALF's are provided for EMS or Emergency Services to review. I couldn't attest to whether all the county facilities -- because of the dating of those, I couldn't attest to that, but I do know the process is as Joe referenced. When we have these facilities -- these type of facilities proposed, we make sure that the Emergency Management Services are provided review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that was instituted by this panel as a requirement when they get their zoning, but that doesn't answer this question, because at the time they get their zoning, their core areas won't even be shown on the plans. These core areas -- I mean, if you have sheer walls and concrete walls and solid facilities where you've got a core area that is hirely (sic) -- more safe and a higher level of April 20, 2017 Page 14 of 30 protection, I understand that. But in looking at the construction of some of these new facilities going up, I question how they would have obtained that and if it was really looked at. If it was, that's great. So let's take those two on Vanderbilt and Livingston as an example. You've got two of them there. One's just down to the east, and one's right on the corner. Could someone verify to this panel at the next meeting that they're consistent with Policy 12.1.14? And I just know how this has been applied. And we're getting so many of these now, it would be something to make sure that it is adhered to. I don't mean just meets the Building Code. Building Code may have a different reference for a core area. It needs to meet this to whatever extent that it would have been reviewed, and I'm curious as to how that is applied. We have it here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree with you. I seriously doubt all of them meet the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you've got a core area, it's going to be different than the whole building, and this one says a backup generator for that core area is required. I just would like to make sure that that's how it's something -- all these settlements are being looked at that way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I recall the intent of this, Mark, was to prevent having to go through the process of relocating in the event of an evacuation because of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Frail nature? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- I guess the burden it places upon the county to locate the folks from these type of facilities. But I would -- I would -- I really don't think they meet this requirement, honestly, especially those if they're -- if you're in the coastal high-hazard area. I mean, they're going to move anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got some new ones coming in that haven't even been designed yet. They're coming in for changes, and it would be nice to know that this policy now has been highlighted. We just need to find out if the Building Department and/or Zoning or anybody else is following up with this as to however it's supposed to be implemented. And if you could come back to us and let us know at our next meeting or as soon as possible, that would be helpful. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. I think we're finished up with the CCME. And, Joe, do you have any other questions of any other parts of this document while we're on you? And then we'll go to Ned next. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Of the 12 pages, I do further down in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're done with the 12 pages. Why don't we -- I don't know how many total questions everybody has, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- why don't we just go through yours, and then we'll go through Ned's, and then whoever else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to my comment. Sorry, I've got to find it again. On Page -- all right. Let me go down here and look. Page 4 of 44, that's a document -- Page 42 of this document; 42 of 236, and it's Objective 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What electronic page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm electronic Page 42 of the 236. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, that's one -- yeah. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You cite Dover-Kohl Partners publications. I still have battle scars from that term. My problem is, is this still the underpinnings of our entire program? And if it is, it was a Dover-Kohl study done, what, in the '90s. If it is, we ought to put the date and the publication of the date in this, because I don't think we've done anything with Dover-Kohl since -- MR. BOSI: You're -- we're referring to the original -- I think it was 2000, '99/2000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: '99 or 2000, correct. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it -- the way this reads, this is -- we are still basically wedded to that document. And if that's the intent, that's the intent. I think, then, we ought to put the date of the publication in there. April 20, 2017 Page 15 of 30 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, better yet, we have so many -- and I boxed the same area for questioning. We have so many PUDs coming through, we don't pay any attention, that I can see, to Dover-Kohl. We pay attention to the LDC, and the LDC -- if they're consistent with the LDC, they're fine. Why even reference this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. I agree. I think it should just be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's an antiquated document that's not been updated. I don't know where we specifically use it that much. Every now and then we'll throw it on the table if we have questions about a project that seems out of context or out of nature, but how is this -- how is this -- why is this necessary in the Growth Management Plan? MR. BOSI: Well, the policies that are underneath Objective 7 deal with interconnectivity, urban design. Those are evaluated -- every single Growth Management Plan consistency memo that you'll have for a PUD, each one of those policies will be referenced in terms of how they're related to the proposal. And this policy, or this objective cites the area and the underpinning of how these policies have been derived from that original document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying strike the objective. I don't -- just leave the reference to Dover-Kohl out. I mean, it's not necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would reference other sections of our GMP that state those criteria. I think this document -- other than this statement in the GMP, it's never mentioned in any type of zoning that comes forward. Yes, the principles are still good. I'm not arguing that. But we haven't done anything with this since 2000, I believe, '99 or 2000, other than when we did a study of Naples Park, which didn't go over very well. MR. BOSI: No, it didn't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that's a story for another day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the parking fields and commercial and things like that, we have issues with that constantly. The green spaces that are constantly being bombarded by the development industry to have them modified again after they've previously been committed. I don't see the need for the reference to this antiquated document; I really don't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I don't think we should put it in there, because it is a registered -- or it's a firm that has identified -- why should we give them advertising in our GMP? MR. BOSI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a recommendation. Anybody else have any objection to that as a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Just one issue. Does staff rely on that document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the problem. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's the issue. Does staff rely on that document? MR. BOSI: Does staff rely upon that document? We don't -- that document is not referenced other than the design components -- MR. KLATZKOW: When you're in review, do you ever reference that document as part of the review process? MR. BOSI: The -- MR. KLATZKOW: When you're making a decision on an application, are you reviewing that document? MR. BOSI: No. We are reviewing the policies that are based upon that document. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Those policies were codified in the later GMP amendments. MR. KLATZKOW: You're either utilizing the document or you're not. If you're utilizing the document, it should be in here, and it should be on the website, by the way, so other people can see what it says. If you're not utilizing the document, then I agree with Mr. Schmitt; get rid of it. MR. WEEKS: Let me jump in. We don't. When we're reviewing a zoning petition or some other petition for consistency with the Future Land Use Element, we're not going back to that document. We're April 20, 2017 Page 16 of 30 only looking at these policies. And, in fact, all of those policies, as some of you might recall, use the language "encourage," so we have no longer taken the position as staff that if a zoning petition is not complying or is not meeting the intent, or however you want to phrase it, of those policies, we would not say this petition is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We would raise it as an issue as a valid planning concern but, for example, if an interconnection could be provided, as one of the policies calls for, encourages, and the applicant did not provide for that interconnection, we would not say this petition is not consistent with the plan. We would, instead, just identify that as a concern. We wish they would. We request that they do, but -- so it's not a requirement, the policies that are based upon that Community Character Plan. But the short answer to Jeff's question is, no, we don't look through the Community Character Plan. Primarily the times that we've used that plan is in reviewing some Comprehensive Plan amendments; we've looked back for -- as just a one of many general planning resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the cleaned-up second sentence, if you were to leave that, leave the strikeouts -- take the strikeouts out and then not add that bottom sentence, I think we've got a policy that still works well, and then you have the ability, then, to modify it pursuant to any other policies, smart growth principles or policies that come along, instead of just those restricted to the Dover-Kohl. So I would rather keep the opportunities and flexibility there for the county to change -- it's kind of like we're stuck with the SIC code of NAICS; same thing. We don't want to lock ourselves into something when the possibilities could be better in the future. MR. WEEKS: I agree. I think we just need to -- I think the last two words "as follows" need to be retained, but the specific reference, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on that Future Land Use Element section Page 1 through 44. Does anybody have any other questions from that section of this adoption hearing? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm down to just three remaining questions, thanks to the previous discussion, so that's a good thing. Under urban designation -- and this is going to be on Page 44 as it came to me on the thumb drive, refers to revised text Page 57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the pages where it says on the bottom 5 of 44, you're on Page 44 of that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, sir. I'm on Page 6 of 44. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, good. That helps. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's going to take me a little while to figure out these references. My concern, there is a drafting style that's been adopted, which I've -- I don't care for it, but a lot of people do, and that's when you're referring to a number, you use the number and then you spell it out, and so that's fine if that's the -- if that is what you're doing, but to be consistent, I think you've got one here -- and pardon me for nitpicking. But in a cleanup, I think we do pick nits -- that you have -- this includes three, but there's a strikethrough in the three, and it's been written out as three. So it seems to me that's just inconsistent with the drafting style that you've employed elsewhere in referring to numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 6, what paragraph are we on, or what -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: C. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: C1. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, C1. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C1. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Urban commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it. Now I see it. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, that's a common edit or non-edit throughout the document. Where the numbers are used to be instructive or describe a requirement to give something definitive, those April 20, 2017 Page 17 of 30 numbers have been changed to include both the word and the number. Where it's simply being descriptive of that's -- there's three sections over there or there are, in this case, three interchange sections, it's just giving you how many, not doing anything but. We just have left that alone. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm curious, from the County Attorney, what your take is on that. MR. KLATZKOW: When I'm drafting I don't do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Neither do I. MR. KLATZKOW: I just use the word. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Me too. MR. KLATZKOW: But other people do do that. It's a stylistic issue. I find that when people do that, they'll actually get it wrong. They'll say, like 14, and then they'll put down, like, 13. It's just -- I mean, you're just asking for a mistake that way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's how I feel about it as well. But there's a distinction been drawn. There's a method to your madness, as it were. But it seems to stick out to me as if this one wasn't caught. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, this one is deliberately not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then why -- and to follow Ned's reasoning, look at B, you refer to two road miles. That's a generic reference. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why, then, is two there spelled out and numeric when you didn't do it on one. How does that fit your just -- what you just described as your reasoning? I mean, what would -- would it hurt just to be consistent? And if you've already started doing it with both numbers and letters, why don't we just do it both ways -- continue that pattern even though it's a questionable style? MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: I see it there in your Subsection 1.B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: That's simply a description of some distance, not a requirement or an instruction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, your point on that could be confusing, and if we're going to just list them as verbal, why don't we just do them as letters, written, just do it both ways everywhere -- MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if that's the decision. And it looks like it has been because too many of them have already been changed. MR. SCHMIDT: There can't be many left. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I then go to Table 2.3.1, which is on numeric Page 134. It's Page 2 of the exhibit called Vacant and Developable Land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is outside of the FLUE, outside of those 44 pages, right? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we finish first? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any -- while we're on the section with the 44 pages, does anybody else have any other questions there? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to, again, note for the record on that section, Page 51, 52, has the same language regarding the use of management plans, conservation plans, and preservation plans. Same verbiage. That just needs to be corrected, if you're going to correct the one section I noted above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking on Page 13 of 44, bottom right-hand side? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, Page 51. I've got the notes on the side here, so let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's on the -- see where they did the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Page 13 of 44. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's Page, yeah, 13 of 44. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what everybody else -- not everybody's on electronic, so everybody's April 20, 2017 Page 18 of 30 trying to follow what we're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, sorry. MR. SCHMIDT: Thirteen of 44? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's 13 of 44 of that section. And 13 -- Page 13 and 14 has that same issues with that terminology of management plans and the Habitat Management Plans, Section -- under Section -- Policy 5.5, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 2C, areas that just need -- again, if you're going to correct it in the one area, you need to correct it in this area. We're not going to discuss the difference anymore. I'm done with that. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if I could just make a note for the record. That's Policy 5.5 of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: -- Future Land Use Element. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's stay on these 44 pages. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One question. On this bit with the numbers, I was just looking through the document, and I see, like, one place it talks about 15 days, and it's just the number 15 not out, in parentheses, written. One talks about 20 years, and it does have the number and the thing written out; one talks about 25 percent, and it actually has the 25 percent in the number; another talks about 300 feet, and it only has the number and not -- how far do you take this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, when you -- back in my days when you used to write reports and other things, anything that's 10 and below you spell the word; 11 and above you put the number down. So that was -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's correct. The question is, though, when do you just express it in one form as opposed to two forms? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think a decision's been made to go through and express it all in two forms. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to -- the majority of the corrections in this adoption is a lot of that kind of action. MR. SCHMIDT: It was. For housecleaning matters, we've approached this batch of amendments, we looked at the overall construction of the bulk of the Comprehensive Plan, and no matter what element you looked into, the predominant method was using both the word and the parenthetical. And those were being added here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think what we're pointing out is the next time this comes through, we may want to look at either making it all consistent or figure out some way of cleaning it up a little bit further, so... Anything else on pages -- on those 44 pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 9 of 44, you talk about overlays and special features and, Steve, I sent you an email. I don't know if it was yesterday or whenever. I think you were out yesterday, and it said you'd be in today, so you may not have seen it yet, and it was about Plantation Island. We talk about the areas of Chokoloskee, Big Cypress, that are outside Big Cypress, and Everglades City and Ochopee, and I know we have a special agreement on Plantation Island, and I know that we are currently in the midst of a debate with some property owners down there, or a property owner, maybe there's two of them, over the fact our agreement doesn't provide enough flexibility for them to develop their property. And in looking at the agreement and looking at the standards in the ACSC -- and I'm now wondering based on DEO's most latest email to you in which they basically provided no flexibility, what good is that agreement? And maybe we could list Plantation here as an exception, or how is -- because part of the question that has been asked is, why is Plantation separately looked at when it was there -- it goes back April 20, 2017 Page 19 of 30 decades? And Everglades City was exempted. Ochopee, apparently, was; Chokoloskee. But Plantation Island got caught in this mess. We tried to fix it with an agreement, but DEO's backtracking on the agreement, so... MR. WEEKS: Well, first of all, those specifically listed areas that are excluded from the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern are statutory. We, as the local government, cannot exempt other areas. We don't have that authority. The statute would have to be changed to exempt Plantation Island if we wanted it to be exempted or excluded from the ACSC regulations. Secondly, I don't agree with your characterization of DEO's position of, I think you said, backtracking. What the agreement provides for Plantation Island is a minimum site alteration of 2,500 square feet. There's another requirement that applies to the nonpermeable surface area, and that language refers to 50 percent of the generally allowed 10 percent site alteration. DEO is saying that that 50 percent allowance still applies to 10 percent of the site area, not the 2,500 square feet of site and impact area that's allowed. The agreement simply is silent to the nonpermeable surface area; therefore, we default back to the state rule that says 50 percent of the 10 percent. The proposed change to the agreement for Plantation Island, in the present form, would allow for a nonpermeable surface area also of 2,500 square feet. So you could have a site area impact of 2,500 square feet and nonpermeable surface area of 2,500 square feet. That's the current draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are you -- I know you're aware of the email that came in from DEO pertaining to a couple of the sites down there. First of all, it appears that the agreement is subject to those sites under -- whether you own a single lot or you own two, three, or four lots in combination. You're penalized if you use -- if you own more in combination. So if you own three lots, instead of 2,500 per lot, it's 2,500 for all three, which seems kind of strange. I don't know why we would agree to something like that. The other issue -- and I'm trying to figure out how to say it. DEO indicated that what we've already approved and what's already gone on down there is inconsistent with their interpretation of the agreement. And how did -- I didn't see a response to that from staff. And I did go back and look at other lots to see what we've approved for facilities on those lots, and they're all similar to the one that now DEO says shouldn't have been approved. MR. WEEKS: I think the issue is -- two issues here. One is that the county has not been issuing permits in accordance with what DEO says the language provides for. We have been allowing additional nonpermeable surface area than the ACSC regulations authorize. And the second issue is, I believe the county has not been rendering development orders to DEO as we are required to do, which is why DEO has never, I believe -- why they've never raised this issue before, because they weren't aware it was going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- okay. MR. WEEKS: But DEO is now aware and they said, hey, time out, Collier County. You're not doing it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the result of what I seem to see in the emails that just happened. This is a substantial issue for the people that own lots. There's quite a few lots on Plantation Island. The fact that we had an agreement that really wasn't as beneficial as it could have been to fix some of this, and now we're experiencing that lack of, I think, citing in that former agreement. How far have we gone to fix this within the county? I mean, where are we at right now? MR. WEEKS: County Attorney's Office has drafted an amendment to the agreement. The next step is for us to provide that to DEO and to get their -- DEO is Department of Economic Opportunity, the State of Florida -- is to get their reaction to that proposal, and assuming and hoping that it's affirmative, verbally they seem to be accepting. They seem to understand how restrictive the regulations are and what we think are unique circumstances for Plantation Island. The next step would be then to take this before the Board of County Commissioners for their approval and then, of course, DEO has to approve the agreement as well. But we also need to gather some additional supportive information to provide, we believe, to both DEO and to the county commission, and that is information such as how many lots are we dealing with, how many parcels are we dealing with, what is the number of those parcels that have been developed, undeveloped, and of those that have been developed, April 20, 2017 Page 20 of 30 how much development has occurred. And I think that will be very telling to be able to see, well, look, number one, here's how many parcels have been developed that are not in compliance with the existing provision and, secondly, look how reasonable we believe it is to allow the amount of development that has already occurred to support the change to the agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This all kind of, from my participation -- and it just came to light a couple days ago when one of the residents down there -- I don't know why they picked me, but they emailed me about their concern and asked me if I'd look into it. And I started looking into it, and I found all the things we're now talking about that you've already enacted or started to work on. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your time frame to resolve these, this issue; do you have one? The Board's got to sign off on it. Are you going to get to them before their break or not? MR. WEEKS: We should be able to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's a chance that before summer at least an agreement could be modified to a point where some of these issues could be resolved? MR. WEEKS: Yes. As you mentioned, there's one particular property owner that's proposing development that's brought this issue to light, but we recognize, staff, and again with our conversations with DEO, we believe they also recognize that this does have impact to all of the properties on Plantation Island. It's an issue that others -- it's an issue that should have come about earlier. But now that we know about it, we are taking active steps to resolve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Steve, my email simply asks for an explanation that David just gave me, so you can ignore it and save yourself some time. Thank you. I wasn't sure where you guys would be prepared to answer. I had no idea the County Attorney's Office was already working on it. I'm glad to hear they are. Maybe I'll talk with them to get some kind of information from them as well. So thank you. Another question while we're on these 44 pages, on Page 14 of 44 -- and it's under the management plans that Joe likes so much -- 2A triple I, and it says, when listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence such as denning, foraging, or other indications, the minimum of 40 percent of native vegetation on site shall be retained. Have we ever done that? I mean, we're getting everybody coming in demanding we drop retention of open space or preservation space down to minimums based on hired environmental studies done by them. Have we ever countered any of it and come back with an application that fits this? I can't recall them offhand. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. First I need to know which policy you're on, which element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 14 of 44, triple I up on top. MR. LENBERGER: This is the Future Land Use Element? MR. WEEKS: Yes. First, Commissioners, let me just jump in and say that this is a Rural Land Stewardship Area policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So we've only had one approval, Ave Maria, the town, and then the Rural Lands West is under review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Now -- okay. Well, that's interesting then, because if they are in any of the areas that have any of this application, we're looking at a higher percentage of native vegetation retention. Okay. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fair enough. That's all I needed to know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's one of the issues with the stewardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If we turn to -- on Page -- electronic Page 73, there is no -- oh, Page 35 of 44. Now 35 is on the left side of the page, and this is one of your activity center maps, and it's the one that we're sitting in right now. Are you there, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look at the PUD that's directly across from us today where we're sitting, Courthouse Shadows, the northwest corner at the intersection of Airport and 41 is white. I April 20, 2017 Page 21 of 30 believe that corner was picked up and is now part of the Courthouse Shadows PUD as a result of the last change they came through. Remember that's where Starbucks is going to go. I can't forget Starbucks. Thanks for Starbucks I can talk so fast that Terri has to type it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you see her eyes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw. Did you see her roll her eyes? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Terri. That's on the record now; Terri rolled her eyes. MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look at that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you? Isn't that, Mike -- didn't we just change that? MR. BOSI: Yeah, we did. But I'm trying to think, did that PUD get adoption? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking -- I thought it did with the exception of the gas station component. Because the gas station component was pulled, so they got adoption to come in with more square footage for a larger commercial. And the key was they needed that change so the Starbucks could go there on the corner. I don't want anything to mess up that plan. That's a good plan. MR. SCHMIDT: Where is that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 35 of 44. Oh, okay. Where is it? That's all I've got of section -- of those sections, 1 through 44. And, you know, David, did you have something on the FLUE sections? MR. WEEKS: I do. I want to correct something, that previous discussion we were having about Rural Land Stewardship Area Policy 5.5.2.A.iii. I just made -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen of 44. MR. WEEKS: Yes, 14 of 44 on the Future Land Use Element. I just mentioned that -- was talking about the stewardship receiving areas and so forth. This policy is not applicable to those. These Group 5 policies are pertaining to the baseline conditions. That would be a project that is not participating in the stewardship program. So it would not be SRAs; that would be just your baseline development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. You know, I have been talking fast, and I know Terri's getting a little frustrated over there. So let's take a break until 10:30. It will be about 15 minutes, and we'll finish up when we get back. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Sorry, Chair. Live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on record. Back from our break. We left off with -- Ned was working through his questions and, Ned, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I go to Table 2.3.1, which is on Page 134 as it came to me on a thumb drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let me tell you what that is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vacant and developable land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's in the appendices of the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. And this is -- I mean, it's nitpicking typo, but since we're here to clean up, in Item 78, you have something called best homes, and I think you mean rest homes. Some of the best homes are rest homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the table he's talking about? MR. SCHMIDT: I do not. I'm lost at this moment. Page what of what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that brings up a question -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Table 2.3.1. MR. WEEKS: What element are we in? MR. BOSI: There's no element. This is a copy of the adopted EAR report that was provided that was the basis of -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we can't change it? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But just for future reference, if you use that table, instead of "best homes," it should have been "rest homes." I think that's what he's saying. April 20, 2017 Page 22 of 30 COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's right. MR. BOSI: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And -- let's see. My last point. This maybe is a little more substantive. And I'll try to identify it for everyone where it comes up. It comes up on Page -- numeric -- Thumb Drive Page 147, and it is -- oh, let's see, under executive summary, the stand-alone Growth Management Plan amendment. And my question generally is, when studies are prepared by staff -- and, by the way, I think these are all excellent studies that you've brought to us -- the -- in this particular case, there is a summary of the benefits that you cite in support of your conclusion. And as a matter of process, do you ever deal also with the downsides, the detriment, and then dispose of them in an argument? MR. SCHMIDT: Typically, in executive summary we will not include that portion of the argument because it would have been provided in your staff reports, both the pros and the cons, weed them out, water it down, and the Board likes to see it in a shortened version. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So at some point we do see the pros and the cons? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Great. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Now, does anybody else have any sections that they have prepared any questions on? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 1 of the Section 17 -- correction, 1 of 79. It's the Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What electronic page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm on electronic Page 158. And it's just here as Policy 111, you cite -- and there is a change. It says, the county has established and will maintain -- and will maintains, or maintain, that's stricken, the "S" -- an environmental advisory council which advises/assists the county agencies and, of course, the Collier County Planning Commission. We no longer have an EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, no, no. We are the EAC. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We -- right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're both. We wear two hats, just like the Board is the Board of Zoning and Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Do we want to specify that in this, or is this language suitable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ordinances already address it. Yeah, that was already addressed when Jeff wrote the ordinance. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. It's set up like a light switch. If the Board wants to break it to two boards, they can break it to two boards. If they want to use you, they've got a single board. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because there were positions that are at large. I was one of them, so -- but, okay. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? I think I have -- and most of -- all my stuff's been addressed as we moved through it, so we're in good shape at this point. I don't think there's any more questions from this board, so we would then be looking for a motion both as -- I think we need to do one as the EAC and as the Planning Commission. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we need two motions. I imagine they would be similar. But let's start with the EAC first. Is there a motion sitting as the EAC to approve the adoption request -- adoption of the language in front of us subject to the discussions that we had today? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to adopt subject to the language as we discussed, specifically the sections to address some of the language clarifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. April 20, 2017 Page 23 of 30 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And we're not going to go through all those. You have those notes. So I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Is there a similar motion for the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it will be matching the previous motion by the EAC. Is there a second to Ned's motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was thinking here; aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you didn't say nay. Okay. Thank you. ***I think we're done with that one, then, and we will move onto our next agenda item, which is 9C. It's the ordinance amending 7450 to add maximum offsite discharge standards to the various basins in the county. This isn't part of the Land Development Code. It's being brought forward as, I guess, a courtesy for the Planning Commission for a discussion and then recommendation; is that -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. It is, though, somewhat related to the previous agenda item where we requested the removal of discharge rates from the stormwater sub-element. So it's somewhat of a companion or at least related to that. So good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with the Stormwater Management staff. The staff and the county's consultant, Emilio Robau, are here today before you to present for your consideration an amendment to the Code of Laws and Ordinances to reduce offsite stormwater discharge rates in 16 basins. And Jerry Kurtz will be presenting today and answering questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. KURTZ: Good morning. Jerry Kurtz, for the record. What we've done is -- the PowerPoint that's in your packet, we've shifted some slides around and April 20, 2017 Page 24 of 30 reduced the number a little bit to speed things up. Certainly, we have all the slides available if you want to discuss more of the questions. But I'd like to run through approximately 10 or 12 and give you the -- give you the quick overview. This slide starts off with the history of the discharge rates for Collier County and the various steps that were taken over the years. Just a quick snapshot. There's been a lot of work done to control discharge and explain the discharge of stormwater runoff off properties. More recent items discussed; discharge rates, specifically the watershed management plan. A lot of modeling was done with the Watershed Management Plan, and one of the initiatives in the watershed management plan was to bring forward more restrictive discharge rates, just a lot of historical information there. So a snapshot of what we're really talking about. The county, as far as stormwater management, we've got the county divided up into about 51, 52 basins, subbasins, whatever you want to refer to them as. There are other mechanisms to break up the county for various other purposes, wabbits, water body IDs, that sort of thing. But we're talking about -- and these have been the county, as far as stormwater management divides watersheds, divides for years. So we're talking about we had six historically for a long time of these colored areas that were restricted at rates below the overall rate for the county. The top 6 here in the light colors, this initiative is to add 16 more to the current six, and that's the coverage meant to show the coverage of the county. Again, kind of the same thing only in tabular format. The top is the first six, the names of the basins, and the rates of discharge; and then the bottom is the 16 proposed additions. Pretty significant going from six to 16 but, again, the basis and the backup information for why we're doing this is pretty solid based on a lot of modeling and a lot of time. This analysis goes back years and years to some master plans that we did as well as watershed. I want to point out one thing on this slide. Our partners in Watershed Management, the Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management. The asterisk along the bottom 16 -- there's eight of them of the 16 are basins that directly discharge into district-maintained canals. So about half of these basins discharge into our -- the county's maintained system, half discharge into the Water Management's canal system. But, overall, you know, very little distinction; it's all one canal system. We're just when we partner and maintenance of the overall system -- so we've been vetting this for two years plus, and one of the things with DSAC that came up is when you restrict discharge for a new developer, it's going to increase costs. We did -- that's why we hired Emilio, our consultant. We did very detailed analysis. Basically, we created a couple of projects and looked at them with the current discharge rate and the new more restrictive discharge rate and actually calculated what the increase in cost would be. Basically, you're just lifting up the site a little bit more to hold a little more water temporarily on your site. This slide's just explaining -- and we did two scenarios. We did a really intense 12-acre commercial, and we did a residential as well. And I'll show you the outcome and a little bit more information on this analysis. As part of this analysis, we developed -- this was a huge positive thing. We really drilled in deeper with new technology, the GIS data, and produced really detailed basin maps. So here's an example of one of the basin maps. We realized early on, you know, having very accurate maps to be used by the Water Management District and by us is critical. And the boundaries are in. They're solid. It's very clear to see who's in, who's out, what basin you're in. So this was a real valuable exercise for us, and we've got all these maps done. And it really took a lot of time, but it needed to get done. The prior six we had similar maps but not to a greater detail. So now we've upgraded all our basin maps. And just -- in order to show really per, I guess, Stan's initial questions through DSAC, what are properties would be affected by this -- because it's properties that are still yet to be developed. Knowing that some of these basins we want to impose this on pretty much built out, which is a good point, but these new restrictive discharge rates will affect sites that become redeveloped, which is quite a new trend, strong trend now redeveloping various sites. So this new ordinance will have the ability to restrict discharge on sites that are deemed redevelopment sites. Here's just a quick shot of the total 16, again showing that, in fact, Stan had a good point. Some of April 20, 2017 Page 25 of 30 these basins, the available land yet to be developed is down to almost zero. In fact, a couple of them are zero. But, again, some of them are fairly significant, not yet built out. So we go from 41 percent down to zero of -- by basin of land that will be affected by this in addition to where redevelopment -- and, of course, redevelopment probably will be strong in the areas that are, you know, low, undeveloped property at this point. So we developed this based on our vetting with DSAC. And that's the information being shown here on this slide. And, also, each basin has -- or there's -- the restricted rates vary from .04 to .13, so this groups them by what rates they'll be restricted to. The engineers were very interested in that sort of thing. As well, here's just a quick slide showing that we actually went through Emilio's -- he and his staff went through a detailed analysis, so the one on the left is basically -- you know, I'd have to zoom in. And basically we're looking at LiDAR type information showing, color-wise, the height of fill to be added as you develop a site. You know, the reds and oranges are high. The blues and greens are low. But, basically, if you zoomed in on here, you could see that the site on the right, which is held to a higher discharge rate, would -- a little bit more fill would be added. So there's a little bit more red and orange and yellow than the site on the left, which is held to the current discharge rate. And we did this for -- this is the commercial site. As well, he went ahead and designed the whole thing, put in the infrastructure, the drainage infrastructure, used current cost estimates. Of course, fill, cost of fill being probably the most significant, came up with site design costs under the two scenarios, and it came out to be less than 2 percent cost increase. And then we presented this to DSAC. And, again, we wanted to do the residential, too. The nature of the development for each, you know, is quite different. We wanted to make sure we covered both scenarios. We did the exact same thing for a fictitious residential, bigger site, how you would develop it and, again, the depictions left and right. Right, you'll notice, if you zeroed -- zoomed in a lot more, just more fill. Here's the breakdown of the cost estimates. And this one affected the price a little bit more; 4.4 percent. But we did another interesting thing. We looked at -- on a bigger site you have the opportunity of digging your lakes and generating more fill, digging your lakes a little bit deeper, which is a common practice. So the original cost estimate showed just digging the lakes to the minimum depth, but Emilio figured out that if you dug the lakes a little bit deeper to get a little bit more fill, you could bring your cost increase down to, again, just under 2 percent cost increase, which is, I'm told, a common practice. So the point was, we're agreeing that it's going to increase development costs, but we showed that it's a slight increase. So now, again, this slide shows how long we've been working on this and vetting this. We went to DSAC four times over a year and a half, and in the end -- the last meeting was in December. They did vote to support this initiative, once they fully understood, and then we basically did everything they asked us to do to explain the issue and the impacts to the issue. They voted 11-3 in favor. So throughout the whole process we've been touting the benefits. We know it's a more restrictive regulation for land development. We've been very sensitive to that the whole time, from the beginning to the end. We've been transparent. We've pointed out the impacts as well. The benefits are huge. It's so deeply embedded in the Watershed Management Plan. I mean, I don't want to read all these. It's just -- for the environment, for the receiving waters to ensure, do I dare say, the seaward concurrency for stormwater management. We know what the canals can handle under what circumstances, storm events, and holding a little -- restricting discharge runoff rates will help us to manage the canal system so the canal system can always be a good receiver of the runoff in the worst of times. We know the canal system's very limited, so this is a critical initiative to go up in -- upstream into the -- into the basins and try to see what everybody can do to help us ensure that the level of service for flood protection is still there and -- because when you get a big storm, a lot of rain really fast, our canals fill up very quickly, and we've got -- spent a lot of money on modeling during the Watershed Management Plan that showed this. April 20, 2017 Page 26 of 30 And so this is the why the initiative got a head of steam on it and it's kept slowly rolling along, as well, benefits to the receiving waters, benefits to sustainable water supply and aquifer recharge. So there's just numerous really significant benefits to why this needs to be or should be done. Shall? Must? Oh, wait. No. Here's the next steps. We're here today with the Planning Commission, and then the next and final step, hopefully, is going to the Board with this. And then as it churns through the process of acceptance with the State, I guess, it could be -- we could be reviewing stuff under these new conditions as soon as August. And that's the end of the presentation. I'm ready for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Go ahead, Tom, and then Ned. MR. EASTMAN: Jerry, just to confirm these new discharge rates, they will apply to new development new redevelopment, not existing development; so the county won't be coming around and saying, you know, you have to make changes on an existing structure, building, facility? MR. KURTZ: That's correct. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except schools. Schools will all have to come to the new code. MR. EASTMAN: That's what I was thinking about. Thanks, Jerry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: On the slide presentation, I think the final section was benefits; this sort of relates back to the last agenda item. As I read this -- when I read these things and I see lists of benefits, I try to identify possible cons or detriments, and one that emerges from the text would be an increased cost to developers, and I get that. I don't have, really, any expertise in this area, so I'm just kind of winging it. But in the long term, are there any potential detriments or cons to requiring retention of waterflow this way? MR. KURTZ: Not that I'm aware of. In the long term, it should -- it should be beneficial for all the trends, the future trends developing, even saltwater intrusion. When you're actually trying to mound some water on the uplands, it kind of retards the inward migration of saltwater. So I can't see any long-term disadvantages. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, for the record, does this affect any of the single-area homeowners in Golden Gate Estates? MR. KURTZ: No, it won't. It's only for development that falls under basically Water Management rules and regulations. So neither -- it's all -- it exempts single-family homes/lots, even in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. Maybe Stan has the answer to this one. I see that three people voted against the proposal, and I'd be curious to know why, if that's a fair statement, fair question. Maybe it's not. MR. KURTZ: As I recall, it was just pushed back for increasing cost of development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's my memory of it. There were certain people on DSAC that just -- if it's going to increase the cost of development, they just vote no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry, a couple questions. You had said that this would apply to, potentially, redevelopment sites, okay, and then you said it doesn't apply to single-family homes. So even though you have a basin for the -- let's say the Pine Ridge area, Pine Ridge north of Pine Ridge Road and east of U.S. 41, if those homes in there were destroyed during a hurricane or something, they would not be applicable to this particular -- these changes? April 20, 2017 Page 27 of 30 MR. KURTZ: Would not be, right. This is just for Water Management sites with water management -- sites that have to be permitted through -- and follow the South Florida Water Management rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That -- my concern was, obviously, if you're going to be raising a site, if it was a single-family home in a subdivision, we are running into problems with homes -- new homes built so much higher than existing, and there's been some flack on that. But if this doesn't apply to that, then it's a nonissue. MR. KURTZ: We are, and that's why the other ordinance for the lot coverage is -- was reviewed and altered. We were well aware of the issues with single-family, you know -- runoff from single-family sites, so the two things will, I think, work together nicely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the excavation of lakes, did you change your fetch formula in any manner? Because most of the lakes that happens -- happen are dug to that formula, and you can only go so deep based on the side slopes and everything else that are required. So the solution to the cost by digging lakes deeper on projects really means you may have to change the configuration of the lake to get that additional depth, then. Is that what you were thinking? MR. KURTZ: Yes, absolutely. You know, it's going to be available to certain developments based on their configuration; others it might not be. Even the size of the lake you can't -- it has to be a certain size even before you can consider going deeper, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KURTZ: -- we just used the example that we came up with, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, under that scenario, if you were to try to go deeper but you had to increase the size of the lake so your formula works, you really have got a cost involved in losing lots then, not just fill. MR. ROBAU: I kind of anticipated some of that. And without having to do all the iterations of varying the -- oh, for the record, Emilio Robau, Robau & Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll might want to spell that last name for her. MR. ROBAU: No. She has my card. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. ROBAU: I was hoping I'd get up here. Anyways -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were hoping? You're the only person I've ever seen that's hoping for such a thing. That's good. MR. ROBAU: I think my terms of the day I learned today are best homes are rest homes and nitpick or pick nits. I really love those two. But anyways, I kind of anticipated that, so I went to 14 feet for the lakes. I mean, I didn't go all the way down to 20 feet. I figured that with a fetch formula of 12 versus 14 feet, the additional two feet, we could probably get some of the same geometry layout for the developments. And I also wanted to point out that the differential's about two-tenths of a foot is what we're talking about here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So it's that much. Thank you. Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If we're going to pick nits, in the first page, the requested action, you always put a zero in front of the decimal point. You did it the whole rest of the document except for the first paragraph. And I don't know how you're going to spell those out, zero point zero four? MR. EASTMAN: They must do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that was a -- just a statement. I'm not sure there was a response needed, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ask Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just an observation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that wraps up questions from the Planning Commission. Are there any public speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes, Chair, there is one. Joss Nageon De Lestang from the South Water Florida (sic) April 20, 2017 Page 28 of 30 Management district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to snatch success -- how's that -- what's that thing -- Come on up. You know, this is heading to a positive, but we're willing to reconsider it if you'd like, especially if the higher regulatory government agency is involved. MR. DE LESTANG: Good morning, Commissioners. No, I do not want you to reconsider it, if such is the direction in which you are going. I just was -- I just wanted to voice my support for this measure that Jerry and the county are proposing, because I think that it's going to be useful overall and will definitely help the Big Cypress Basin, at least to the extent to where these properties discharge into the canals, and to the extent where we can have less discharge. In a 25-year event, I think it would be very helpful. As it is, it's really more of a -- really a concept of shared diversity. I think in a 25-year event, these canals are probably not going to perform. They really are probably, on a best-case scenario, about a 10-year canal. So in a 25-year event, it would be safe to say that we'd be working with flooded conditions. And to the extent to where you can restrict flows at least immediately after a storm, I think it's all useful for the entire system and everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do you believe about climate change? Do you want to weigh in on that? No. MR. DE LESTANG: I think I will definitely pass on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers? MR. BOSI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, is there a recommendation to the Board to support and approve this ordinance? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Mike? MR. BOSI: And I should have spoke up earlier, I just realized, the motion related to the batch amendment approvals, was there a request to bring that back on consent, or was that just to move it forward? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally how we've approached consent is if we make a motion to do it, then it comes back. If we don't and it stays silent, then it's not needed. MR. BOSI: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to the -- I think, the end of our agenda. New business? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a request. My screen, even though they turned it on, April 20, 2017 Page 29 of 30 which is nice, it tells me to press control, alternate, delete to log on, and I do that, and it asks me for a password. And I keep putting in my county password that I have. I don't know what password to use. Do I have a password? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you did and you haven't used it for six months, that means you've still got to change it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I know, but I get stuff at home via the Internet or whatever the county -- and it's my password that I use for my correspondence, my emails, but this thing doesn't seem to take that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did you try "guest"? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Guest and guest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, guest and guest. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Guest? I'll try it. Okay. Okay. Carry on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your new -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As you were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to mention -- I notice now that we've got almost everybody electronically wired in, and it's -- the references to where we are in a document, when you get them electronically, we all get the same electronic feed and we turn right to the page. I know Diane and Karen -- is there any -- would you guys consider switching to electronic? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It would certainly make it easier to follow because we just have to keep falling back and flipping through pages and slowing the process down. Diane, if the county would supply you with a laptop, would you do that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason why you can't do that since we are in a modern world? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I like the pages because I go back and forth. I read them. I set them aside. I come back. No, I keep going back and referring to them, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen, are you the same way? You wouldn't accept a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's easier for me to pick up whenever I want to instead of -- even at home. I mean, I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I just was -- I keep trying, but I'm glad to see some of us are that way. Makes it a little easier. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Guest doesn't work, password doesn't work, 1234 doesn't work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do guest, guest? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Guest, guest. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Guest, guest? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guest is your sign-in name, and guest is your password. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It doesn't ask for a sign-in name. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sometimes num -- you know, the num lock goes on automatically, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can work -- Stan can work on that after hours. Is there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public here to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, you're dying to say something. You have nothing you want to say? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: She hasn't been up all day. MS. MOSCA: I just need my thumb drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? April 20, 2017 Page 30 of 30 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane, seconded by Joe. 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:01 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. AGENDA ITEM 9-A CoOer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION— ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: MAY 18, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION NO: DOA-PL20160002736, PINE AIR LAKES DRI APPLICANT/AGENT• Mr. Daniel Aronoff Land Management Services Associates, LLC 280 North Woodward Avenue Birmingham, MI 48009 Note: There are many owners within this Planned Unit Development (PUD). The list of owners is contained in the backup materials. REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks to amend the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order (DO) 85-5, as amended, the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section One: Extension Of Buildout Date And Expiration Date; Section Two: Findings Of Fact; Section Three: Conclusions Of Law; Section Four: Effect Of Previously Issued Development Order, Transmittal To The Department Of Economic Opportunity; and providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 148.99 acres, is located at the intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Naples Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. (Please see the Location Map on the following page.) Pine Air Lakes, DOA-PL20160002736 April 21, 2017 Page 1 of 6 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed change to the Pine Air Lakes DRI DO seeks to extend the build -out date from December 29, 2018 to December 28, 2023. The original DO 85-5 (see Exhibit A) was approved on November 12, 1985 authorizing development of a multiple use project containing hotel/institutional, office/mixed use commercial, temporary sewage treatment plant, and shopping center uses. Seven changes to the original DRI DO have occurred and they are listed below: 1. On April 15, 1986, the county adopted Resolution 86-63 (see Exhibit B) to extend the termination date from November 12, 1995 to April 15, 1996. 2. On May 10, 1994, the county adopted Resolution 94-349/DO 94-2 (see Exhibit C) to revise the permitted uses, transportation commitments, potable water provisions and to extend the termination date to October 15, 2000. 3. On September 28, 2004, the county adopted Resolution 04-310/DO 04-02 (see Exhibit D) to extend the termination date to October 14, 2005. 4. On March 13, 2007, the county adopted Resolution 07-63/DO 07-01 (see Exhibit E) to increase the square footage for commercial retail uses and to decrease the square footage for offices uses and extended the termination date to October 14, 2010. 5. Several time extensions were granted pursuant to Florida Statutes and excluded from cumulative analysis. (Refer to Exhibit F, a letter from Scott Rogers of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity dated September 23, 2016.) 6. On October 17, 2013, Staff in response to an extension request, notified representatives of the Pine Air Lakes DRI/PUD that the DRI/PUD was extended to March 16, 2017. (See Exhibit G.) (Note: According to information received from the County Attorney's Office, the extension date should have been March 12, 2017.) 7. On March 31, 2017, Staff in response to an extension request related to Hurricane Matthew and the Zika Virus, extended the termination date to December 29, 2018. (See Exhibit H.) A less than five-year extension falls under the provisions of Chapter 380.06(19)(c) Florida Statutes (F.S.), which states in part, "....an extension of less than five -years is not a substantial deviation." Furthermore, this less than five-year extension does not have a rebuttal presumption like extensions greater than five years. As a result, this less than five-year extension is consistent with Chapter 380.06(19)(c) F.S. and is not considered a substantial deviation. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (RPC): The RPC heard and approved this Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to a previously approved Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes on April 20, 2017, with staff s recommendations that are shown below: Pine Air Lakes, DOA-PL20160002736 April 21, 2017 Page 3 of 6 The draft development order language provided with the NOPC is acceptable to address the change proposed to extend the termination and buildout date. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Notify Collier County, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and the applicant of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council determination that the proposed change does not create additional regional impacts. 2. Request that Collier County provide a copy of the proposed Development Order and any related materials to the Council in order to ensure that the Development Order is consistent with the Notice of Proposed Change. Please see Exhibit I, Pine Air Lakes DRI Collier County Notice of Proposed Change DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (DEO): The DEO has no objection to the proposed amendment. COUNTY STAFF ANALYSIS: Development authorizations contained in DRI Development Orders are prerequisites to zoning actions that implement DRI land use authorizations. DRI Development Orders are intended to address regional impacts of a project. As noted in the attached RPC staff report, the proposed change in buildout date passes the threshold to be a presumption of a non -substantial deviation under Sub -chapter 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes that states: (c) An extension of the date of buildout of a development, or any phase thereof, by more than 7 years is presumed to create a substantial deviation subject to further development -of -regional -impact review. 1. An extension of the date of buildout, or any phase thereof, of more than 5 years but not more than 7 years is presumed not to create a substantial deviation.... These presumptions may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence at the public hearing held by the local government. An extension of 5 years or less is not a substantial deviation. As noted above, the applicant is seeking to extend the date of buildout by one day less than 5 years, thus this petition meets the bolded criteria above. Pine Air Lakes, DOA-PL20160002736 April 21, 2017 Page 4 of 7 build out the property. The proposed revision to the Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order will not adversely impact any adopted level -of -service standard. This amendment only extends the termination and build -out dates from December 29, 2018 to December 28, 2023. Staff believes this amendment will not adversely impact the development strategy for the Pine Air Lakes PUD or affect adjacent properties as depicted on the Zoning Map. Staff recommends approval of the DRI DO amendment with the understanding this amendment will not adversely impact adjacent property owners or create an undue public safety concern if the DRI DO is adopted. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on April 17, 2017. The following criteria are to be considered for DRI amendments: Consider: Consistency with the Collier County Land Development Code. 2. Consider: Consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 3. Consider: Impacts on public infrastructure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPQ forward a recommendation of approval of Petition DOA-PL20160002736, Pine Air Lakes DRI to the Board of County Commissioners as described by the amending DRI Development Order resolution. Attachments: Exhibit A: DO 85-5 Exhibit B: Resolution 86-63 Exhibit C: Resolution 94-349/DO 94-2 Exhibit D: Resolution 04-310/130 04-02 Exhibit E: Resolution 07-63/DO 07-01 Exhibit F: Florida DEO letter dated September 23, 2016 Exhibit G: Collier County GMD Letter dated October 17, 2013 Exhibit H: Collier County GMD Letter dated March 31, 2017 Exhibit I: Pine Air Lakes DRI Collier County Notice of Proposed Change Exhibit J: Consistency Review dated April 4, 2017 Exhibit K: Draft Resolution Pine Air Lakes, DOA-PL20160002736 Page 5 of 6 April 21, 2017 PREPARED BY: 1 ta NANCYCH, AICP, PLA DAT PRINCIPqLLE % RION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOD V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DA E GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Pine Air Lakes, DOA-PL20160002736 April 11, 2017 Page 6 of 6 DEVELOPMENT ORDER 85- 5 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF 171E BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR PINE AIR LAKES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA: WHEREAS. Teem Plan. Inc., Agent, for Pine Air venture, Inc.. Applicant, !lied on June 2, 1984. with the. County of Collier an Application for Development Approval (ADA) of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Pine Air Lakes Planned Unit Development in accordance with Section 380.06(6), Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Pine Air Venture, Inc., has obtained all necessary approvals and conditional approvals from the various Collier County agencies, departments, and boards required as a condition to Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and DRI approval; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the unincorporated area of Collier County having jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 380.06 is authorized and empowered to consider Applications for Development Approval (ADA) for Developments of Regional Impact; and WHEREAS, the public notice requirements of Chapter 380 and the Collier County Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission bas reviewed and considered the report and recommendation of the Southwest Florida Region- al Planning Council (SWFRPC) and held a public hearing on the ADA on October 3, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has passed Ordinance 85-67 which rezoned the subject property to PUD; and WHEREAS, Pine Air Lakes ADA is also part of an overall rezoning application by the developer; and the issuance of a development order pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, does not constitute a waiver of any powers or rights regarding the issuance of other develop- ment permits by the County or State; WHEREAS, on November 12, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners, at an open public hearing in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, considered the application for Development of Regional Impact Exhibit A submitted by Team Plan. Inc.. Agent; the report and recommendations of the SWFRPC; the certified record of the documentary and oral evidence v presented to the Collier County Planning Commission; the report and recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission; the recommendations of Collier County Staff and Advisory Boards; and the commute upon the record made before this Board of County Commissioners at said meeting; and hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law; FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The real property which is the subject of the ADA is legally described as act forth in Exhibit A. the Planned' Unit Development Document for Pine Air Lakes attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. 2. The application, is in accordance with Section 380.06(b). Florida Statutes. 3. The applicant submitted to the County an ADA and sufficiency responses known as composite Exhibit B. and by reference made a part hereofs to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Order. 4. The applicant proposes the development of Pine Air Lakes Planned Unit Development. for 148.99 acres which includes 9.27 acres for hotel/institutional use; 25.87 acres for office/mixed use commercial; 32.63 acres for lakes/open space; 7.96 acres for a temporary sewage treatment plant; 57.34 acres for a shopping center; 14.11 acres for roadways; and 1.81 acres of cypress wetlands. 5. The Development is consistent with the report and recommenda- tions of the SWFRPC submitted pursuant to Subsection 380.06 (11), Florida Statutes. 6. The development will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Devel- opment Plan applicable to the area. 7. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the develop- ment. has been conducted by the appropriate County departments 1�1 and aRencies and by the SWFRPC. 2 ti M 8. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Criti- cal State Concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.05, Florida Statutes, as amended. 9. The development In consistent with the land development regula- tion Of Collier County. ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAN NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Hoard of County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida, in public meeting. duly constituted and. assembled November 12, 1985, that the Development of Regional Impact Application for Development Approval submitted by Team Plan, Inc., Agent, is hereby ordered approved subject to the following conditions as recommended by the SNFRPC or in response to their recommendation and the commitments specified in the PUD, all of which are hereby adopted as condition of approval of this Development Order: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The ADA for the Pine Air Lakes project proposed a range of square footage for approval, however, the transportation analysis provided by the applicant addressed a project consisting of a total of 1,280,600 square feet. The ADA also specified that the 1,280,600 square feet value is currently proposed and that additional amounts will be requested if future market analysis finds a need. Therefore, the Council assessment considered the 1,280,600 square feet project, only. Conditions: a. Pine Air Lakes project approval shall be for the following maximum square footage: Category Sq. Ft. Commercial Retail Regional Nall 550,000 Mixed Use 157,000 Office 368,600 Hotel/Institutional 205,000 (350 rooms Hotel) (322 rooms Institutional) Total 1,280,600 3 b. Any future request for additional square footage shall be considered by Collier County through the Substantial `. Deviation process pursuant to Ch. 380.06 Florida Statutes. 2. DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY. The applicant has proposed a surface water management system that, with an addition to the proposed . "Beet Management Practices" (B.H.P.'s) should improve water quality leaving the site and cease to add further to the degradation of Naples Bay. Additionally, the project has the potential for locating businesses or other ou-site uses that could generate special or hazardous wastes (i.e. photographic processing, gas station, printing). Conditions: a. The drainage system for Pine Air Lakes shall implement the design standards and water quality "best management practices" outlined in the Application for Development Approval, response to Question 22 Drainage, and in sufficiency responses. b. The drainage system for the "Pine Air Lakes" project shall be modified to provide for greater detention capacity and for more extensive water quality "Best Management Practices" in high intensity use drainage basins (greater than 40S impervious surface) as required by the South Florida Water Management District. C. Conceptual and/or detailed site drainage plans shall be submitted to the Nater Management Advisory Board for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by the Water Management Advisory Board.' d. An on-going maintenance and monitoring program that ensures regular inspection, maintenance and sampling of the stormwater drainage system shall be implemented by the applicant, or his successors, throughout the project life-time. 4 e. The developer shall provide a 25' wide drainage easement along the north boundary, and a 35' wide drainage easement u along the west boundary of the property as required by Collier County's Water Management Director. f. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 80-26, as amended by Ordinance No. 83-3, and as may be amended in the future. g. A regular program of ween sweeping of all project parking lots shall be considered as a supplemental "Best Management Practice" by the applicant and all permit review agencies. h. The applicant shall coordinate with Collier County and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) for the provision of temporary transfer/storage facilities to accommodate all special and hazardous wastes, ae classified by FDER, that are generated by the development. Such a provision could include the location of an adequate temporary storage/transfer facility on-site. 3. ENERGY: The proposed project would be an all electric development and would increase the energy demands of the Region. The applicant has committed to provide a variety of energy conservation measured to reduce the impact of that increased energy demand. Conditions• a. Provision of a bicycle -pedestrian system to be placed along arterial and collector roads within the project. This system is to be consistent with applicable county requirements. b. Provision of bicycle racks or storage facilities in office and commercial areas. C. Cooperation in the locating of bus stops, shelters, and other passenger and system accommodations for a transit .system to serve the project area. A d. Use of energy-efficient features in window design (e.g., tinting and exterior shading). ..: e. Use of operable windows and ceiling fans (as appropriate). f. Installation of energy-efficient appliances and equipment. g. Prohibition of dead restrictions or covenants that would prevent or unnecessarily hamper energy conservation efforts (e.g., building orientation and solar water heating systems). h. Reduced coverage by asphalt, concrete, rock, and similar substances in streets. parking lots, and other areas to reduce local air temperatures and reflected light and heat. I. Installation of energy-efficient lighting for streets, parking areas, and other interior and exterior public areas. J. Use of water closets with a maximum flush of 3.5 gallons and shower heads and faucets with a maximum flow rate of 3.0 gallons per minute (at 60 pounda, of pressure per square inch) as specified in the Water Conservation Act, Chapter 553.14, Florida Statutes. k. Selection of native planta, trees, and other vegetation and landscape design features that reduce requirements for water, fertilizer, maintenance, and other needs. 1. Planting of native shade trees to provide reasonable shade for all streets and parking areas. m. Placement of trees to provide needed shade in the warmer months while not overly reducing the benefits of sunlight 1n the cooler months. n. Orientation of structures, as possible, to reduce solar heat gain by walls and to utilize the natural cooling effects of the wind. o. Provision for structural shading (e.g.. trellises, awnings, and roof overhangs) wherever practical when .natural shading cannot be used effectively. 6 p. Consideration by the project architectural review committee(s) of energy conservation measures (both those noted here and others) to assist builders and tenants in their efforts to achieve greater energy efficiency in the development. 4. FLOODPLAIN/HURRICANE EVACUATION: The proposed office park/ shopping center contains a large amount of comnon.area that could be used as a refuge in the event of a hurricane. This would constitute a use of Regional benefit. Condition: a. The applicant must meet with the appropriate county/ disaster preparedness officials to determine the potential for use of the development's common areas as a hurricane refuge. 5. REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER: The proposed Pine Air Lakes regional commercial center proposes to add a minimum of 707.000 square feet of retail space to the retail markets of Collier County and south Lee County by 1991. However, projections of retail �-' market demand for 1995 show that existing and approved future retail space will nearly accommodate all 1995 retail demand. Based on this projection, there will not be sufficient demand to support Pine Air Lakes' 707,000 square feet in addition to existing and proposed future retail space. Furthermore, the proposed Pine Air Lakes Site is located well within the service areas of the Coastland Mall and the approved Bonita Bay Center. This retail concentration will cause these centers to have to compete for an adequate share of the market, while requiring local government to plan road and other improvements on the expectation that all ventures will succeed. Condition: 1. An agreement for the Development of the shopping mall, Parcel 12, shall be delivered up to but no later than five (5) years after the adoption of this Development Order. A copy of this Agreement shall be submitted to the Community Development Division and Southwest Florida Regional 7 Planning Council. The agreement shall specify the date of commencement and completion of construction for each phase with a description of the construction to be completed. The development of the shopping mall shall be completed no later than 10 years after the adoption of this Development Order. An extension up to five (5) years to the time table for the completion of the shopping mall may be approved by County staff and the Planning Commission according to Section (19) (c) of the current statewide quidelines and standards for Development of Regional Impact. If such an agreement is not provided, the applicant shall be required to resubmit a marketing study which. after re-examining the area market and involving commercial development, demonstrates that the project is feasible. Collier County's review of this marketing study shall include a substantial deviation determination pursuant to Ch. 780.06 F.S. 6. TRANSPORTATION: Traffic generated by Pine Air Lakes, when combined with other growth in the Area, will necessitate substantial roadway improvements. if level of service "C" conditions are to be maintained. Conditions: a. The developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signals at each of the' project accesses on Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. b. The developers shall provide arterial level street lighting at each of the project accesses on Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. This shall be waived if prior roadway improvements by the County include a street lighting system. c. The applicant shall be required to pay for any other intersection improvements deemed necessary by the County 8 Engineer for the project's access points onto Pine Ridge Road and Airport-Pulling Road. ti d. At the time that any portion of the following regionally Impacted roadways is found to exceed level-of-service "C" (by the Collier County Engineering Department or other appropriate county department or FDDT). the applicant shall become obligated to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the total improvements necessary to maintain. level-of-service "C". 1. U.S. 41 - Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road - Pine Ridge Road to Solana Road The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards the total improvements necessary to maintain level-o£-service "C" on all impacted road segments through project buildout. The applicant's "fair share" shall be determined by the proportion of the project's total buildout traffic on the road segment to total traffic forecasted on the road segment. Table 1 of the SUFRFC Staff Transportation Assessment presents estimated project traffic and total traffic forecasted through buildout based on current available data. These estimates shall be used to estimate proportional share until updated by the monitoring report required under condition "f." and on an updated traffic analysis. e. At the time that any portion of the following inter- sections is found to exceed level-o£-service "C" (by Collier County Engineering Department or other appropriate County department or FDOT), the applicant shall become obligated to pay a proportionate share of the cost of signalizatien. turn lanes, and other improvements deemed necessary by Collier County or FDOT: 9 1. Intersection of U.S. 41 at Pine Ridge Road The applicant shall contribute a fair share towards the total Improvements necessary to maintain level -of -service "C" an all Impacted road intersections through project buildout. The applicant's "fair share" shall be determined by the proportion the project's total buildout traffic in the road intersection, to total traffic forecasted an the road intersection. £. Commitment to construct the proportional share improve- ments outlined in recommendations "d." and "e." above shall be made at the time that a road segment/intersection is found to exceed level -of -service "C". Service level determination shall be made by either the Collier County Engineering. Department or Mr. To this and, the applicant shall submit an annual monitoring report to the Collier County Engineering Department. the Collier County/Naples MPO, FDOT, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council for review. The first monitoring report shall be submitted one year after the issuance of the first certificates of occupancy for Pine Air Lakes. Reports shall be submitted annually until buildout of the project. This report shall contain traffic counts taken at the access points to the site, daily and peak hour segment counts for the regional roadways specified in "i." below, and turning movements for the intersections specified in "1." below. The purpose of the monitoring report shall be to indicate when level -of -service "C" is exceeded on impacted roadways and/or intersections and to provide updated information to more accurately forecast project buildout traffic and total traffic for determination of proportional share. g. If any regionally impacted road segment becomes a State designated highway after the date of approval of this . Development Order, the roadway improvements shall be the developer's responsibility as outlined in "d." above. 10 Any payment of the Road Impact Fee for improvements to that regionally impacted road segment prior to the designation of that road as a State Highway shall be credited- toward the developer's fair share payment Obligations for that roadway segment. h. It is understood that the developer's proportionate share of improvements to the regional roadways/intersections listed in "m." below and the local roadways/intersections listed below is covered by the Collier County Road Impact Fee Ordinance. Local Road Segments 1. Pine Ridge Road (CR -896) Logan Boulevard to CR 951 2. Golden Gate Boulevard - (future) U.S. 41 to Goodlette-Frank Road Extended Goodlette-Frank Road to Airport -Pulling Road Airport -Pulling goad to Livingston Road Extended 3. Golden Gate Parkway Airport -Pulling Road to Santa Barbara ti 4. Airport Pulling Road Immokales Road to Golden Gate Blvd. (future) Golden Gate Blvd. to Pine Ridge Road Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road Radio Road to Davis Boulevard 5. Livingston Road (future) - Golden Gate Blvd. (future) to Pine Ridge Road - Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway 6. Goodlette Frank Road - Golden Gate Blvd (future) to Pine Ridge Road - Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway - Golden Gate Parkway to U.S. 41 Local Intersection Segments 7. Airport -Pulling Road at Golden Gate Parkway 8. Airport -Pulling Road at Radio Road 9. Airport -Pulling Road at Davis Boulevard 10. Airport -Pulling Road at Golden Gate Boulevard . 11. Goodlette-Frank Road at Golden Cate Parkway 11 However, if the Road Impact Fee Ordinance is rescinded. the Developer shall be responsible for his proportionate share of improvements to these roadways/intersections. The Developer's proportionate share shall be calculated as defined in "d.". "e." and "f." above. If the Road Impact Fee Ordinance is rescinded, any payment of Collier County's impact fee, prior to the rescinding of said Ordinance, for any improvements to these roadways/intersections, shall be credited toward the developer's fair share payment obligations. i. Improvements needed to maintain level -of -service "C" on any regional road segment or intersection listed below for which the project's traffic will exceed ten (10) percent of the level -of -service "C" service volume of that segment/ intersection, must be operational coincident with development of the project. 1. Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) - U.S. 41 to Goodlette-Frank Road - Goodlette-Frank Road to Project South Access Roadway - Project South Access Road to Airport -Pulling Road - I-75 to Logan Boulevard - Airport -Pulling Road to 1-75 2. Immokalee Road (CR 846) - U.S. 41 to Airport -Pulling Road - Airport -Pulling Road to I-75 - I-75 to Logan Boulevard Extended 3. U.S. 41 - Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road - Pine Ridge Road to Solana Road 4. Intersection of Immokalee Road at Airport -Pulling Road 5. Intersection of Pine Ridge Road at Goodlette-Frank Road 6. Intersection of Airport -Pulling Road at Pine Ridge Road 7. Intersection of U.S. 41 at Pine Ridge Road. If a needed improvement to an existing roadway is not operational coincident with development of the project, then development shall cease until the improvement is in I, operation. 12 j- The developer shall be obligated to pay the 'Collier County Road Impact Pae no later than at the time of ti issuance of building permits for each building/project. k. Impact Fees and/or Aeeessueots: Payment of Collier County's impact Fee for any improvements to the road segments/ intersections depicted in "d." and "e." above, shall be credited toward the fair share payments required by this development order. The developer shall make the fair share payments required by "d." and "e." above, for all road segments/intersections, including state roadways, for which fair share funding is not included in an impact fee or assessment. Payments already made by the applicant for a roadway improvement depicted in "d." and "a." above, may be credited toward an impact fee which includes that roadway. 1. Other Alternatives: It is understood that the specific conditions listed above require commitments for payment from the developer and implicit commit-. meats for construction from local and state agencies. " In some cases, the improvements may not result even with applicant commitments because of the lack of commitment by State agencies. Therefore, Collier County is allowed to provide alternatives to the above conditions when the alternatives mitigate regional roadway impacts. Should this alternative be pursued, Collier County shall solicit SWFRFC review of the alternatives prior to an amended Development Order being adopted. m. If for any reason, any of the Regionally impacted road- ways/intersections are not included under Collier County's Road Impact Fee Ordinance, the developer shall be respon- sible for paying his proportionate share of improvements to that roadway/ intersection. The Developer's propor- tionate share shall be calculated as defined in "d.", "e." and "f." above. 13 The regionally impacted roadways are: I. Pine Ridge Road (CR -896) US -41 to Goodlette-Prank Road Goodlette-Frank Road to Project South Access Roadway Project South Access Road to Airport Pulling Road - I-75 to Logan Boulevard Airport -Pulling Road to I-75 2. Immokalee Road (CR -846) - US -41 to Airport -Pulling Road - Airport -Pulling Road to i-75 - I-75 to Logan Boulevard Extended The Regionally impacted intersections are. 3. Immokalee Road at Airport -Pulling Road. 4. Pine Ridge Road at Goodlette-Frank Road. 5. Airport -Pulling Road at Pine Ridge Road. n. Other transportation considerations: In order to ensure adequate road facilities, any required improvements should be staged or phased through time. An example of the phased improvement of concern would be a two lane road which needs to be four laved in five years and six lanes �-' ten years later. It is possible that the design employed for a four lane road would not be the best design for what ultimately would be four lanes of a six lane road. If staged road/intersection improvements are required, then the applicant (or local government) shall forward to the Florida Department of Transportation, one or more typical cross section designs for each stage of the improvement prior to the improvement being implemented. The FOOT will review and comment upon the cross sections, particularly on their suitability for future phased improvements, and shall forward their comments to the local government. o. All access to individual parcels shall be internal. p. Exception to the Subdivision Regulations requiring sidewalks on both sides of the streets shall not be waived . and additional crosswalks may be required and approved by the County Engineer during the site plan review process to join sidewalks at places other than at intersections. 14 q. Development shall be limited to Tracts 1, 3, 4 and 13 until easements for Edgewood Drive are obtained and v ' dedicated to the County; Edgewood Drive is constructed; and the water system is looped in accordance with the Utilities Division's regulations and requirements. r. The developer shall submit an annual monitoring report upon request by any County department. This report shall be submitted to the Collier County Engineering Department and the Collier County Planning Department for review. This monitoring report shall be submitted as a supplement to the monitoring report required in "f." above. The first monitoring report may be required one (1) year after the issuance of the first certificates of occupancy for Pine Air Lakes. Reports may be required annually until buildout of the project. This report shall contain daily peak hour segment counts for the local road& listed below and turning movements to the local intersections listed below. Local Road Segments 1. Pine Ridge Road CR -896) - Logan Boulevard to CR 951 2. Golden Gate Boulevard. - (future) - U.S. 41 to Goodlette-Frank Road Extended - Goodlette-Frank Road to Airport -Pulling Road - Airport -Pulling Road to Livingston Road Extended 3. Golden Gate Parkway -Airport-Pulling Road to Santa Barbara 4. Airport Pulling Road - Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Blvd.(future) - Golden Gate Blvd. to Pine Ridge Road - Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway - Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road - Radio Road to Davis Boulevard 5. Livingston Road (future) - Golden Gate Blvd. (future) to Pine Ridge Road - Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway 15 6. Goodlette Frank Road Golden Gate Blvd (future) to Pine Ridge Road - Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway Golden Gate Parkway to U.S. 41 Local Intersection Segments 7. Airport -Pulling Road at Golden Gate Parkway S. Airport -Pulling Road at Radio Road 9: Airport -Pulling Road at Davis Boulevard 10. Airport -Pulling Read at Golden Gate Boulevard 11. Goodlette-Frank Road at Golden Gate Parkway 7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: a. A site clearing plan shall be submitted to the Natural Resources Management Department and the Community Development Division for their review and approval prior to any substantial work on the site. This plan may be submitted in phases to coincide with the development schedule. The site clearing plan shall clearly depict how the final site layout incorporates retained native vegetation to the maximum extent possible and how roads, buildings, lakes, parking lots, and other facilities have been oriented to accommodate this goal. b. Native species shall be utilized, where available, to the maximum extent possible in the site landscaping design. A landscaping plan will be submitted to the Natural Re- sources Management Department and the Community Develop- ment Division for their review and approval. This plan will depict the incorporation of native species and their mix with other species, if any. The goal of site land- scaping shall be the re-creation of native vegetation and habitat characteristics lost on the site during construction or due to past activities as much as practically and economically feasible. C. All exotic plants, as defined in the County Code, shall be removed during each phase of construction from development areas, open space areas, and preserve areas. Following .site development a maintenance program shall be •� implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by such exotic species. This plan, which will describe control 1A techniques and inspection intervals, shall be filed with and approved by the Natural Resources Management Department, and the Community Development Division. d. If, during the course of site clearing. excavation. or other constructional activities, an archaeological or historical site, artifact$ or other indicator is dis- covered, all development at that location shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Natural Resources Management Department be notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the Natural Resources Management Department or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to its salvageability. The Natural.Resources Management Department will respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to any constructional activities. e. The .4 acre cypress wetland and buffer zone be checked and approved by Natural Resources Management personnel prior to any construction in the vicinity of the wetlands. f. As many existing native trees and shrubs as possible be incorporated into the development. g. The developers must demonstrate to the Natural Resources Management Department that this development will be in compliance with the water quality regulations as outlined by DER and SFWMD when they return with their site development plans and, more specifically, if DER or SWFWMD requires water quality monitoring of their stormwater run-off, then Natural Resources Management Department requests that they receive copies of all the data. 8. UTILITIES - A. Water and Sewer 1. Central water distribution and sewage collection and transmission systems will be constructed throughout the project development by the developer pursuant to all current requirements of Collier County and the 17 State of Florida. The proposed water and sewer facilities will be constructed within easements to be dedicated to the County for utility purposes or within platted rights -of way. Upon completion of construction of the water and sewer facilities within the project, the facilities will be tested to insure they meet Collier County's minimum requirements at which time they will be dedicated to the County pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time dedication is requested, prior to being placed into service, 2. All construction plans and technical specifications and proposed plata, if applicable, for the proposed water distribution and sewage collection and transmission facilities must be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Division prior to commencement of construction. 3. All customers connecting to the sewage collection facilities will be customers of the County and will be billed by the County in accordance with a rate structure and service agreement approved by the County. Review of the proposed rates and subsequent approval by the Board of County Commissioners must be completed prior to activation of the water and sewer facilities servicing the project. Rate reviews must be in full compliance with County Ordinances No. 76-71 and 83-18 as amended, revised or superseded. 4. It is anticipated that the City of Naples will ultimately supply potable water to meet the consumptive demand and/or County Utilities Division will receive and treat the sewage generated by this project. Should the City or County systems not be in a position to supply potable water to the project and/or receive the project's wastewater at the time development commences, the Developer, at his expense, will install and operate interim water supply and 18 on-site treatment facilities and/or interim on-site sewage treatment and disposal facilities adequate to meet all requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies. 5. An Agreement shall be entered into between the County and the Owner. legally acceptable to the County, stating that: a. The proposed water supply and on-site treatment facilities and/or on-site wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, if required, are to be constructed as part of the proposed project and must be regarded as interim-, they shall be constructed to State and Federal standards and are to be owned, operated and maintained by the Owner, his assigns or successors until such time ...- as the County's Central Water Facilities and/or Central Sewer Facilities are available to service the project. Prior to placing the water treatment, supply and distribution and/or sewage collection, transmission and treatment facilities into service the Developer shall submit, to the County (Utility Rate Regulating Board) for their review and approval, a schedule of the rates to be charged for providing processed water and/or sewage treatment to the project area. b. Upon connection to the County's Central Water Facilities, and/or Central Sewer Facilities, the Owner, his assigns or successors shall abandon, dismantle and remove from the site the interim water and/or sewage treatment facility and discontinue use of the water supply source, if applicable, in a manner consistent with State of Florida standards. All work related with this ..,� activity shall be performed at no cost to the County. 19 s C. Connection to the County's Central Water and/or Sewage Facilities will be made by the owners, their assigns or successors at no cost to the County within 90 days after such facilities become available. d. All construction plans and technical specifi- cations related to connections to the County's Central Water and/or Sever Facilities will be submitted to the Utilities Division for review and approval prior to commencement of contraction. e. The owners, their assigns or successors shall agree to pay all applicable system development charges at the time that Building Permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time of Permit request. This requirement shall be made known to all prospective buyers of �-' properties for which building permits will be required prior to the start of building construction. f. The County at its option may lease for operation and maintenance the water distribution and/or newer collection and transmission system to the project owner or his assigns for the sum of $10.00 per year. Terms of the lease shall be determined upon completion of the proposed utility construction and prior to activation of the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities and/or the sewage collection, transmission and treatment facilities. B. Data required under County Ordinance No. 80-112 showing the availability of sewage service, must be submitted and approved by the Utilities Division prier to approval of the construction documents for 20 21 the project. Submit a copy of the approved DER permits for the sewage collection and transmission systems and the wastewater treatment facility to be utilized, upon receipt thereof. C. A letter of commitment from the City of Naples regarding potable water service must be submitted to the Utilities Division with the construction documents for the project. D. Revise Section 9.02 - Water Supply in the PUD document to indicate water supply from the City of Naples. E. The construction drawings for the on-site water distribution system must indicate that connection to the existing City of Naples water lines will occur from Airport Road. No crossing of Pine Ridge Road shall be permitted. Provisions must also be made to stub the on-site system down Edgewood Drive to the north right-ofway line of Pine Ridge Road for future looping purposes. F. Any items within the PUD document which conflict with the above listed stipulations must be revised accordingly. C. Section 23. Paragraph D. shall be revised to indicate that the water facilities constructed shall be owned, operated and maintained by the City of Naples on an interim basis until the County Water -Sewer District begins providing water service to the lands north of Pine Ridge Road. E. The project developer shall cooperate and coordinate with the Utilities Division and Public Works Department on the installation of the proposed on-site package sewage treatment plant. The planned utility improvements for Section 11 pursuant to the creation of the Pine Ridge Industrial Park MSTU call for all sewage from Section 11 to be treated at a central on-site treatment facility or at an alternate 21 County Regional Sewage Treatment Facility. Careful planning will be required to insure an orderly development and construction of the sewer system and treatment facility to serve this project and Section 11. 9. EXEMPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: Pine Air Lakes development shall be exempt from the following Subdivision Regulations: A. Article X, Section 19: Street name signs shall be approved by the County Engineer, but need not meet the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A Manual of Uniform Traffic Control devices. b. Article XI, Section 99: Entry signage may be located within the right-of-way of the dedicated roadway. Such signage and planting shall be approved by the County Engineer. C. Article XI, Section 10: The requirement to place permanent reference monument and permanent control points in a typical water valve cover where such monuments occur within street pavement areas shall be waived. d. Article XI, Section 17F and 0: Street right-of-way and cross section shall be as shown on Section B -B, A -A. 10. FIRE: The North Naples Fire Control District reviewed this petition and states that the water mains and the locations of the fire hydrants must be approved by them prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: In the ADA and PUD for "Pine Air Lakes" numerous commitments were made by the applicant to mitigate project impacts. Many, but not all of these commitments are listed above as conditions. Conditions: a. All commitments and impact mitigating actions provided by the applicant within the Application for Development Approval (and supplementary documents) and PUD that are not in conflict with specific conditions for project approval outline above are officially adopted as conditions for approval. 22 b. The developer shall submit an annual report on the development of regional impact to Collier County, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, the Department of Community Affairs and all affected permit agencies an required in Subsection 380.06 (16). Florida Statutes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, that: 1. All commitments and impact mitigating actions provided by the applicant In the Application for Development Approval and supplemental documents and the Application for Public Dearing for rezoning and supplemental documents that are not in con- flict with conditions or stipulations specifically enumerated above are hereby.adopted to this Development Order by reference. 2. The Community Development Administrator shall be the local official responsible for assuring compliance with the Develop- ment Order. 3. This Development Order shall terminate ten (10) years from the date the development order is adopted. 4. The applicant or their successors) in title to the subject property shall submit a report annually, commencing one year from the effective date of this development order, to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs. This report will contain the information required in Section 9B-16.25, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to submit the annual report shall be governed by Subsection 380.06(16), Florida Statutes. 5. Subsequent requests for development permits shall not require further review pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, unless it is found by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, after due notice and hearing, that one or more of the following is present; a. A substantial deviation from the terms or conditions of this development order, or other changes to the approved development plans which create a reasonable likelihood of adverse regional impacts or other regional impacts which were not evaluated in the review by the southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; or b. An expiration of the period of effectiveness of this development order as provided herein. Upon a finding that either of the above is present, the Hoard of County Commissioners of Collier County shall order a termi- nation of all development activity until such time as a new DRI Application for Development Approval has been submitted, reviewed and approved in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. 6. The approval granted by this Development Order is limited. Such approval shall not be construed to obviate the duty of the applicant to comply with all other applicable local or state permitting procedures. 7. The definitions contained in Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, shall control the interpretation and construction of any terms of this Development Order. ti B. That this order shall be binding upon the Developer, assignees or successors in interest. 9. It is understood that any reference herein to any governmental agency shall be construed to mean any future instrumentality which may be created or designated or successor in interest to, or which otherwise possesses any of the powers and duties of any referenced governmental agency in existence on the effec- tive date of this Order. 10. In the event that any portion or section of this Order is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall in no manner effect the remaining portions of this Order which shall remain in full force and effect. 11. This resolution shall become effective as provided by law. 24 t 12. Certified copies of this order are to be sent immediately to the Department of Community Affairs and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED thisl2thday of Nov. ,1985. DATE: NOVEMBER 12. 19.85 PINE AIR LAKES DEV. ORDER 25 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLBY: F BIER COUNTY ORIDy A FREDEKi R J. VOSS,A�k CHAIRNAN April 15, 1986 RESOLUTION 86-M_ AMENDING 85-5. DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR PINE AIR LAKES; AMRMOINO SECTION 6.1., DEALING WITH TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS,' AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. . WHEREAS, the Board of County. Commissioners approved Development Order 85-5 for Ping Air Lakes Planned Unit Development on November 12, 1985; and , WHEREAS, on January 2, 1986, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council appealed Development Order 85-5, to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission pursuant to Section 180.07, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and the developer for Plus Air Lakes have agreed upon revised language to the N+ Development Order; and WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners find it appropriate to +-•�:incorporate such language in the Development Order , 4,.,y!,;,.�9tauc ';,.:. ::c' :•v r - - • "�- NON, TREREFORS, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THAT DEVELOPMENT ORDER 85-5 SHALL BE AMENDED J .0-T, .. AS FOLLOWS SECTION ONEI Development Order 65-5, Section 6.1., shall be amended to read as 1� followsi 1. Improvement■ needed to maintain level -of -service "C" on any r: Y;l regional road segment or intersection listed below for which the project's traffic will exceed ten -(40 five 5 percent - _ of the level -of -service "C" service volume of that segment/ Intersection, must be operational coincident with development Of the project. 1. Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) - U.S. 41 to Coodlette-Frank Road - Qoodlette-Prank Road to Project South Access Roadway .. - Project South Access Road to Airport -Pulling Road I-75 to Logan Boulevard !';�•- - Airport -Pulling Road to I-75 2. Imokelea Road (CR 846) - U.S. 41 to Airport -Pulling Road - Airport -Pulling Road to I-75 - I-75 to Logan Boulevard Extended Words underlined are added; words steak -through are delated. Exhibit B owl' If a needed improvement to an existing roadway is not operational coincident with development of the project, then development shell cease until the improvement is in operation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be recorded in the minutes of the .Board. _ ,. COMMISSIONER _ Coa&:imht offered the foregoing resolution and moved ,its adoption, seconded. by Commissioner 4bas and upon roll cell, the vote was: ,,.';til• , AYES: Co"n saimera qtr 'Voss, fAsee, Holland and Piston `nom.,••. NAYES: None ._., ABSENT AND NOT VOTINCt Now ABSTENTION: Now . Done this 15th day of Aortt , 1986. �ST: BOARD OF COMM COMMISSIONERS rA,�q �., •i s� ,i COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Oic.a' Ar yy51d- . ra + AAt A. PISTOR, CHAIRMAN 4 ? Au �PRQVP,p,�AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: - c LER COUNTY A ORNEY z . BBEK Uiit7PAx�� r. Amend Pine Air Lakes DO Words underlined are added= words slerek-eMeergh are deleted. 7. U.S. 41 April 15, 1986 - Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road - Pine Ridge Road to Solana Road 4. Intersection of Immokalse Road at Airport -Pulling Road S. Intersection of Pine Ridge Road at Coodlette-Prank Road 6. Intersection of Airport -Pulling Road at Pine Ridge Road ). Intersection of U.S. 41 at Pine Ridge Road If a needed improvement to an existing roadway is not operational coincident with development of the project, then development shell cease until the improvement is in operation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be recorded in the minutes of the .Board. _ ,. COMMISSIONER _ Coa&:imht offered the foregoing resolution and moved ,its adoption, seconded. by Commissioner 4bas and upon roll cell, the vote was: ,,.';til• , AYES: Co"n saimera qtr 'Voss, fAsee, Holland and Piston `nom.,••. NAYES: None ._., ABSENT AND NOT VOTINCt Now ABSTENTION: Now . Done this 15th day of Aortt , 1986. �ST: BOARD OF COMM COMMISSIONERS rA,�q �., •i s� ,i COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Oic.a' Ar yy51d- . ra + AAt A. PISTOR, CHAIRMAN 4 ? Au �PRQVP,p,�AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: - c LER COUNTY A ORNEY z . BBEK Uiit7PAx�� r. Amend Pine Air Lakes DO Words underlined are added= words slerek-eMeergh are deleted. RESOLUTION 94- 149 DZVZLOPMENT ORDER 94-_Z A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 85-5, Its AMENDED, 07 TEM PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOPMENT 07 REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) BY PROVIDING FOR$ SECTION ONE A WEICZ AMENDS TEE FINDINGS 01 FACT TO REFLECT REVISIONS TO TEE cEARACTER O1 PERMITTED OBEs AND AMOUNT OF ACREAGE RELATIVE TO PERMITTED USES) BICTION ONE E WRICH AMENDS THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAR, PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION TO REFLECT REVISIONS TO TEE CHARACTER 01 TEE PERMITTED DOES AND RELATED SQOARM IOCTAaI; SECTION ONE C WRICS AMENDS TEE CONCLUasONB 07 LAN, DRAINAOZ/WATER QUALITY SECTION TO 07DXTZ CERTAIN CODE AND DEPARTMENTAL UZPZRENCES; SECTION OUR D WZICR AMENDS TNM CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ZNEROY SECTION TO REFLECT MINOR CHANGES/ SECTION ONE Z WHICE AMIMDB THE CONCLUSIONS 01 LAW, /LOODFLAIM/NVARICANM EVACUATION SECTION To REFLECT REVISIONS TO THE CHARACTER 07 THE PERMITTED USES; SECTION ONE F WHICR AMZNDO THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, REGIONAL SBOPPING CENTER SECTION TO DELETE TUB DISCUSSION OF PROJECTED RETAIL MARKET DEMAND AND THE AGREEMENT FOR MALL DEVELOPMENT AND NALL BUILDOUT DATA REQUIREMENTS; SECTION own O CONCLUBIONB Or IJN, TRANBPORTATION SECTION TO RLVIBZ CONCURRENCY REQUIRRNENTB AND OTZER TRANSPORTATION COXMITNZNTS/ SECTION ONE E WHICH AMENDS THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS SECTION TO UPDATE CERTAIN DEPARTMENTAL AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REFERZNCEB; SECTION ONE I OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, UTILITIES SECTION TO REFLECT COUNTY PROVISION OF POTABLE WATER, CERTAIN DEPARTMENTAL CHANGEB AND DELETION OF REFERENCES TO TUB COUNTY UTILITY RATE REGULATING HOARD; SECTION ONE J O1 TUB CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ZZLWTIONS TO SUBDIVISION RZOULATIONs SZCTION MY DILUTING IT IN ITS ENTIRETY; SECTION ONE R OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, GENERAL cONSIDERATIONs SECTION TO /AXE MINOR CHANOZS; SECTION ONE L OF TUN FORTNER RESOLUTION SECTION To EXTEND TUB TERMINATION DATE AND ADD EXEMPTION FROM DOSNSONIMO REQVIRnRMTS; BZCTION TWO, FINDINGS OF PACT; SECTION THREE, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION YOUR, 977ZCT Or PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVULOPMEMT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WNERIAS, the Hoard of County Commissioners of Collier County approved Development Order 85-5, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Pine Air Lakes on November 12, WEEREAS, the Southwest Regional Planning Council appealed Development order ss -5; and WZMXAM, the appeal was settled by the board of County Commissioners adopting Resolution 26-61, which amandsd the Pine Air Lakes Development Order, On April 18, 1986; and Inn M6►vf 29 -1- Words underlined are additions; words ebewak-bheough are deletions. Exhibit C 9 NEaEAE, the Application For Development Approval (ADA) was incorporated into and by reference made a part of the Development Order; and NEEEMv the real property which is the subject of the Development order is legally described and set forth in Exhibit A to the Development Order; and mums, the owners of the DRI property are desirous of amending the Development Order; and NEEREAa, the appeal of Development Order BS -S had the effect of extending the buildout date from November 12, 1995, to April 15, 1996; and NNEREAD, Robert J. Cray of strategic Planning Group, Inc.. representing Naples Associates Limited Partnership has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further &send the Pine Air Lakes Development Order; and NEEREAs, the Collier County Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the report and recommendations of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWPRPC) and held a public hearing on the petition on April 21, 1994; and NEEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has reviewed and considered the reports of SMFRPC and the Collier County Planning Commission and hold a public hearing on Kay 10, 1994; KOs THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that: SECTION ONES AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPKEMT ORDER A. Paragraph 4, Findings of Fact, of Development Order 35-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: FINDINCO OF FACT 1. The real properly which is the subject of the ADA is legally described as sat forth in Exhibit A, the Planned Unit Development Dodument for Pins Air Lakes attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. .ION 1JUUn'k aA -2- Words ynderlinad are additional words mbTroleblao gh are deletions. M M M 2. The application is in accordance with section 1e0.06(b), Florida statutes. 7. Tha appylicant submitted to the County an ADA and sufficiency response known as composite Exhibit B, and by reference made a part hereof, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the teras and conditions of this Order. 4. The applicant proposes the development of Pine Air Lakes Planned Unit Development, for 148.99 acres which includes 9+19 Sores fer wee; 25.87 acres for office/retail mixed use eemmeee4s lj 333.49 ii .ii acres for lakes/open space; 91 96 SO~ Yempsrev' Savage P6a*e•I 3i.3a SOROS !SR a!OPP& 9 Semtex aporoximateiv 77.12 acres for regional commarcial; 29"7 to Sa &crag for roadways; and approximately 1.81 acres of cypress wetlands. S. The Development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the SWFRPC submitted pursuant to subsection 160.06(11), Florida statutes. 6. The development will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. 7. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the development has been conducted by the appropriate County departments and agencies and by SWFRPC. 6. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 180.05, Florida Statutes, as amended. 9. The development is consistent with the land development regulations of Collier County. a. Paragraph 1, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order 85-30 as amended, is hereby amended to read as followst CONCLUSIONS Or 1AW 1. PROJECT DEBCRIPTIOmt The ADA for the Pine Air Lakes project proposed a range of square footage for approval; however, the transportation analysis provided by the applicant addressed ■ project consisting of a total of er06e760e 967.000 square feet of retail and office ,6W6 offinf 30 Words underlined are additions; words earmek M migh are deletions. commercial uses as delineated in Parearaoh i.e. below. The ADA also specified that the hpaept6•oo 957.000 square feet veiae is currently proposed and .that additional amounts will be requested if future market analysis finds a need. q%srsfsrs' bM Geunsk} sesssseene conditions$ A. Pine Air Lakes project approval shall be for the following maximum square footage and uses= Ceteaory Sa. Ft. Rocional Commercial Retail 707.000 137-'000 office 250.000 acft, 600 Total SpH07660 957.000 b. Any further request for additional square footage shall be considered by Collier County through the Substantial Deviation process pursuant to Chapter 350.06, Florida 9tetutes. C. Paragraph 2, Conclusions of Law, of Development order 05-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows$ 2. DRAIWAgi/RLTBR QUALITY} The applicant has proposed a surface water management system that, with an addition to the proposed "Best Management Practices" (B.M.P.1s) should improve water quality leaving the site and cense to add further to the degradation of Naples Bay. Additionally, the project has the potential for locating businesses or other on-site uses that could generate special or hazardous wastes (i.s., photographic processing, gas station, printing). coaditions$ a. The drainage system for Pine Air Lakes shall implement the design standards and water quality "best management practices" outlined in the Application for Development Approval, response to Question 22 Drainage, and in sufficiency responses. b. The drainage system for the "Pine Air Lakes" project shall be modified to provide for greater detention capacity and for more extensive water quality "Best Managsment practices" in high Sntensity use drainage basins (greater than 400 Impervious surface) as required by the South Florida Water Management District. c. Conceptual and/or detailed site drainage plans shall be submitted to the weberMana9emenY Lnvironmental Advisory Board for review. No construction permits shall be issued. unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by the winter-Maneg�emeiene Bnvironmantpl Advisory Board. 100E U{�ieQ �, -4- Words underlined are additions; words sbrwek-bbrsugh are deletions. d. An on-going maintenance and monitoring program that ensures regular inspection, maintenance and sampling of the stormvater drainage system shall be implemented by the applicant, or his successors, throughout the project life -time. e. The deve4ep*e shall provide a 0SL WL" dre4eage *boom*" alay the nor" boundary, and a 03+ w4do drainage eae*WAM% aiesg the west aewndary 05 the prepamkY as required by collier County's Weser dewies}paee e he north ids a c5+ wide 6-L w ge dra4nag* *aseme" eieng the wee" UOWndary 0# "a properly as ragmfr*d by Cello" bounty'+ Wsear f. An Excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with =g Collier County Land Development Code Brdtnenee Nor a0-=, *a amended= 0r44nbn*e Wer 00-07 and as may be amended in future. g. A regular program of vacuum sweeping of all project parking lots shall be considered as a supplemental *Best Management Practice" by the applicant and all permit review agencies. h. The applicant shall coordinate with Collier county and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (PORP) AegwlMift1 1FORP) for the provision of temporary transfer/storage facilities to accommodate all special and hasardous wastes, as classified by FDRP !BBA, that are generated by the development. Such a provision could include the -5- Words underlined are additions; words abrmak-b1mmayA are deletions. M M M location of an adequate temporary storage/transfer facility on -sits. D. Paragraph 3, Conclusions of Low, of Development Order 83-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: ]. ygygyyI The proposed project would be an all electric development and would increase the energy demands of the Region. The applicant has committed to provide a variety of energy conservation measures to reduce the impact of that increased energy demand. a. Provision of a bicycle=pedestrian system to be placed along arterial and collector roads within the project. This system is to be consistent with applicable amm " County requirements. b. Provision of bicycle racks or storage facilities in office and commercial areas. c, cooperation in the locating of but stops, shelters, and other passenger and system accommodations for a transit system to serve the project area. d. use of energy-efficient features in window design (e.g., tinting and exterior shading). e. Use of - operable windows and ceiling fans (es appropriate . f. Installation of energy-efficient appliances and equipment. g. Prohibition of dead restrictions or covenants that would prevent or unnecessarily hamper energy conservation efforts (e.g., building orientation and solar water heating systems). h. Reduced coverage by asphalt, concrete, rock, and similar substances in streets, parking lots, and other areas to reduce local air temperatures and reflected light and hest. I. Installation of energy-efficient lighting for struts, parking areas, and other interior and exterior public areas. j. use of water closets with a maximum flush of 2.5 gallons and shover heads and faucets with a maximum flow rate of 3.0 gallons per minute (at 60 pounds of pressure per square inch) as specified in the Water Conservation Act, Chapter 553.14, Florida Statutes.. k. Selection of native plants, treat, and other vegetationand landscape design features that reduce requirements for water, fertiliser, maintenance, and other needs. 1. Planting of native shade tress to provide reasonable shade for all streets and parking areas. :DOOR OWhv,( -6- Words underlined are additions; words abimak-lm moll ars deletions. M M M A. Placement of trees to provide needed shade in the warmer months while not overly reducing the benefits of sunlight in the cooler months. n. orientation of structures, as possible, to reduce solar heat gain by walls and to utilize the natural cooling effects of the wind. o. Provision for structural shading (e.g., trellises, awnings, and roof overhangs) wherever practical when natural shading cannot be used effectively. p. Consideration by the project architectural review committees) of energy conservation measures (both those noted hers and others) to assist builders and tenants in their efforts to achieve greater energy efficiency in the development. E. Paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order 25-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: e. 1LOODPLafm/EOtaICAmE EVACBATiOm# The proposed zmLali commercial and office develeement Gf4"S psrkfs!%epp4ng eeMee contains a large amount of common Brea that could be used as a refuge in the event of a Hurricane. This would constitute a use of Regional benefit. Condition# a. The applicant -must meat with the appropriate **wme 14 County EleeroencV Meneaemant peaperadnone officials to determine the potential for use of the development0s common areas as a hurricane refuge. P. Paragraph S. Conclusions of Law, of Development Order 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows% 5. mEOIOML sEOPPImG CEBTEE# The proposed Pine Air Lakes regional commercial canter proposes to add'e VA14mam " 707,000 square feet of retail space to the retail markets of Collier County and south Ice County by 2000- .99% -HwwKr, ra j} bk* " vote" mark" deer" for i99b *hew th" Mi•sin a" appzven wd fwswee rote" •pe w443 noa r4y *assumed*" ate 3995 eaM1i damondr -Basad on 4h" pref*atlanr 4h*" w4.14 ft" be *w661 -1-M demand tosupp*rb :ons A4! iak*sa ;67 -'COG equsr* f"b 40 add444snai " sw&k b&ng and peep*sad fw/wr* rebels apaser Fatblfeemam , the Proposed Pine A4• bakes *"* 40 30064" wail within "& s*lvim areae at "a G*astland Hail e" WM apple v*d aen44e Bay Genbet-r -Thin e*4afl eoneof#4ose44sn w433 esus* ahem* oenbers to haw " oeepe" for an aasgaeb* shat* of ebe eea46e4r wh4.1* Plan so" and otbor i ploy -nba on "ewpeaba44ae th" 0.14, VOPAVA"o w434 ew000e r condition# 3-r A. The Southwest Tlerids mealanal p nines Council and Collier Count, have enknowladaad recaiet of en nareemenT which aetiefien the reeuirement of oaraaraoh Sa. of Develemment Order 85-5. An egreemenb fee "e Beve3*pean4 of "a •heppiwy mal.1, Pare" 3Ar •baU,_" de&4~" up On bob nes aacar ism l,mna :34 -7- Words underlined are additional words stffuoh Whrsugh ars deletions. M M M c. than flw {f} years after she edeplin of this sevel.re.M 624elr -A espy of this Agrossont shell be submitted to the eemmwnity oeveiepment 8i�visien and Beethwest Reside Ragisnel 6surlell.. -RM egreement shall opeatfy the date of eemmeneemo" A" eemplstien sf eenebruebian for sash Phase With a deseript}en of the eenetruetfen to be eempieted. q%e develepmaM of the oheppin mail eha4-1 be eempietad no later then ten +W* years ofter the adeptien sE tM 9eveiepma" order. - n M eWtseian ep M fine {6} yews to the time labia far the ahoppi" me** MW be apple 0 by ¢eVn Y offfild the Plannin4 Bemsiosien eeesrdinq to 6eetlen {i9}(a) of tM eorraM sbetowide guidei#aes end etamdords for -4f Dueon AyTeem�ie net ptevidedr the appileent steel} be required to resubmit a markalHlg et6y. whish, after re-ememininy tM area msrhM and invelrfng eemmersial devalepmen%, demenotratss tbet tM 4* fess,"law rayis this mar' stwdy shell s" Am sa eubsbaetiai deYsrwin� ellen PweweM to ohepiee iaOTo6r Paragraph 6, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order e5-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. TRAlaPORTATIORI Traffic generatedby Pine Air Lakes, When combined with other growth in the Area, will necessitate substantial roadway improvements, if level -of -service e62e Doak hour-oaak season conditions are to be maintained. ConditLonet a. The developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signal■ at each of the project accesses on Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road when deemed warranted by the County Lnginser. The signals shall be owned, operated, and maintained by Collier county. b. The deveiepers developer shall provide arterial level street lighting at each of the project accesses on Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. This -shall be waived if prior roadway improvements by the County include a street lighting system. C. The applicant shall be required to pay the full coat far env alta-raletgd intaruetien ilpyrovements I inalvding but not limited to turn lanes and additional side street or driveway -through lanesl found to be necessary by Collier County for the prolecN ■ access intersections onto Airport Road ICA 311 and Pine Ridge Road, for any other 6001 m6nv 35 -a- Words underlined are additions; words otrueh-Maeugh are deletions. m 4ntersoeb4*n owMY 4apefaowr, -440 db+ns.ee...ry by eh. eeee*s paint* --m Ridge Road @M hirperl Polling Rea*r dr tb the 64" that any peeblen of the faiiwin� rag4ena41y }+peeled readways 4* feund ao emeed ;avai-sl-serv4ee +C'L 4by the Onl4iee 6wMy Sngineeri" Beparteoeb or ether apprope4abe county deperbaaM Or PBB�F}r the applies" ahs}} beesue eb44geeed to pay a preperb4enata *haw* of the Best of aha total, ivpreves- be neeesob" to aa4nbai - - of se e 41 9 a 4% heal Solana nee Rhe app44eanb shall eanribute . f"r share aavards tM tote} 4aprevese"onee**earyd to *aims}" 4evel-sF-serv4ea 2410 on all 4wpastread oagnonta ba reugh prejaeb bu4ldowb. 9e opp"~bAs M404r shares Ohs" be 4"*r*"" by the proper"" of tM prejeetis tats} bm"db" bldfE4* on aha rood s*gaanb as tob" braf04* fore -a -b" on tM rood 06310 . -Roble 4 of tile fWPBpB ate" Rro*operbablen Aseeeea*M praee"s *0t4*eted p�rejeeb braf"e and tete& tra4f4e foraaa"" b110sw91, bw4ZdeW lased on ever*" eva44ab4e dabs. Rhese sebiasles rhe" be used ae *06406" ProPerb4ene4 *here vnW, updabe8 by the aenitor4ng report requLrod WWI" eend46isn Mfs and on on k ab &be time that aey p*rtion of the 4nberseek4me, 4* fend M *nos"-avei-oWa� MBA {by esl}4*r ewMy Sngin*ertno capaetaonb or Other epprepr4eb* eeunay deparbsont or P869}r ahs appi4aenb *Mll; bees"*b14�MaA to pay a town�M as, ,aand Mekhor io,Mpro, ea-beddeaaed neeoseery 4. FAS114 able of U-6 69k ab Pi� Ridg*-fteed Rha *pp44emb Ohal-i oenbrlbube a fair Ohara towards Wm tate} 4*prevenoMe nteoseery ae se4wba4n iw1! mf-Nlvioe sAs on all fapaobad f'ead i —I-et4ene ehr'w4h prsja*b bu4440ub. -4M appHeenbta +fair .here* ohs" be ds*or"nei by the pt-polbi4n the wof 6M prejec%` read 4"*rsa "net " lobes 6*""e 44 Oaas4bme" b* *On*trlleb bh* p2spert4enal Mere 4apr*vs*snb whined 49" reeewenda"m s Mds and Mas above .heli be endo M the boa* a road 4e fev" be wood iaw&of-eO!'Min -m" -B*rviN 3Wa2-• doteeainM(M ehal4 be rade by either ah* oebii*e Bounty Sry4wear4ng 8epalba*M or PBBRr -Re bb" eMT tM app;4NM oha" wAbo" *n amm" •*n4terir 9 ,apart to 4h* mania, county sng4neer4ng Baparbaanitr ah* galling HPO P4arida-Se}}an� rOei for rev4et►. -Rhe core" Malo be s for" een4terinq ub*kbt" ane {i} year ef"r the 40suente of the first eer64E}sMao ,ow Own% 30 Words underlined are additions; words sbrualm hreugh are deletions. ab eeeapaeesy fee Pine Ale sale...P2020 M"! be eabwitted annuaiiy %M4! b%tadaat .f the prmjmv% gh" rtperb ehazt esnbaiie bmwe eewnbe %abee w the assess pek+Wo to "a slier Anily and Peart Mer Ab b�r� and e6unt* forMall sedway wr .ieaM. the 4nbere.st4ese epaetfk.d 4" x4A batewv -Phe purpose of the aen4iotkn9 raper% ah"4 be to 4nd4esie When }rusk --a s -ie. �+ 4. eueeedM on 4spa O W reedways en" 4ateesas6,4ons and " psevkde apdeted 4nferwa64en to wore aeewraaa4y 4ereese% prejae6 bu4kdsuk tra"Aa and *seal: traf"e for at preparbinne*-obare-r g. :f any reglene-1-1y 4wp"bed read ea9went baaewaa a "a" des4ynetad hkghwey eller "a dale of appravet shhe" bbe the 8evaiepery respsnwk42Dmvalspsmmu m, ON 006&4ead dA Obeve -*" bpsM of bhe Beed iwpaeb rte for Mweeg4enak4y 4wpaobed reed 1Flgh ay she!! be *rod&*N� toward OM dava}epar4fete sura peywanb ab"Va"ene fer tut readway-oogmrbr h. ;b 4e wnderNsed tub Me dtveteper4 peeperbtenat� shore of 4epvevv.w.Me M the rtgianai rsedwyaf 4Merseobdene "*%" 4m +as WAW and eM !goat veadwaymjlmbemeoblem 4kMad batew 49 eevemd by 4. 44. Candle --A be hkipevb P -Ming Rem — hivpert Pulling Road to LkyIngeterl a"& liwtended 444+ 4r. !a} Pins ftiftm Read 6 Golden OM m Parkway w v4� on 066-w 37 _lo_ Words underlined are additions; words etersh bheewjh are deletions. Howevery 44 .Aa pea lmPftm% Pe ordimmve 4* the aaVd4�ahall be eoapon*4►le f*e h4* re p.mai .naM ea *Asof ee-M M thea mAa davoisp*e"* prepeet4enat* eke" *Aa" N e64es466ed I •* daf-i-ad 4- ad+T a*Ar and T a4ev*r —Ff th* Read **part !e ord4-aeo 40 eeoai-dadr a -y psyent of 6e4ii*e GeaMy�o 4wpaet feer prier M tM r**oieli I of *sid eedinaeor foe any i peevaaani* M Me" eeadwyofW", aaatien*r ehaii M arod4tod tow rd the 4� iepraraaa-M need" to asinta[n jeVej af � lyiea Wa on any ragiees} read *aqe-t or 44wberseebten Uses be"m for w►ieh thepre#sary tr r44e v4&I eseoad tow ts} para. -t of the o= r:iw +ea oarvtee Msiue- af tAattA .aat M .por.tio-a� 4. Pkm^ Sidge Read (OR 099) 44� ZsseemAjm� JJONA (UR m161 4v. ful&4-gRead wr prang -Read gidgm VLL IPL RLAg� Rog eoa �nm 3g -is- Words ypdaXIIA2d are additions; cords sYe-1 bi —93- are deletions. .1f a needed 4epesvaMeM to an ew4eb4ng reaAwey ie nae opsret4sna3 es4ne4daM w4th devslepMan% of 00 pee}esir then dawlepMen% sha4l ees00 wn%4i tb* 4wp- eparetien. }r 9%a develepa- sh"* be abi4gabed to pay the so314e- eaueby need *ape" gee no *sear t%a" a% the "" of br Hapset gees andfsr hsseoeaanis+-reyoenb of wilier 6ewnty's ;spaat gas for any iapeevas.nts " the reed aep4e"a 4" ■d+ and Aw *boyar *hail be ere&"" toward the fe" shore pay s0n regwired by Mile oeve!epMmb Orden The developer *bal-f sah* the fa4r share paymont rgqVirmA by ed+ and Men obeyer for all read4no4wding OW i roadways, for wh4eh fel- ==ny 40 net 4n*Wd" " an impoot fee or a*oossme tr-PQyIN"ta := 44" " •a ne + wAqpjjmftn�sy er*d4 sr other "6*rn.%4ves+ -46 4s WMeestead the% the spas4f4s een64t40" 4406" ebeve regal -e eenw4baenbe tar P.50 - 4*" the develeperr and 4apHe4t eoMa4taenbe ' dor senetruebion lora lssab and ata" agana4esr irr sear esseer the 4*prsveran" May not :seal% even W"h app4"Go" eems4*Ments b"aw" of wm leek of Oemm"me" 4o mllswo the a tams tis the een6 %�4ena When "a altornot4vaa M4tlgete ral4antrl roadway 'FMPaat*.--GhemA ah4s o4ternat4w be persaoAr oell4er eow"ty shai3 001404% 6WgDpe -evlew of the altaenat44es pr -e- " an amended Bvvelopmmnb Order W&ny 6 -000 -06 - Mr 6f !e- eny -roes": any of the regisnaRy 4apaNed ere nob 4ns4ud0d undo- O"*i6 r eaunty"a *spa"Deed *spagas erd4neneer 4" developer eho3l I, reeps"s4b3e ter 1_14+19 hie p-epert40na" eheea ei 4nprevaMenbs t*a%"-gtie dovs3epae�e1p_espset4en&be ehe-a *be" be ealeelabed as doII�J_1� J L 4T ink Dead " Prefer% 6e*tb As"" 44, !on 2101 H9+ 4r&4., 4vr rAm RidgeRead yr Ism lung 3 -12- Words underlined are additions; words strweh-through are deletions. a-r other sransperbaslea esno4deras4east -Ift order se *nears adagwN esaa 4asli4slaor any M show" be wlegeA or phos" three-b sl... -An -906 pie a4 the phead 1 P, -oe , of sensors Weo%d be a Ore Use road wh4eh needs N be fear %ansd 4n !4w +5+ reeve and sox %awed tan +"J} rears %*torr -fit 40 psss4bls thus the deal-* asP%oyeA 4er a leer ions so" wex%8 ass be sM beet dasl-n for whas oltlests%r weoid be 4ser %Anes of a -sox %ane lead. -it staged Lnbmvmmeb4an 4oprevaoenbs are required, then she Appiteeni 44W 400" 1evernaeM} sh"4 4se+rard is the irisrlde Beparbse" of Ipmal pembabie'r for _ �of t ass er sere trplsal areoo seaslen Desvesa' bein! 4�mennlad meA=- and eamtMkv sx46baa► %lt�p 4" fuUm ture arl 4oprws and shall 7. Alrnert-Pullin Reed/Golden Gate Parkway ,low Cm PACE 40 _1,_ Words underlined are additions; words obcveb-bhrsrgb are deletions. M M M ism IA)Dpx JUL _1+_ Words underlined aro additions; words are deletions. r i 4 a, 1• All access to individual parcels shall be internal. pr A. Exception to the Subdivision Regulations requiring sidevalks on both sides of the street shall not be waived and additional crosswalks nay be required and approved by the county Engineer during the site plan -IM SAMPAN 44 _l7. Words underlined are additions) words-taweh—Ma a are deletions. r M O M review process to join sidewalks at places other than at intersections. qr p. Development shall be limited to Rsee%e *r ar 4r and i,1 parcels immediataly ediaeent to heart Road until easements for Ldgawood Drive are obtained and dedicated to the county= Edgwood Drive is constructed) and the water system is looped in accordance with the Utilities Divisiongs regulations and requirements. r* Rhe dweksper sM}} swbmk% an annual me-Mer!ng reperb &epsMmen% awl %M Cali -lee Geanty ?Unnkng Cepaelmenb 4sr review. -RRke monk erk"Y rape" *be" be sebmkaf%si es a eeppkeweM N %he m0s46arkwg vapor% regmkred 4m +ia abovsr -Phe 44rsa wenkeatin4 raper% sap be rmgm4red awe {i} yeev suer the 4swsnse " apo 44rea %es ss sseepaney for Pine Akv bete r-Reperas way be rsgm4rei annually wnbkk au43iew%. 04 aM prejas%. -G%Lw repast shell *onto" da•Hy peak Mwr symew% esewM for the lees)- reads 44saei below and M's4wg mevemew 1 %e %M iooei- n 4: Fine Aidq Re A Ion 0941 began somilsward %s an ONG 44r Mrper%-Puliin4 Mei N S4rknpMaw Reed 8aasedsi- 444r 4M. - iasake3se Med W celaem eek 8er30wrd - 'f4w%mrei' - CeldewGsarewlRIAW� ft" Cs�dsn-6e Nr ceiJe Bete 8ewiewri {lWwra} %s pkne Ridgs Repo vkr Celden GN medj�veri {4waeee} ua Pins Rkils RsePine Ridgw Reed We Parkwayi twx �� 45 -Is- Words underlined are additions) words wgh are deletions. M M Vter am, Nr «lr OMAALeM- PI -19- Road &A 001A�n 00M Parkway N. Paragraph 7. Conclusions of Law, of Development Order 55-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows. 7. ENPZA030MU AL OMMXDNAATZONas A. A mite clearing plan @hall be submitted to the Development services Department Natural Reeaaneee NensgemeM a ps1 M rad the Oawwwm46y Develepmene 64vieAnn for Ww 4r review and approval prior to nny substantial work on the site. This plan may be submitted in phases to coincide with the development schedule. The site clearing plan shall clearly depict how the final sits aW imysm% incorporates retained native vegetation to the maximum extent possible and how roads, buildings, lakes, parking lots, and other facilities have been oriented to accommodate this goal. b. Native species shall be utilized, where available, to the Maximum extent possible in the site landscaping design. A landscaping plan will be s submitted the the Development serviceDepartment Nabwre4 Reseuesas Ifenegemenb ser"400M and bhe commen&ty 6evelepmaM 64ria4sn for their review and approval. This plan will depict the incorporation of native species and their mix with other species, if any. The goal of site landscaping shall be the ea-aea — M r ea l oretton of native vegetation and habitat characterietles lost an the site during construction or due to past activities as much as practically and economically feasible. C. All exotic plants, as defined in the Sgllia: County Land Develoo ne code, shall be removed during each phase of construction from development areas, and preservations areas. following site development a maintenance program shall be impiemanted to prevent reinvasion of themite by such exotic species. This plan, which w111 describe control techniques and inspection intervals, shall be. filed with and If, during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other constructional activities, an archaeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is discovered, all development at the location shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Development services sseburei Resewrsee NenagemeM Department be notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the Develcoment Services Nebweal Raeewesee NanegameM Department or a designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to its salvageability. The Develooment Services b De artmest will iseWrai P Box wt 4 -19- Nord@ underlined ars additions] words are deletions. respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to any constructional activities. e. The .4 acres cypress wetland and buffer sone be checked and approved by Davelppment Services Department Reasesi Resevr~ Nanesemema personnel prior to any construction In the vicinity of the wetlands. f. As many existing native trees and shrubs as possible be incorporated into the development. q. The developer Developer must demonstrate to the Development Services Department Natvra* Reseurees Wewe�emeM meparYmane that this development will be In compliance with the water quality regulations as outlined by DERR and SFWWD when they return with their site development plans and, more specifically, if DERE or SFWMD requires water quality monitoring of their stormwater run-off, then Development services Aetur" Aeeeeseee Mene'ameM Department requests that they receive copisa oL all the data. Paragraph a, Conclusions of Low, of Development Order eII-a, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows$ S. UTZ XTrfS A. Nater and Sewer 1. Central water distribution and sewage collection and transmission systems will be constructed throughout the project development by the deveiepse Deveipper pursuant to all current requirements of Collier County and the State of Florida. The proposed water and sewer facilities will be constructed within easements to be dedicated to the County for utility purposos or within platted rights-of-way. Upon completion of construction of water and sewer facilities within the project, the facilities will be tested to insure they meet Collier County's minimum requirements at which time they will be dedicated to the county pursuant to appropriate County ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time dedication Is requested, prior to being placed into service. Z. All construction plans and technical specifications and proposed plate, if applicable, for the proposed water distribution and sewage collection and transmission facilities muat be revived and approved by the Utilities Division prior to commencement of construction. a. All Customers connecting to the swage collection facilities will be customers of the county and will be billed by the County in accordance with a rate structure and Service agreement approved by the County. Review of wa MPW 47 _Z, - Words underlined are additions; words are deletions. the proposed ee rates the D arrdof county Commission rs�must be completed prior to activation of the water and saver facilities servicing the project. Rale ewrlawe mush be 4n tai eempi4enee wilh nabs by erd#naness Nov 919 Vire end 43-" so amended, 4. It is anticipated that the G"y of Naples County will ultimately supply potable water to most the consumptive demand aniµee Dnd County Utilities Division will receive and treat the swage generated by this project. Should the CLI; or county system not be in a position to supply potable water to the project and/or receive the project's wastewater at the time development commences, the developer, at his expense, will install and operate interim water supply and on-site treatment facilities and/or interim on-site savage treatment and disposal facilities adequate to seat all requirements of the appropriate regulatory agencies. S. An Agreement shall be entered into between the County and the Ovner, legally acceptable to the County, stating that: a. The proposed Water supply and on-site treatment facilities and/or on -Sita wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, if required, are to be constructed as part of the proposed project and most be regarded as interim; they shall be constructed to State and Federal standards and are to be owned, operated, and maintained by the Owner, his assigns or successors until such time ae the county's Central Nater Facilities and/or Central Sewer Facilities are available to service the project. Pr"r e~rld pM�ewi4eYaer Ireatmen6, elhppllyv arAwer se"90 eeiise64em, tranem/eo"n and 6,ee/ss" Hee 4"N sew'! -a, the Nve4epes am" swbu," 64 4rM itewnlyr {iN14146y PNe megw4a64/y Deas} sem 6144, ,e 2! and epprewlT As eehedwie of she r"" N be filed "r Fin! p,eeseeed W"" and¢e, eewege 6eea6ma" M 614 p,e}4e6 "see. b. Upon connection to the County's Central Water Facilities, and/or Central Sewer Facilities, the owner, his assigns or successors shall abandon, dismantle, and remove from the •its the interim water and/or sewage treatment facility and discontinus use of the water supply source, it applicable, in a manner consistent with stats of Florida standards. All work related with this activity shall be performed at no cost to the County. -41- Words underlined are additional words ebroo e-Wwough are deletions. M M M c. Connection to the county's central Mater and/or Swage facilities vial be made by the owners, their assigns or successors at no cost to the County within 90 days after such facilities become available. d. All construction plans and technical specifications related to connections to the County's Central water and/or Sever Facilities will be submitted to the utilities Division for review and approvalprior to commencement of construction. e. The owners, their assigns or successors shall agree to pay all applicable system development charges at the time that Building Permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time of Permit request. This requirement shall be made known to all prospective buyers of properties for which building permits will be required prior to the start of building construction. f. The County, at its option, nay lease for operation and maintenance the rater distribution and/or Sever collection and transmission system to the project owner or his assigns for the sun of $10.00 per year. Terms of the lease shall be determined upon completion of the proposed utility construction and prior to activation of the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities and/or the sewage collection, transmission and treatment facilities. B. Data required under County Ordinance No. e0-112 showing the availability of swage services, must be submitted and approved by the utilities Division prior to approval of the construction documents for the project. Submit a copy of the approved DME permits for the sewage collection and transmission systems and transmission systems and the wastewater treatment facility to be utilised, upon receipt thereof. 6r A 4e6ier of 6800440.06 few aha " of Naples s—wMl� W4hia4es Bivislen w" h the 6r Aevisi+6 cambia 9 G -Neaer supply 4, She M assume" 60 4n44eaes weeer swes!r itw a" A, +Phe 6enslrweble0 dlwings Ler aM en-sLM veow dis�beibwale,`ibwYlem 6ysaem mwea 4"ke"a Shea veaer of ftkpls� line will seems, A � VAMA&W -Ns ersss4sg of rk" Mage Need she" be vermitbod,-Pesvkslens muse e&es be made as 0eeb She ew-siN e1 a dew, sdlewei sr4w 6, 0006 Offir .i 49 -22- Words underlined are addition@; words are deletions. UM north riyhNi-wy iiws of Pine Alma Read f.s,, Any its" within the POD document which conflict with the above listed stipulations must be revised accordingly. or station 49r paragraph Hr shai} be ravlsed 60 imdksata that "a water feeiiktiee eesatrmsaed she;! be Owned, speeatadr end maintained by tM Sity ed Napkes on an interim bamiS mnr%i the Sswmty Oster -sever skoar4et hsyine pravidify Meter esrvtee M the iteN north of pkne-Rkdge- Read +' iy,. The projectDevsieeer shall cooperate and coordimete with the Utiiiti" Division and Public Works Department on the installation of the proposed on-site package swage treatment plant. The planned utility improvements for section 11 pursuant to the creation of the Pine Ridge Industrial Park NSTO call for all savage from Section it to be treated at a central on-site treatment facility or at an al acne" alternative County Regional swage Treatment racility. Careful planning will be required to insure an orderly development and construction of the mover system and treatment facility to serve this project and section 11. J. Paragraph 9, Conclusions of law, of Development Order 85-5, as amended, is hereby deleted in its entirety as followst 9r 6 iAM we 794E 601ND 716IAW AEVwe pine Air Lshee devej-pmmwa ohs" be the Bubbkvieken Ae9w4a6te1e► ar Artie" Er Session 49f -Sara" now *AV" sbeii be epprewd by `be Seventyiwyiseerr b" need met meet the, Ilewwi of Oniferm gee#"@ ¢roarer-daviessr br ""a" "T SeetLen fft -Entry eignale a" be deestod within ret rkgh-sf-wey of the dadleM & reedwy. -4e0b is as and pUftbi" shah be apprevW e. Artie" At► feetken 44r she eoqufis - 6 rs Pismo pa:menent referenee **"woo" aM peemaI M smarm pskMm M a rypLmti water veies sever who" mush menueente eeowr wtrhkn street pavement mews ebakk d. Artie" Eir feetten 4r! snd r.+ -Street rtlht-ef-we A" seems eestken ehaii be on .hewn on feOtten V -Dr A -A► R. Paragraph 11, Conclusions of lav, of Development Order S5-5, as amended, is hereby amended to reed as follows: 11. GENERAL. CONSIDERATIONS- In the ADA and PDD for -Pine Air - Lakes. numerous commitments vers made by the applicant to mitigate project impacts. Nany, but not all of theme commitments ars listed above as conditions. f091 offimvf 50 23- Words Y Words underlined are additions/ words strwett-tbeamlb are deletions. Condition: e A. All commitments and Impact mitigating actions provided by the applicant within the Application for Development Approval (and supplementary documents) and PDD that are not in conflict with specific conditions for project approval outline above are officially adopted as conditions for approval. b. The Ieveleper 12SYalg= shall submit an annual report on the development of regional impact to Collier County, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, the Department of Community Affairs and all affected permit agencies as required Statutes. in Subsection 360.06(16), Florida, L. Paragraph 30 the Future Resolution Section, of the Development order e5-5, as amended, is amended to read- as followed$ S! IT FURTKZR RZWLVLD, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, than 1. All commitments and impact mitigating actions provided by the applicant in the Application for Development Approval and and supplemental documents and the Application for Public Fearing for rezoning and supplemental documents that are not in conflict with conditions or stipulations specifically enumerated above are hereby adopted to this Development Order by reference. 2. The Community Development Administrator shall be the local official responsible for assuring compliance with the Development Order. 3. This Development Order shall terminate Hem {14} fourteen Ila years end ■i: /61 months from the date of the Development Order b eAspaelr ova■ effective tAoril is. 4. The applicant or their successors, in title to the .subject property shall submit a report annually, commencing one JU year from the affective data of this devr}epmena ceder Develanment Ordar, to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, the Bouthvest Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of community Affairs. This report will contain the information required in Section 98-16.25, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to submit the annual report shall be governed by Subsection 360.06(16), Florida statutes. S. subsequent requests for development permits shall not require further review pursuant to Section 360.06, Florida statutes, unless it is found by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, after due notice and hearing, that one or more of the following is prmeentt MSf UMINK 51 -24- Words underline are additional words sarrok-Uuough are deletions. M M M a. A substantial deviation from the terms or conditions of this dewlopsemi order Deyelavent order, or other changes to the approved development plans which create a reasonable likelihood of adverse regional impact or other regional impact which were not evaluated in the review by the southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; or b. An expiration of the period of effectiveness of this dsveieasena seder Daveloment order as provided herein. upon a finding that either of the above is present, the Board of county Commissioners of collier County shall order a termination of all development activity until such time as a new DRI Application for Development Approval has boon submitted, reviewed, and approved in accordance with Section 180.06, Florida Statutes. 6. The approval granted by this Development Order is limited. Such approval shall not be construed to obviate the duty of the applicant to comply with all other applicable local or state permitting procedures. 7. The definitions contained in chapter 180.06, Florida Statutes, shall control the interpretation and construction of any terms of this Development order. B. That this Order shall be binding upon the developer, assignees or successors In interest. 9. It is understood that any reference herein to any governmental agency shall be construed to mean any future instrumentality which may be created or designated or successor In interest to, or which otherwise posses any of the powers and duties of any referenced governmental agency in existence on the effective date of this order. so. In the event that any portion or section of this Order is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by a court or agency of competent juriodiction, such decision shall in no manner effect the remaining portions of this order which shall remain in full force and effect. 11. This resolution shall become effective as provided by lay. 12. Certified copies of this order are to be sent immediately to the Department of community Affairs and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. 17. SXCTIam Taal FIRDImda or FACT A. That the real property which is the subject of the Substantial Deviation ADA is legally described as set forth in ExhibitA, .attached hereto and by reference fade a part the g �ria 52 _2'_ Words yndarlinad are additions; words Bewair--YhrrewgA are deletions. ., , 3. The application is in accordance with . Section 360.06(19), Florida Statutes. C. The applicant submitted to the County a Substantial Deviation ADA and sufficiency responses known as cosposits Exhibit 8, and by reference made a part hereof, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this order. D. The applicant proposes the development of Pine Air Lakes on 148.99 acres of land in Collier codnty for residential, recreational and open space uses. E. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendations of SNTRPC. T. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the Countyfs departments and the SWFRPC. 0. Thedevelopmentis not in an area designated an Area of Critical state Concern pursuant to the provisions of Section ]80.06, Florida statutes, as amended. SNCTION TRRNEI CONCLUSIONS OF Law 11. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The scope of the development to be permitted pursuant to this Development order Amendment includes operations described in the Notice of Change to a Previously Approved DRI, Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference made part hereof. 8. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order ars consistent with the report and recommendations of the NWFRPC. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved development will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted state Land Development Pian applicable to the area. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent with the collier county Growth Management Plan and the Collier County Land Development Code adopted pursuant thereto. E. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent with the state Comprehensive Plan. SEOTION FOUR# EFFECT OF FRETIOUSLT ISsOED DEYNLOPNEET OEONE, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND E7FECTITE DATE , A. Except ab amended hereby, Development Order 63-3 shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with its teras on all parties thereto. B. copies of this Development Order 94- shall be transmitted immediately upon execution to -Go Department of community Affairs, Bureau of Land and water Management, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning council. :roar �i+x 5Q Words underlined are additional words ss~*-*hrvwsh are deletions. i M M M C. This Development Order shall take affect as provided by lay. BE IT IURTNme RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Commissioner y.. -w... offered the foregoing Resolution for Adoption, seconded by Commissioner Norris and upon roll call, the vete vast AYES: Commissioner Saunders. Commissioner Norris,, Commissioner volpa,. Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Constantine NAYS: ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: ABSTENTION: OUR&Ijhim 10th •. �ATPESTI't PnORT s.:SAQCX, N j •. J L• ,�ROVED A6 TO TORN AND LEOAt11ka iiiCIENCrt '112d B x. BTwffirr ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY DOA-94-1/md/13361 w OffiR7E 54 -27- Words underlined are additions; vords sbsveh-lloemgh are deletions. RESOLUTION 04-310 DEVELOPMENT ORDER 04--Q_ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 85-5, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO EXTEND THE TERMINATION DATE; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County approved Development Order 85-5, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Pine Air Lakes on November 12, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Regional Planning Council appealed Development Order 85.5; WHEREAS, the appeal was settled by the Board of County Commissioners adopting Resolution 86-63, which amended the Pine Air Lakes Development Order, on April 15, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Application for Development Approval (ADA) was incorporated into and by reference made a part of the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the real property which is the subject of the Development Order is legally described and set forth as Exhibit A to the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the appeal of Development Order 85-5 had the effect of extending the build out date from November 12, 1995, to April 15,1996; and WHEREAS, the Development Order was amended on May 10, 1994, by Resolution 94-349, Development Order 94-2; and WHEREAS, the owners of the DRI property are desirous of amending the Development Order; and WHEREAS, Richard Yovenovich of Goodlefte, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., representing Naples Associates Limited Partnership has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend the Pine Air Lakes Development Order•, and WHERREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the report and recommendations of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and held a public hearing on the petition on October 2, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has reviewed and considered the reports of SWFRPC and the Collier County Planning Commission and held a public hearing on q 2 0 Words are deleted; words underlined are added. Page 1 of 3 Exhibit D r (8 44 t4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER Paragraph 3, the Future Resolution Section, of Development Order 85-5, as amended, is amended to read as follows: 3. This and the project buildout date shall be the some date "e-D—lap-e is which is October 13; 2000 14.2005 SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT A. The application is in accordance with Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. B. The applicant submitted Notification of Proposed Change to a Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI) pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19) Florida Statutes, as composite Exhibit A, and by reference made a part hereof, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Development Order. C. The applicant proposes the development of Pine Air Lakes on 148.99 acres of land in Collier County for residential, recreational and open space uses. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendations of SWFRPC. E. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the County's departments and the SWFRPC. F. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, as amended. SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The scope of the development to be permitted pursuant to this Developmen40rder Amendment includes operations described in the Notification of Proposed Change to a Previously Approved DRI, Exhibit A, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendations of the SWFRPC. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved development will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved development arc consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code adopted pursuant thereto. E. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE Words struekthmugh arc deleted; words underlined are added. Page 2 of 3 A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 85.5, as amended, shall rem full force and effect, binding in accordance with its terms on all parties thereto. in in B. Copies of this Development Order NumberC&DAshall be transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Land and Water Management, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. C. This Development Order shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted this i i! -y of 1 r/rim ie r. 2004, after motion, second and majority vote. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ,tea .��, •�711��.,� Marjorie: . Student Assistant County Attorney DRI.3003•AR-53 AIRB/sp By. — LJL)NNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN Agenda Dale —t� y"�o a���'�i Dere Reed Iv Fr' Words S*Rwk4lafeugh are deleted; words underlined are added. Page 3 of 3 LT EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1, 3 and 4, PINE AIR LAKES UNIT FOUR, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 38, pages 51 to 53, inclusive, of the public records Of Collier County, Florida. Tract A. PINE AIR LAKES UNIT THREE, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 38, pages 25 to 27, inclusive, of the public records of Collier County, Florida Tract B, PINE AIR LAKES UNIT THREE, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 38, pages 25 to 27, inclusive, Collier County, f the public records of Florida.a Tract Ll, PINE AIR I�4KE5 UNIT TWO, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 32 pages 69 to 72, inclusive, of the public records of Collier County, Florida, Naples d 23 shown on the according o)thermap or plat thereof rectat of orded in PI atAIR B000k 24 pages UNIT inclusive, of the public records of Collier County, Florida, RESOLUTION NUMBER 07- 63 DEVLEOPMENT ORDER NUMBER 07- 01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER NUMBER 85-5, AS AMENDED, THE PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) BY PROVIDING FOR: SUBSECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER, BY INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND REDUCING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR OFFICE USES WHICH RESULTS IN AN OVERALL INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND PROVIDING FOR CONVERSIONS OF OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGES TO RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGES AND VICE VERSA, BY INDICATING IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO DRAINAGE, TRANSPORTATION AND WATER SEWER FACILITES, REVISING THE LIST OF IMPACTED ROADWAYS, BY PROVIDING FOR MITIGATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACTS AND BY EXTENDING THE TERMINATEION DATE; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County approved Development Order 85-5, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Pine Air Lakes on November 12, 1985; WHEREAS, the Southwest Regional Planning council appealed Development Order 85-5; and WHEREAS, the appeal was settled by the Board of County Commissioners adopting Resolution 86-63, which amended the Pine Air Lakes Development Order, on April 15,1986; and WHEREAS, the Application For Development Approval (ADA) was incorporated into and by reference made a part of the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the owners of the DRI property are desirous of amending the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the development order has been subsequently amended; and WHEREAS, Karen Bishop, of Project Management Services, Inc., and Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., representing the Airport Road Limited Partnership have petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to further amend the Pine Air Lakes Development Order; and 1 Words sa%ek threugh-are deleted; words underlined are added. Exhibit E WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commissioner (CCPC) has reviewed and considered the proposed amendment and the report and recommendations of the South West Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and has held a public hearing on the petition on December 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County has reviewed and considered the proposed amendment and the reports of SWFRPC and the CCPC and held a public hearing on 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISISONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER A. Paragraph 4, Findings of Fact, of Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The real property which is the subject of the ADA is legally described as set forth in Exhibit A, 3. The applicant submitted to the County an ADA and sufficiency response kneym as eeWesite Exhibit 9, and by to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the terns and conditions of this order. 4. The applicant proposes the development of Pine Air Lakes DRI Pjanaed U04-Bevelepmem, for 148.99 acres which includes 25 ° a 103 acres for mixed use office/retail use, 33.49 acres for lakes/open space; rr.-..-.tely 7712 oos fief__genal eefflfflemiftl� 10.q ; and approximately 1.81 acres of cypress wetlands, B. Paragraph 1, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order Number 85.5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The ADA for the Pine Air Lakes project proposed a range of square footage for approval; however, the transportation analysis provided by the applicant addressed a project consisting of a total of 937;000 1.075.000 square feet of retail and office commercial uses as delineated in Paragraph I.e. below. no "^A also --__er._a that Ow 957,000 ____ _ feet i oufrently Proposed and that additional ameunts will be requested if f4wFe marke Analysis finds a need. 2 Words ewaek4hmxgh-are deleted; words underlined are added. Conditions: a. Pine Air Lakes project approval shall be for the following maximum square footage and uses, subject to the conversion provisions set forth in paraaraph 6.(N) herein: Categor Sq. Ft. Regional Commercial Retail X000-1.000.000 Office 950,000 75 000 Total 93988 1.075.000 b. Any further request for additional square footage shall be considered by Collier County through the Substantial Deviation process pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes. C. Paragraph 2, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY: The applicant has proposed a surface water management system that, with an addition to the proposed "Best Management Practices" (B.M.P.'s) should improve water quality leaving the site and cease to add further to the degradation of Naples Bay. Additionally, the project has the potential for locating businesses or other on-site uses that could generate special or hazardous wastes (i.e., photographic processing, gas station, printing). Conditions: C. Within si*ty (60) days af the w%itten request fpem the Go" Adatinistrater, of his designee, D_. _lope_ _l pFeiiThe Developer has provided a thirty-five (35) foot wide and a twenty-five (25) foot wide perpetual, non-exclusive easement for drainage purposes along the western boundary of the Pine Air Lakes project; thirty (30) foot wide temporary non-exclusive construction easement which parallels a twenty- five (25) foot wide temporary non-exclusive drainage easement, both of which temporary easements connect with the temporary drainage easement for the lake abutting the property's northeastern boundary along Airport -Pulling Road, around which lake the thirty (30) foot temporary construction easement continues; all as more fully described in the drainage conveyance documents dated April 1994, and the drawings attached thereto and prepared by Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., dated February 1994 for File No. 2G-403. Said temporary easements are for the purpose of accepting and transmitting 29 acres of Pine Ridge Industrial Park (Northeast Quadrant) drainage through the water management system, and shall be abandoned at time of Site Development approval of the area north of £Ageweed Ptive Naples Boulevard At time of Site Development Plan approval, a twenty-five (25) foot wide perpetual, non-exclusive easement for drainage purposes shall by dedicate to Collier County and recorded in the public records. D. Paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: Words shuek4 hrough-are deleted; words underlined are added. 4. FLOODPLAIN/HURRICANE EVACUATION: The proposed retail commercial and office development contains a large amount of common area that could be used as refuge in the event of a Hurricane. This would constitute a use of Regional benefit. E. Paragraph 5, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5. REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER: The proposed Pine Air Lakes regional commercial center will contain up to 1.000.000 square feet of retail space and uo to 75.000 souare feet of office uses for use by markets of Collier County and south Lee County by 2010. Conditions: b. In order to ensure that regional retail is achieved, there will be *"e -a minimum of two individual retail uses, each with a minimum of 70,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLS) located north of Edge -Weed -Bove Naples Boulevard. Further, a majority of the uses in the Regional Commercial area will be restricted to uses specified in the Planned Unit Development Document that are also within Division G of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 edition. Leet of additional retail area for every 420 square feet of office area converted. Additionally up to 50.000 square feet of retail area can be converted into office area at the rate of 100 square feet of additional office area for every 24 square feet of retail area converted F. Paragraph 6, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. TRANSPORTATION: Traffic generated by Pine Air Lakes, when combined with other growth in the Area, will necessitate substantial roadway improvements, if level -of -service "D" peak hour -peak season conditions are to be maintained. Conditions: a, The developer shall provide has provided a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signals at each of the project accesses on Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signals shall be owned, operated, and maintained by Collier County. Words stmek-threvo are deleted; words underlined are added. d. The following regional roadways and intersections are projected to be significantly impacted (5% of LOS D - peak hour, peak season) prior to project buildout. Significantly Impacted Roadways are: 1. Airport Road •—Sdgeweed-DFive to Pine -Ridge -Read * Pine Ridge Re twgekWG� . Golden Gate Padpway to Radie Rea • Golden Gate Parkway to Vanderbilt Beach Road • South of Pine Rid eg Road • Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road 2, Pine Ridge Road U.S. 41 to Geedlege Frank Re—ed • Goodlette-Frank Road to Edgeweed-Bave Naples Boulevard • Edgeweed-Drive Naples Boulevard to Airport - Pulling Road n YvmPulling 'Read vprri • Airport Pulling Road to Livingston Road • Goodlette Frank Road to 1-75 - A kpeft Polling Read to 1-75 Significantly Impacted Intersections are: S. U.S. nA !Mine Ridge Read 6. -"Oft Pulling Read%adie Re 8. Airport -Pulling Road/Pine Ridge Road 9. Airport -Pulling Road/ Edgeweed--Br3ale Naples Boulevard 10. Aifped Pulling Re&dX&We*i14J3e&eh Read 11, I^' n Pulling Read4mmelEales Read 12. Pine Ridge n _.alp__ aG 13. Pine Ridge Road/Edgeweed-Have Naples Boulevard 14. Naples Boulevard at Costco Access 15. Naples Boulevard at Regal Cinema Access 16. Naples Boulevard at Lowe's Eastern Access The applicant shall mitigate its impact on the regional and local roadway and intersections identified herein as follows: The Applicant shall make the improvements specified in 6(a), (b), and (c) hereof. The Applicant shall be subject to all lawfully adopted transportation impact fees. iii) The Applicant has constructed Naples Boulevard from its terminus on the southern property boundary to and including the intersection improvements needed at its juncture with Airport Road. This roadway is expected to provide an alternative to and relieve some 5 Words aWm'E through are deleted; words underlined are added. traffic pressure on the Pine Ridge -Airport Road intersection. iv) Applicant shall be required to make the following improvement to Airport Road: a) When requested by Collier County Transportation Department, Applicant has contributed shall--eenttibute the necessary funds (approximately $80,000) for designing six -lane improvements from the currently designed terminus at Cougar Drive to the northern access point of Pine Air Lakes on Airport Road. b) At the time of issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction in Pine Air Lakes, the Applicant has contributed shall the necessary funds to six -lane Airport Road from its currently scheduled terminus at Cougar Drive north to the northern access point of Pine Air Lakes on Airport Road. The actual amount of the contribution shall be the full amount necessary to accomplish the six -lane improvements as determined by actual bid price. In the event that ameufAl has not been deteneined at " point in time, the ameent to be esefewed she4l be as estimated by the Getutty TfanspeFtalien DepaAment c) At the time the County Transportation Department deems a second left tum lane is warranted on Airport Road at the we Naples Boulevard intersection, Applicant sbeR has contributed it's proportionate share of the costs incurred to install said second left tum lane at its eikponse and eeaWbme the funds necessary for any improvements to Airport Road or the adjoining canal to accommodate the second left tum lane. d) Said contributions set forth in (a) and (b) above shell -behave been credited to the Applicant, his successor or assignees, as a road impact fee credit. The amount of the credit shall be the contribution amount less any costs required for the design or construction of site -related improvements. For the purpose of this stipulation, site -related improvements shall be deemed to be any north bound or south bound tum lanes deemed required at each access point to Pine Air Lakes, signalization costs for the intersection of £dgeweed Dfive Nantes Boulevard and Airport - Pulling Road, and any canal improvements associated with the Pine Air Lakes project. Collier County shall agree to use said contribution for the sole purpose of the above described six -lane improvements. 1. Except for the three access points provided on Airport Road all AR -access to individual parcels shall be internal. Words mare deleted; words underlined are added. 00 Words mare deleted; words underlined are added. described in Policy 7.2 of the Future Land Use Element. o. The developer shall provide crosswalks at the intersection of Naples Boulevard and the future Interconnection Road/Regal Cinema Property and at the future q All Collier County traffic impact fees for Pine Air Lakes CPUD shall be as provided by the current impact fee ordinance r. In coniunction with the six-laning of Aitvort Road the following improvements shall be made at the intersection of Nanles Boulevard with Airport Road: 2 The developer has constructed or contributed its fair share pyment for the construction of the traffic signal at the intersection of Airport Road and Naples Boulevard 3 In addition to the forgoing at the County's request, the developer shall construct a third northbound left turn lane from Naples Boulevard to Airport Pulling Road within one year of the approval of this CPDD amendment and DRI development order amendment amendment. s. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier U. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. Words mare deleted; words underlined are added. V. Any reduction in parking spaces as a result of interconnection with projects to the north and west shall be consistent with Subsection 4.04.02.B.3. of the Land Development Code. a. It is not physically or legally possible to provide the shared access or interconnection. c The location of environmentally sensitive lands precludes it and mitigation is not possible. d. The abutting use is found to be incompatible with the existing or proposed use. County. X. Nothing depicted on any the CPDD Master Plan except for those access points in existence as of the date hereof shall vest any right of access at any specific point Z. If any tum lane improvement requires the use of any existing County ri t -of -way or easement and there is insufficient rit-of-way available. the developer shall accommodate those turn lanes within the development M, If. in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal or other traffic control Collier County. 8 Words mare deleted; words underlined are added. bb,_ At the request of Collier County, two Collier Area Transit (CAT) bus stops with amendment and DRI development order amendment. cc... The. developer shall contribute an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 to Collier Coup 's SCOOT program alone Pine Ridge Road to include two additional intersections. This contribution to Collier County shall be made within one year of the approval of this CPUD amendment and DRI development order amendment dd. In lieu of the annual traffic counts for the PUD monitoring requirements the developer shall make a payment to Collier County to install four permanent count issuance of a CO for any improvements constructed upon the eastern 9.86 acre portion of Pine Air Lakes Unit 3. Lot 1 (tax parcel 66760010044)• or (ii) within one year of the approval of this CPDD amendment and DRI development order amendment, ff. The developer shall extend the eastbound stacking lane on Pine Ridge Road for the north -bound turn onto Ules Boulevard within one year of the approval of this CPUD amendment and DRI development order amendment amendment and DRI development order amendment ii. When traffic counts warrant and when reguested by the Collier County signal 9 Words mare deleted; words underlined are added, G. Paragraph 7, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: A site clearing plan has been spell be submitted to the Development Services Department for review and was approved "prey el prior to any substantial work on the site. 4469 plan Faay be subr.,litted in phases fe Painaide with the deVelopffiefif Behedule. TM site eleafiag plan shag this goal, All exotic plants, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, have been removed seastmetien from all development areas, and preservations areas. Following site development a maintenance program shall be implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by such exotic species. This plan, which will describe control techniques and inspection intervals, shall be filed with and approved by the Development Services Department. H. Paragraph 8, Conclusions of Law, of Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 8. UTILITES: A. Water and Sewer Central water distribution and sewage collection and transmission systems have been will -b constructed throughout the project development by the Developer pursuant to all current requirements of Collier County and the State of Florida. The proposed water and sewer facilities Ml! be have been constructed within easements to be dedicated to the County for utility purposes or within platted rights-of-way. Upon completion of construction of water and sewer facilities within the project, the facilities will -be have been tested to insure they meet Collier County's minimum requirements at vvkieh time t.`._; -:�and have been dedicated to the County pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time dedication is requested, prior to being placed into service. 2. All construction plans and technical specifications and proposed plats, if applicable, for the proposed water distribution and sewage collection and transmission facilities tnnst—be have been reviewed and approved by the Utilities Division prior to commencement of construction. 5. An Agreement shall be entered into between the County and the Owner, legally acceptable to the County, stating that: 10 Words mare deleted; words underd are added. a) The water supply and wastewater treatment facilities for this proiect are provided by Collier County and no temporary or interim water treatment facilities are required. inteAfnj they shall be siinstm ederai prejeet. b) Connection to the County's Central Water and /or Sewage Facilities will be made by the owners, their assigns or successors at no cost to the County within 90 days after such facilities become available. C) All construction plans and technical specifications related to connections to the County's Central Water and/or Sewer Facilities wilt -be have been submitted to the Utilities Division for review and approval prior to commencement of construction. d) The owners, their assigns or successors shall agree to pay all applicable system development charges at the time that Building Permits are required, pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time of Permit request. This requirement shall be made known to all prospective buyers of properties for which building permits will be required prior to the start of building construction. e) The County, at its option, may lease for operation and maintenance the water distribution and/or sewer collection and transmission system to the project owner or his assigns for the sum of $10.00 per year. Terms of the lease shall be determined upon completion of the proposed utility construction and prior to activation of the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities and/or the sewage collection, transmission and treatment facilities. D. The project Developer shall cooperate and coordinate with the Utilities I. The Conclusions of Law Section of Development Order Number 85-55, as amended, is hereby amended to add a new Paragraph entitled "Housing" to read as follows: 11 Words mare deleted; words underline are added. L. Paragraph 3, of the Future Resolution Section, of the Development Order Number 85-5, as amended, is amended to read as followsed: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, that: 3. This Development Order's termination date the project buildout date shall be the same date which is October 14,20N 2010. SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT A. That the real property which is the subject of the Substantial Deviation ADA is legally described as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. B. The application is in accordance with Section 380.06(19), Florida Statues. C. The applicant submitted Notification of Proposed Change to a Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact (DRI) pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statues. D. The applicant proposes the development of Pine Air Lakes on 148.99 acres of land in Collier County for commercial retail and office uses. E. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendations of SWFRPC. F. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the County's departments and the SWFRPC. G. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, as amended. SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The scope of the development to be permitted pursuant to this Development Order Amendment includes operations described in the Notice of Change to a Previously Approved DRI. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the report and recommendations of the SWFRPC. 12 Words mare deleted; words underlined are added. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved development will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area, D, The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Collier County Land Development Code adopted pursuant thereto. E. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 55-5 shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with its terms on all parties thereto. B. Copies of this Development Order Number 07-01 shall be transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Land and Water Management, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. C. This Development Order shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is recorded in the minutes of this Board. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED this / 3 day of `�✓ '2007, after a motion, second, and majority vote, ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BlROCK, CLERK QLlte_ QC. AttMt Clerk signatwe ant• Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLO IDA By: JAMn N. COLETTA, Chairman Marjorie . Student -Stirling 0 Assistant County Attorney 13 Words sE ggh-are deleted; words underlined are added. EXHIBIT "A" A parcel or tract.of tend lying in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, being described as follows: Ceemencing at the Norlheist corner of saki Settled 11. run S 00027'47• V along the East lint of said Seetloe 11 a distance e( 1118.66 feet; thence 5 88047'17' V 100.04 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and the westerly right-of-way IIne of County Raid Noll; thence continue S 88047'11' M 2654.06 (tett thence S 01005'27" E 1716.71 feet; thence S 01005'18' E 1116.78 feet; thence N 66051411' E 1141.42 kat; thence N 00018'58' W 129.45 feet; thence N 88050157' E 1245.82 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of County Road No.11; thence M 00027'18" E along said right-of-way line 909.28 feet; thence N 00027'40' E along sild right-of-way line 1118.60 (act to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Said parcel or tract coots laing-148.99,toroi, mart or less. Subject to easemcnti, restFictions and reservations of record. Bearings based on a bearing of M 00027'471 E on the East i Inc of the ME% of Section 11. Township t,9 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This description meets the Minimum Techoical Standards as set firth by the Florida Board of Land Surveyors, pursuant to Chapter 472.027, Florida Statutes. Pine Air Lakes DRi Iv FUTUu CONNECTION EXISTING 1..4K3 .PROPK2 V /MIXED-USE PROP03 111T.UAKCK[ 1 4%IS'I INO ' LAKC k7 NAPLES DODGE MIXED -USE nLAKL RETAIL,10 Is MIXED-USE RETAIUOFFICE �- PA.fWOSff ' iM1KC MLXED-USESt n RETAIUOFFICE u � a I' PRESERVE AREA CHEVROLET ppl Land Use Summary Mixed -Use Office/Retail 103.00 Acres ROW 10.69 Acres Lake/Open Space 33.49 Acres Preserve Area NmiudinA wail 1.81 Acres Total 148.99 Acres Pine Air Lakes DRI SCALE IN FEET HOME i DEPOT Map H-1 I 2156 JOHNSON STREET 1j �N P.O. BOX 1550 Master Concept Plan P FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-1550 PHONE (239) 334-OD46 ENGINEERING FAX (239) 334-3551 E.B. /942 & LB. 0542 mm ��E� H0. FILE N9, 9CA E ar War. 21, 2007 20055243 M Strom EXHIBIT "C" Pine Air Lakes I Naples Dodge Interconnect Exhibit Naples Dodge Hollywood 20 THIS EXHIBIT IS CONCEPTUAL. THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE APPROVED BY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW. ANY REVISIONS TO THIS EXHIBIT SHALL NOT REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT. September 23, 2016 Mr. Daniel Aronoff: Thank you for your inquiry about extending the buildout/termination date of the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) located in Collier County. Time Extensions Generally, when a DRI development order buildout date or termination date is extended, the determination of whether the extension is subject to further DRI review is based on the amount of time of the extension pursuant to the criteria of Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, as described below. If the extension is determined to be a substantial deviation (based on the amount of time of the extension), then the extension is subject to further DRI review in order to identify and mitigate potential impacts to regional public facilities and natural resources. Pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, an extension of 5 years or less is not a substantial deviation; an extension of the date of buildout, or any phase thereof, of more than 5 years but not more than 7 years is presumed not to create a substantial deviation; an extension of the date of buildout, or any phase thereof, by more than 7 years is presumed to create a substantial deviation. These presumptions may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence regarding potential impacts to public facilities and natural resources. In applying the criteria of Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, a current request for time extension is considered cumulatively with previous time extensions, except in the following situations: (1) extensions which the statute (or Laws of Florida) specifically exempts from cumulative analysis; or (2) extensions which occurred previous to or were included in a substantial deviation amendment to a DRI development order are not considered cumulatively with a new time extension requested subsequent to the substantial deviation amendment. Thus, once a substantial deviation amendment has occurred to a DRI development order, the cumulative analysis of the amount of time resets to zero. Pine Air Lakes DRI Based on the Department's records, the Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order was approved in 1985 and the Development Order has been amended several times as described below. Collier County approved the Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order on November 12, 1985, and the Development Order established an expiration date that was ten years from the date the Development Order was adopted (thus, November 12, 1995). The Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order was amended on April 15, 1986 (Resolution 86-63) to address an appeal of Exhibit F the Development Order; and the appeal had the effect of extending the buildout date from November 12, 1995 to April 15, 1996 (tolling during the appeal is a noncumulative extension). The Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order was amended on May 10, 1994 (Resolution 94- 349/DO 94-2) to: (1) revise the buildout/termination date to be 14 years and 6 months from the date the Development Order was effective (from April 15, 1986); and (2) to state that the project buildout date shall be the same date as the Development Order termination date, that is October 15, 2000. The Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order was amended on September 28, 2004 (Resolution 2003/DO 2004-02) to revise the buildout/termination date to state "This Development Order's termination date and the project buildout date shall be the same date which is October 14, 2005." The Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order was amended (as a substantial deviation amendment) on March 13, 2007 (Resolution 2007-63/DO 2007-01) to establish October 14, 2010, as the project buildout/termination date. Because this was a substantial deviation amendment, the cumulative analysis for subsequent time extensions is reset to zero. Subsequent to the Pine Air Lakes DRI substantial deviation amendment, there have been several opportunities for time extensions that would be excluded from cumulative analysis pursuant to Florida Statutes (or Laws of Florida). I have inquired to Collier County regarding the status of these automatic extensions, and you have provided information of correspondence from Collier County which indicates that the current expiration date of the Pine Air Lakes DRI Development Order is March 16, 2017, based on utilization of the automatic extensions. First, the Department issued a letter on October 19, 2012, acknowledging that the Pine Air Lakes DRI qualifies for a three year extension of its buildout and expiration date (extend to October 14, 2013) pursuant to the automatic extension (exempt from cumulative analysis) that was available pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes. Second, the Pine Air Lakes DRI exercised its opportunity for another automatic extension of the buildout date to October 14, 2015, pursuant to the 2 year extension available in Section 24 of Chapter 2012-205, Laws of Florida. Third, the Pine Air Lakes DRI exercised it opportunity to extend the DRI expiration date by an additional one year and 153 days (extend to March 16, 2017) pursuant to Section 252.363, Florida Statutes (Chapter 2011-142, Laws of Florida). Currently, the Pine Air Lakes DRI could request an extension of the buildout/expiration date through the Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) process pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, and the time extension criteria of Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, as described above would apply. Based on the information you have represented and our records, none of the previous time extensions would be included in a cumulative consideration of whether a current request for a time extension would constitute a substantial deviation. I encourage you to coordinate with Collier County and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council regarding the filing of a Notice of Proposed Change. You have indicated that you have the NOPC application form, which is available on our internet site. Scott Rogers Planning Analyst Division of Community Development Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (850)717-8510 Rick Scott HuntingF. Deutsch GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENTef ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY October 19, 2012 Mr. Daniel Aronoff Agent for Colt Farms LLC Via Email Re: Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Automatic Extension Dear Mr, Aronoff, The Department has reviewed your request for this Department to acknowledge that Development Order 07-01 (Pine -Air -Lakes) qualifies for a three year extension of its build out and expiration dates pursuattt to Section 380.06(19)(0), Florida Statutes (2007). Based on the permit information you have sent us, in your email dated October 18, 2012, the Pine Air Lakes DRI was under active construction on July 1, 2007. Thus, the Department acknowledges that the Pine Air Lakes DRI qualifies for the three year extension of its build out and expiration date pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes (2007). As previously discussed, the Pine Air Lakes DRI is behind on the required reporting documents to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (biennial report) and Collier County (monitoring report), and recommends the documents be submitted promptly. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Jeannette HallockSolomon, AICP, at (850) 717-8490, or by email at Jeannetto.hallock-solomon@deo.state.fl.us. Sincerely, �M env Mike McDaniel, Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning MM1jhs Enclosure: Email cc: David Crawford, AICP, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Laurie Beard, Transportation Planner, Collier County Growth Management Division Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I The Caldwell Building i 107 E. Madison Street I Tallahassee. FL 132309-4120 888.FLA.2345 1 850.246,71051 650.921.3223 Fax I WwMFlod441911 om I WWW IWifler comIFLDEO i wwwwww faeehn,�gm/F DEO An equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aids and services ere available upon request to Individuals with disabilities. All votce telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persona using T Y1TDD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711. COLT PARTNERS LLC December 20, 2012 9:15 AM VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX Kay Deselem Principal Planner Zoning Subsection Collier County, Florida Government 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239-252-2931 Kavdeselemgacol liersaov. net Re: Section 494 of Senate Bill 2156 (Chapter 2011-142, Laws of Florida); Section 252.363, Florida Statutes, Tolling and extension of permits and other authorizations — Development Order 07-01 (Pine —Air -Lakes). Dear Ms. Deselem: This letter provides notice, pursuant to the above cited law, that Colt Partners, LLC, the holder of Development Order 07-01, hereby exercises its right to extend and renew the expiration and build -out date of said Development Order for a period of One Year and 153 days; to March 16, 2017.The new expiration and build -out date is derived as follows: - The current expiration date is October 14, 2015 (see letter attached). A State of Emergency in Collier County was in effect for Tropical Storm Debby for 91 days, from June 25, 2012 to September 24, 2012 (Executive Orders 12-140;12- 192;12-217). This resulted in a tolling of 91 days and 6 months. The 90 day extension filing deadline is December 23, 2012. - A State of Emergency in Collier County was in effect for Tropical Storm Isaac for 88 days, from August 25, 2012 to November 21, 2012(Executive Orders 12-199; 12- 240). This resulted in a tolling of 88 days and 6 months. The 90 day extension filing deadline is February 19, 2013. - There was a 26 day period of overlap in the two States of Emergency listed above, which is subtracted from the total days of States of Emergency, resulting in a tolling of 153 days and One Year. - The addition of One Year and 153 days to the pre-existing expiration and build -out date of October 14, 2015, is March 16, 2017. Manager cc. David Crawford, SWFRPC Jeannette Hallock-Solomon, AICP, DEO Laurie Beard, Collier County COLT PARTNERS LLC December 20, 2012 9:OOAM VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX Kay Deselem Principal Planner Zoning Subsection Collier County, Florida Government 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239-252 -2931 Kavdeselem(ftollieroov.net Re: Chapter 2012-205, Laws of Florida — Development Order 07-01 (Pine —Air -Lakes). Dear Ms. Deselem: This letter provides notice, pursuant to Section 24 Chapter 2012-205, Laws of Florida, that Colt Partners, LLC, the holder of Development Order 07-01, hereby exercises the authorization therein to extend and renew the expiration date of said Development Order for a period of 2 years; to October 14, 2015. The anticipated timeframe for acting on the authorization is by or before October 14, 2015. The conditions to qualify for the extension are met: - The expiration date of Development Order 07 -01 was October 14, 2010. This expiration date was extended 3 years to October 14, 2013(see letter attached from DEO to Colt Farms LLC AKA Colt Partners, LLC). Thus the expiration date falls within the period January 1, 2012 through January 1, 2014, required to qualify for the extension. The legal basis for the prior extension does not preclude the extension right exercised herein. - Development Order 07-01 is in compliance. - The holder of Development Order 07-01 has met the notification requirement of subsection (3) of Section 24 Chapter 2012-205, Laws of Florida. Manager cc. David Crawford, SWFRPC Jeannette Hallock-Solomon, AICP, DEO Laurie Beard, Collier County Daniel Aronoff From: ReischlFred [FredReischl@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 9:46 AM To: Daniel Aronoff Subject: RE: Pine Air Lakes DRI Expiration date Dan - Yes, the documents are accurate and they are now filed in the correct location. My confusion was that there was no response letter from the County. According to the County Attorney, no response letter was required unless requested. Thanks — you are good to go until 2017. -Fred From: Daniel Aronoff[mailto:daronoff@landoncompanies.com] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:42 PM To: ReischlFred Subject: FW: Pine Air Lakes DRI Expiration date Thx. I see I got the spelling wrong! From: Daniel Aronoff Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:28 PM To: 'fredreischel@colliergov.net' Subject: Pine Air Lakes DRI Expiration date Fred Attached are documents that show the current expiration date of the Pine Air Lakes DRI is March 16, 2017. Oct 19, 2012 — DEO approved an expiration ate of October 14, 2013. Dec 20, 2012 — DRI Developer extended the build -out date to Oct 14 2015 by exercising right to 2 year extension in Sec 24 of Chapt. 2012-205 FS. Dec 20, 2012 — DRI Developer exercised tolling rights to extend DRI expiration date by an additional one year and 153 days, to March 16, 2017. I have also included correspondence with Collier County on December 20, 2012 in which it was suggested that we contact Mike Levy to ensure the notification was filed properly in the County records. I spoke to Mr. Levy and confirmed the tow were filed. Fred, please contact me with either your agreement with the March 16, 2017 DRI expiration date, or with any questions you may have. -Dan Daniel J. Aronoff President The Landon Companies 612 E Eleven Mile Rd. Royal Oak MI 48067 Tel: (248) 642-0190 FAx:(248) 642-0199 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. STOP Virus, STOP SPAM, SAVE Bandwidth! www.safentrix.com coHnty Growth Management Divisii Planning & Regulation Land Development Services October 17, 2013 Mr. Roland A. Gallor Shutts & Bowen, LLP 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33131 RE: Extension request for Pine Air Lakes DRI and PUD, Petitions EXT -2013 -AR -15069 and EXT -2013 -AR -15070 Dear Mr. Gallon In your applications accepted on September 16, 2013, you requested extension of this DRI/PUD project to October 15, 2015. Staff research has indicated that due to actions of others, this project has already been extended to March 16, 2017, thus your requests are not necessary. Please be advised that the information presented in this verification letter is based on the Laws of Florida, the Collier County Land Development Code and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to any of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code or related ordinances. Should you require further information please do not hesitate to call me at (239) 252-2931. Sincerely, Researched and prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Planning & Zoning cc: David Crawford, RPC Lauren Beard, DRI/PUD monitoring Claudine Auclair, Business Center DRI file Reviewed by: Raym d' V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Department of Planning & Zoning Heidi Ashton, Asst. County Attorney Annis Moxam, Addressing Section Paula Fleishman, Concurrency Land DeveloMW Services • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples. Florida 34104.239-252-2400 • www.colliergov.net - - -- - - -Exhibit G - - - - cOle-r co�,Hty Growth Management Department March 31, 2017 Mr. Dan Aronoff Land Management Services Associates LLC 280 N Woodward Avenue Suite LL 15 Birmingham, Ml 48009 RE: Confirmation of expiration/sunset date of Pine Air Lakes DRI pursuant to Section 252.363 F.S. and Governor Scott's 2016 and 2017 declarations of emergency regarding Hurricane Matthew and Zika Virus, CDPAR8543 Dear Mr. Aronoff: In your application received on February 21, 2017, you requested an extension of this DRI project pursuant to Section 252.263.F.S. This letter confirms that the new expiration date of the DRI is December 29, 2018. The expiration date is calculated as follows: Zika Vrus tolling is from June 23, 2016 to April 11, 2017 which equals 292 days. The Hurricane Matthew emergency was 175 days during the Zika emergency. The total tolling is 292 days plus 12 months. Please note that you may be eligible for additional tolling days if the emergencies for either Hurricane Matthew or the Zika Virus are extended by the Govenor beyond the current expiration dates of March 27, 2017 and April 11, 2017. Please be advised that the information presented in this verification letter is based on the Laws of Florida, the Collier County Land Development Code and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to any of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code or related ordinances. Should you require further information please do not hesitate to call me at (239) 252-2484. Sincerely, Researched and prepared by: /� Reviewed by: (41 Nancy G ac i, AICP, Principal Planner Ray d ';".Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning S ces Zoning Services Page 1 oft Exhibit H cc: Ian Barnwell, DRI/PUD monitoring Claudine Auclair, Business Center Dan Trescot, RPC Annis Moxim, Addressing Section Paula Fleishman, Concurrency Heidi Ashton Cicko, Asst. County Attorney Page 2 of 2 PINE AIR LAKES DRI COLLIER COUNTY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE Background On November 12, 1985, the Collier County, Board of County Commissioners approved the Pine Air Lakes Development Order (DO) (DO #85-5). Originally, approved as multiuse project containing hotel, retail, office and institutional uses totally 1,280,600 sq. ft. The last county DO amendment was approved on March 13, 2007 in Resolution 07-63/DO #07-01, which was reviewed as a substantial deviation application. The DRI has current approval for 1,000,000 sq. ft. of Regional Commercial Retail, and 75,000 sq. ft. of office, with a conversion rate of up to 50,000 sq. ft. for both uses. Based on the 2016 monitoring report there is 787,158 sq. ft. of retail and 29,489 sq. ft. of office constructed on the site. The current buildout was October 14, 2010. The project is located just north of the intersection of Airport -Pulling Road and Pine Ridge Road, in the North Naples area of Collier County (see Attachment I, Location Map). Previous Changes 1. Resolution 86-63, April 15, 1986: to address an appeal of the DO; and the appeal had the effect of extending the buildout date from November 12, 1995 to April 15, 1996. 2. Resolution 94-349/DO 94-2, May 10,1994: to: (1) revise the buildout/termination date to be 14 years and 6 months from the date the DO was effective (from April 15, 1986); and (2) to state that the project buildout date shall be the same date as the DO termination date, that is October 15, 2000. 3. Resolution 2003/DO 2004-02, September 28,2004: to revise the buildout/termination date to state "This DO's termination date and the project buildout date shall be the same date which is October 14, 2005. 4. Resolution Number 2007-63/DO 2007-01 - Substantial Deviation Amendment, March 13, 2007: to establish October 14, 2010, as the project buildout/termination date. Proposed Changes In January 2017 a notice of proposed change (NOPC) was submitted by Daniel Aronoff of Land Management Services Associates LLC to extend the DO's termination and the project build -out date (which are the same date) by one day less than FIVE (5) years, to December 28, 2023, and change the name of the Developer to "Land Management Services Associates LLC". Below is the time line for the various extensions. Exhibit I Governor Emergency Extension 3/12/2017 TS Debby & TS Isaac - 149 days tolled plus 12 mo. extension 252.363, F.S. Governor Emergency Extension 12/29/2018 Zika Virus and Hurricane Matthew - 292 days tolled plus 12 mo. extension 252.363, F.S. Proposed 4 years 364 days 12/28/2023 Staff Analysis 3/12/2017 12/29/2018 12/28/2023 The NOPC seeks a number of extensions based on "tolling" for the last recession and various disaster declarations. Tolling for DRIs relates to "any extension of the buildout date of a project or a phase thereof shall automatically extend the commencement date of the project, the termination date of the development order, the expiration date of the development of regional impact, and the phases thereof if applicable by a like period of time" (Chapter 380.06(19)(c)2 F.S.). The last amended DO 2007-01 was the result of a substantial deviation application that provided a cumulative analysis of impacts. Therefore, according to SWFRPC and State policy once a full reanalysis is performed the project can start over for extension date purposes to zero. As a result, this less than five-year extension according to Chapter 380.06(19)(c) F.S. is considered not a substantial deviation. Buildout Ex irn ation Original Date - DO 85-5 11/12/1995 Resolution No. 86-63 11/15/1996 DO 94-2 10/15/2000 10/15/2000 DO 04-02 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 DO 07-01 10/14/2010 10/14/2010 2007 Extension - 3 years 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 380.06(19)(c), F.S. 2009 Extension - 2 years 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 Senate Bill 360 Governor Emergency Extension 3/12/2017 TS Debby & TS Isaac - 149 days tolled plus 12 mo. extension 252.363, F.S. Governor Emergency Extension 12/29/2018 Zika Virus and Hurricane Matthew - 292 days tolled plus 12 mo. extension 252.363, F.S. Proposed 4 years 364 days 12/28/2023 Staff Analysis 3/12/2017 12/29/2018 12/28/2023 The NOPC seeks a number of extensions based on "tolling" for the last recession and various disaster declarations. Tolling for DRIs relates to "any extension of the buildout date of a project or a phase thereof shall automatically extend the commencement date of the project, the termination date of the development order, the expiration date of the development of regional impact, and the phases thereof if applicable by a like period of time" (Chapter 380.06(19)(c)2 F.S.). The last amended DO 2007-01 was the result of a substantial deviation application that provided a cumulative analysis of impacts. Therefore, according to SWFRPC and State policy once a full reanalysis is performed the project can start over for extension date purposes to zero. As a result, this less than five-year extension according to Chapter 380.06(19)(c) F.S. is considered not a substantial deviation. Character, Magnitude and Location The character, magnitude and location will not change associated with this change in buildout. Regional Resources and Facilities Impacts No additional regional impacts to resources or facilities will occur from the extensions since most of the regional conditions of the DO have been met for buildout of the project. Furthermore, because this extension is for less than five-year it is considered not a substantial deviation according to Chapter 380.06(19)(c) F.S. Potential Multi -Jurisdictional Issues No new multi -jurisdictional issues will occur from this change not previously reviewed by the SWFRPC. Need for Reassessment of the DRI Because this less than five-year extension is considered not a substantial deviation according to Chapter 380.06(19)(c) F.S. we are precluded from seeking a reassessment of the DRI, unless the local government needs to reassessment the project impacts for some specific reason. Acceptable of the Proposed Development Order Amendment Language The draft development order language provided with the NOPC is acceptable to address the change proposed to extend the termination and buildout date. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Notify Collier County, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and the applicant of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council determination that the proposed change does not create additional regional impacts. 2. Request Collier County provide a copy of the proposed Development Order and any related materials to the Council in order to ensure that the Development Order is consistent with the Notice of Proposed Change. April 20, 2017 m ATTACHMENT z to 0 Cot e -r 4C43i .-rzty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section 111 tl ! '1 1 To: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 4, 2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review APPLICATION NUMBER DOA 2016-2736 Rev: 1 APPLICATION NAME: Pine Au• Lakes DOA REQUEST: To request a Notice of Proposed Change to execute a Development Order Amendment (DOA) for Pine Air Lakes, adopted via Development Order Resolution #85-05, as subsequently amended. The two non - substantial deviations to the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) being proposed are (1) to amend the recorded ownership and (2) to extend the termination date of March 16, 2017 to a new buildout/termination date of December 28, 2023. LOCATION: The +148.99 acre subject property is located on the west side of Airport Road (CR 31), '/4 mile north of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896), bisected by Naples Blvd., in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property, containing approximately +148.99 acres, is designated Urban, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 413, and is within the residential density band for Activity Center 413 as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The Pine Air Lakes DRI is most recently approved via Resolution 407-01 for 1,075,000 square feet of retail and office commercial uses. Since this DO amendment petition is only amending the ownership of record and extending the termination date, the amended DO neither increases the intensity nor the density of allowed uses. Therefore, the petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE. CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Development Order Amendment may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section DOA-PL2016-2736 Pine Air Lakes RLdocx 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page - 1 - of 1 Exhibit J DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 2017 - RESOLUTION NO. 2017- A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 85-5, AS AMENDED, THE PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE: EXTENSION OF BUILDOUT DATE AND EXPIRATION DATE; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT -PULLING ROAD AND NAPLES BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20160002736) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approved Development Order 85-5 (the "Development Order") on November 12, 1985, which approved the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI); and WHEREAS, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council appealed Development Order 85-5, and the appeal was settled by the adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of Resolution No. 86-63, which amended the DRI on April 15, 1986; and WHEREAS, The Pine Air Lakes DRI was subsequently amended by Development Order Nos. 94-2, 04-02 and 07-01; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 380.06(19)(c), F.S., as approved by the Florida Legislature in 2007 and 2009, a three-year and two-year extension to the expiration date and projected buildout date was given to this DRI; and WHEREAS, in 2016, Land Management Services Associates LLC provided proper notice to County to obtain extensions for Executive Orders declaring emergencies for Tropical [17 -CPS -01636/1333453/11120 Pine Air Lakes PUDA / DOA-PL20160002736 4/17/17 Words stfaek thFeug h are deleted; words underlined are added. I of 5 Exhibit K Storms Debby and Isaac, and Hurricane Matthew and the Zika Virus, in accordance with Section 252.363, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Land Management Services Associates LLC petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida to amend the Development Order by extending the buildout date and the expiration date; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on May 18, 2017; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners, having considered application of proposed changes to the Development Order and the record made at said hearing, and having considered the record of the documentary and oral evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission, and report and recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission, the report and recommendation of the Collier County Planning Staff and Advisory Boards, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County hereby approves the following Development Order amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER 85-5, AS AMENDED Paragraph 3, of the Future Resolution Section of Development Order 85-5, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. This development order's termination date and the project buildout date shall be the same which is December 28, 2023. [l7 -CPS -01636/1333453/11120 Pine Air Lakes PUDA / DOA-PL20160002736 4/17/17 Words stfuslHhrough are deleted; words underlined are added. 2of5 SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT A. That the real property constituting the Pine Air Lakes DRI, which is the subject of the proposed amendment, consists of approximately 148.99 acres, is legally described as set forth in Development Order 85-5, as amended. B. The application is in accordance with Section 380.06(19)(e)l., Florida Statutes. The applicant submitted a Notice of Proposed Change to the Regional Planning Council, the State Land Planning Agency and Collier County as required by Section 380.06(19)(e)l. This Section also provides "A Notice of Proposed Change ... that involves an extension of the buildout date of a development, or any phase thereof, of less than five years is not subject to the public hearing requirements of f(3) and is not subject to a determination pursuant to subparagraph f(5)." C. A review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the County's departments. D. The Regional Planning Council notified the County in April 20, 2017 that the proposed changes do not create additional impacts. E. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, as amended. F. A summary of the buildout dates and expiration dates is as follows: Buildout Expiration Original Date — DO 85-5 Resolution No. 86-63 111601 1 DO 07-01 [I 7 -CPS -01636/1333453/1]120 Pine Air Lakes PUDA / DOA-PL20160002736 4/17/17 10/15/2000 10/14/2005 10/14/2010 11/12/1995 11/15/1996 10/15/2000 10/14/2005 10/14/2010 Words struek thieugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 3 of 5 2007 Extension — 3 years 10/14/2013 10/14/2013 380.06(19)(c), F.S. 2009 Extension -2 years 10/14/2015 10/14/2015 Senate Bill 360 Governor Emergency Extension 3/12/2017* 3/12/2017* TS Debby & TS Isaac — 149 days tolled plus 12 mo. extension 252.363, F.S. *County extension letter incorrectly had 3/16/17 Governor Emergency Extension 12/29/2018 12/29/2018 Zika Virus and Hurricane Matthew — 292 days tolled plus 12 mo. extension 252.363, F.S. Proposed 4 years 364 days 12/28/2023 12/28/2023 SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do not require further development -of -regional -impact review. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted pursuant thereto. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. E. The proposed changes do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(c) which provides ... "an extension of five years or less is not a substantial [I 7 -CPS -01 636/1333453/ 11120 Pine Air Lakes PUDA / DOA-PL20160002736 4/17/17 Words struelithrengk are deleted; words underlined are adde 4of5 deviation." Pursuant to Section 380.06(e)1, it is not subject to the public hearing requirements of 380.06(19)(03. and it is not subject to a determination pursuant to Section 380.06(19)05. SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 85-5, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with the terms on all parties thereto. B. Copies of this Development Order shall be transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Economic Opportunity and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. C. This Development Order shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and favorable vote on this _ day of 12017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA C Deputy Clerk PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 117 -CPS -01636/1333453/11120 Pine Air Lakes PUDA / DOA-PL20160002736 4/17/17 Words struek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 5of5 PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 1 of 21 May 9, 2017 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 18, 2017 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20150001776 ADDIE’S CORNER ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agents: Creekside West, Inc. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich an Koester, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Parcel ID: 00190041500 is owned by Collier County to be used for right-of-way purposes. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 2011-08, the Addie’s Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 23.33+/- acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (see location map, page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to amend the MPUD to add Tract C to allow 349 multi -family dwelling units or group housing retirement uses and to reduce the currently allowed commercial development on Tract A from 135,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development to 75,000 square feet on Tract A. Tract A also currently allows community/group housing and hotel/motel uses. AGENDA ITEM 9-B Collier BLVDImmokalee RD IMMOKALEE ROAD BURNT PINE DRIVE HOLLOW BROOK CIR DRIVEPEBBLEBROOKEBROKEN BACK ROADCOLLIER BOULEVARDBELLAIRE BAY DRIVEESPLANA DE BOULEVARD ESPLANADE BOULEVARDAMOUR COURTCAVANO STREET CAVANO STREET ESPLANADE BOULEVARDAMOUR COURTTRACT R-2 TRACT R-1 TRACT R-1 2 1 TRACT R TRACT R3TRACT 8 TR C-2TRACT C-6PARCEL L-1 NOTTINGHAM AT PEBBLEBROOKELAKES CONDO PARCEL 2 TRACT 8TR C-5 TRACT 4TRACT 1 TRACT R-1TR FTRACTL-2 TRACT G TRACT 2 9 68 27 27.2 TRACT R1 TRACT L3TRACT L5 TRACT L4 TRACT L2TRACT O6TR O4TRACT O1TRACT O1TRACT O1TRACT O1 TRACT L1 TRACT GC1 TRACT S TRACT C TRACT R2 TRACT R2TRACT GC1 TRACT R2 TRACT GC1 TRACT R2TRACT R1X11X10 X70 X23 X26 À1 À1 À2 À69À79À81À78À80À75À76À77 À66 À63À74À71À67À64À72À65À70À73À68 À2 À1 À1 À1 À46À27À25À55À61À59À26À57À60À56À62À58 À45À28À24 À29 À44 À52À54 À47À51À49À53À50À48À23À30 À43 À11 À42À31 À3 À2À10À32À41À39À33À37À40À36À35À38À34 À1À9 À8 À1 À7 À6 À1 À5 À2 À4 À3 À1 À1À1À1À2À2À3À4 À1 À3 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1À2 À3À4À5À6À7 À8À9À10À11 À12 À24 À25 À26 À27 À28 À29 À30 À31 À35 À36 À37 À38 À39 À40 À41 À42 À43 À44 À45 À46 À47 À48 À49 À50 À51 À52 À53 À54 À55 À56 À57 À58 À59 À60 À61 À62 À63 À64À65À66 X27.3 DRI PUD RPUD PUD MPUD A MPUD TREEFARM ESPLANADE GOLFAND COUNTRYCLUB OF NAPLES HERITAGEBAY RICHLAND ADDIE'SCORNER Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2015-1776 PROJEC TLOCATION SITELOCATION ¹ Docu ment Path: M:\GIS_Requests\2016\06-June\0 6-17-2016 PL 201500017 76\workspace\site-location.mxd PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 3 of 21 May 9, 2017 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject amendment proposes a density of 15.98 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 Addie’s Corner MPUD: North: Preserve and open space tracts, then farther north are platted undeveloped residential lots, all of which are zoned Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). Maximum zoned building height five stories and 50 feet, including of under-building parking (0.74 DU/AC). East: Undeveloped lands in the A Tract and Commercial, Mixed-Use District (C/MU) Tract in the Tree Farm MPUD, a mixed use project (175,000 square feet of commercial). Maximum building height is 77 feet (7 DU/AC). South: Right-of-way for canal, and farther south is right-of-way for Immokalee Road, still farther south is preserve for Richland PUD. Maximum building height is 35 feet (3.10 DU/AC). West : (to the north) A 15-foot wide landscape buffer easement, and farther west is an open space tract and then a right-of-way for Esplanade Boulevard, all of which are zoned Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD (0.74 DU/AC). West: (central) A 15-foot wide landscape buffer easement, and farther west is an open space tract and then a 20-foot wide land maintenance easement, all of which are zoned Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD (0.74 DU/AC). West: (to the south) A drainage easement and sidewalk easement are zoned Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD (0.74 DU/AC), and a canal right-of-way. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 4 of 21 May 9, 2017 Aerial (County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: 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. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed amendment to the MPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Please see Attachment 3 – FLUE Consistency Memorandum for a more detailed analysis of how staff derived this determination. 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 PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 5 of 21 May 9, 2017 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 applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new development will generate approximately 447 adjusted PM peak hour two-way trips, which is a reduction of 227 PM peak hour trips from the PUD’s current trip count. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Existing LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2016 Remaining Capacity Immokalee Road Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard C 3,300/East 974 Immokalee Road Logan Boulevard to Collier Boulevard D 3,200/North 647 Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road C 3,000/North 1,026 Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the current and proposed (reduced) trips for the amended project within the five-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 6 of 21 May 9, 2017 Staff notes that Immokalee Road is projected to fail the required Level of Service (LOS) past the current five-year plan projections. Staff is diligently working on various network improvements, such as the recently approved authorization to reinitiate the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project, which will serve as a parallel corridor within the network. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site contains 13.81 acres of native vegetation, a minimum of 25%, which equates to 3.45 acres, is required to be retained pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1, if developed as a mixed use. If developed entirely as non-residential, a minimum of 15% or 2.07 acres of the native vegetation present on- site is required to be retained. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in 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. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” Drainage: The proposed PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project’s stormwater management system is designed to the current Cocohatchee River Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.04 cubic feet second/acre. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or plat. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Native vegetation retention identified in the existing PUD Document and on the Master Plan exceeds that which is required by the GMP and LDC, with 8.85 acres of preserve identified. Evaluation of the site, by the applicant and staff, shows the MPUD would contain 13.81 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 25%, 3.45 acres, is required to be retained if developed as mixed use. If developed entirely as non-residential, a minimum of 15%, 2.07 acres, of native vegetation is required to be retained. The proposed preserve is located in the northwest corner of the MPUD to act as a buffer and provide a connection to the preserve to the north within Esplanade Golf and Country Club of PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 7 of 21 May 9, 2017 Naples RPUD. Connections to preserves, on and off-site, are required by LDC Section 3.05.07 A.5. Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows that a 15-foot wide, Type B buffer is proposed along the project’s north property line, except in the area where the preserve abuts the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD. The Master Plan also shows a Type B buffer of varying widths, from 15 feet to 30 feet, is proposed along the western boundary of the MPUD where abutting the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD. A 15 -foot wide, Type B buffer would run along the east property line where abutting the Tree Farm MPUD. Finally, the Master Plan depicts a 20-foot wide, Type D buffer along the canal and the Immokalee Road right-of-way. These buffers would comply with the requirements of the LDC. The Master Plan depicts an internal right-of-way, proposed between Tracts A and C. Landscape buffers would be placed outside the right-of-way, along its north and south sides. School District: There is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle school concurrency service areas for this proposed development. There is not sufficient capacity at the high school concurrency service area the project is located in, but there is available capacity in adjacent concurrency service areas. At the time of site development plan (SDP) or plat (PPL), if there is not capacity within the concurrency service areas the development is located within adjacent concurrency service areas will be included in the determination of capacity. 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. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Utilities Review: The project lies within the potable water and north wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water service is readily available via a new 24 -inch water main recently constructed along the north side of the Cocohatchee Canal. Wastewater service is readily available via an existing 12-inch force main along the centerline of Immokalee Road. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit review and shall be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives of the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any off-site improvements necessary to provide wastewater service to the project shall be the responsibility of the developer and shall be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County. Zoning Services Review: The original Addie’s Corner MPUD was adopted on April 12, 2011 pursuant to Ordinance 11-08 and approved for up to 135,000 square feet of commercial uses and/or a Group Housing/Retirement Community with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60. Hotels and motels were approved with a maximum intensity of 26 unit per acre. This amendment proposes significant changes to the Master Plan, including the reduction of the PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 8 of 21 May 9, 2017 preserve area from 8.85 acres to 3.45 acres and would modify Tract A, to create a separate, distinct tract of land for development known as Tract C. Under Ordinance 11-08, Tract A is 12.37 acres; however, if this amendment were approved, Tract A would be reduced to 9.82 acres and a new tract, Tract C, would be 4.32 acres. Combined, they would account for 14.14 acres or 65% of the MPUD. This amendment also seeks to introduce multi-family residential and townhouse dwelling units as permitted principal uses on Tract C, in conjunction with reducing the maximum allowable gross commercial square footage on Tract A from 135,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet. Group Housing, Independent Living Units, Assisted Living Units, and Retirement Community, which are only allowed on Tract A under the current ordinance, would also be allowed on Tract C as well. Staff does not have an issue with the new uses or the configuration of the developable tracts. The staff report for the original Addie’s Corner MPUD petition (PUDZ-2009-AR-14425), written in 2010, identified that the lands to the north and west of the MPUD had not yet been developed. Staff compared the proposed building heights for the MPUD to the neighboring properties and concluded the following: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed maximum zoned building height of 55 feet is comparable to the maximum height limits approved for abutting properties which are as follows: Tree Farm MPUD, abutting the subject site on the west, allow buildings with a 77 foot maximum height; Mirasol, abutting the site on the east, would allow actual height of structures to reach 75 feet; and Richland PUD, which is located across Immokalee Road, would allow 35 foot high residential structures and would allow commercial structures up to 50 feet tall. Because the site abuts the future relocated Cocohatchee Canal, the 25-foot setback from the Immokalee Road Canal right-of-way is sufficient. To the east, the proposed uses could be commercial or a combination of commercial and residential; to the south any uses within the Richland PUD are already separated by Immokalee Road, thus this project would have little impact upon the residential uses within that project. As noted previously, to the north, uses on this site would be buffered by this project’s 8.8+/- acre preserve tract, thus there should be slight impact. To the west, however is the Mirasol PUD. That PUD is approved for only residential uses. According to the site plan, however, the project’s main roadway is planned to run north to south along the Mirasol/Addie’s Corner shared boundary, thus any negative impact will be lessened. The Mirasol site plan recognizes that the land now proposed to be Addie’s Corner is located within an Activity Center that would allow more intense, i.e., commercial uses adjacent to Mirasol. An interconnection has been provided between the two projects to allow local traffic to move more easily from Mirasol and Addie’s Corner thus preserving the capacity of Immokalee Road. As described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of the staff report, the Addie’s Corner MPUD is bounded by the Esplanade Golf and Country Club RPUD to the north and to the west. The most recent aerial photography from the Collier County Property Appraiser reveals that no dwellings have been constructed yet on the platted residential lots within the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD to the north of the MPUD. To the west of the MPUD, residential lots have been platted and several houses have been constructed in the RPUD, as recently as 2015. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 9 of 21 May 9, 2017 Because building heights in Addie’s Corner MPUD are of concern to some residents in the RPUD (see Attachment 6 – Emails_Letters from Public), staff has determined it would be worthwhile to provide a brief overview of the building heights allowed within the RPUD. The lands located directly west of the MPUD were once known as Mirasol PUD, which was approved in 2001 for 799 dwelling units on 1,558 acres (Ordinance 01-20). This ordinance allowed multi-family dwellings to be as tall as 50 feet, measured from the first habitable finished floor area to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. In 2009, Ordinance 01-20 was repealed in favor of the adoption of Ordinance 09-21 (799 dwelling units on 1,543 acres), which reclassified the PUD to an RPUD. The adoption of 09-21 also established a maximum zoned height for the RPUD and a maximum actual (building) height. For multi-family dwellings, the maximum zoned height remained at 50 feet as in the original ordinance; however, the 2009 ordinance established a maximum height limitation applicable to the clubhouse/recreation buildings land use. The RPUD also contained special provisions associated with building heights for both the multi- family dwellings as well as clubhouse/recreation buildings land use. For multi-family dwellings, the 2009 ordinance established a maximum actual height of 65 feet. For the clubhouse/recreational buildings land use, the maximum actual height was 75 feet. In 2012, another amendment was approved for the RPUD, which added approximately 95 acres and allowed for a total of 1,121 dwelling units on 1,638.6 acres (Ordinance 12-41). In 2014, approximately 19.7 acres of land located just north of Addie’s Corner MPUD was added to the RPUD, allowing for a total of 1,233 dwelling units on 1,658.3 acres (Ordinance 14-36). This ordinance renamed the Mirasol RPUD to the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD, and this is the current name. Except for the deletion of a minor note related to the clubhouse/recreation buildings land use, the maximum zoned height and the maximum actual height for multi-family dwellings and clubhouse/recreations buildings remained the same. As previously mentioned, this amendment to the Addie’s Corner MPUD seeks to introduce new principal uses (i.e., multi-family residential and townhouses) for Tract C. The PUD Document also proposes a maximum zoned height of 55 feet and an actual height of 65 feet, for multi-family dwellings. The PUD Document also clarifies that both Group Housing and Retirement Community would have a maximum zoned height of 45 feet and a maximum actual height of 65 feet. The current petition to amend the MPUD does not seek to increase the building heights above what was already established under Ordinance 11-08. Staff analyzed the proposed development standards for principal and accessory structures in the MPUD for this petition and compared them to the standards of the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD and the Tree Farm MPUD. Staff has determined that the development standards proposed for this amendment would be comparable and compatible with the development standards of the aforementioned projects. The applicant requested the placement of signs within the County’s road right-of-way, and applicant was informed that a license agreement approved by the Board and a right-of-way permit would be needed in order to place signage in the right-of-way. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 10 of 21 May 9, 2017 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 fronts on Immokalee Road. Water and wastewater transmission mains are readily available within the Immokalee Road right-of-way, and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed MPUD. The south property line of the development abuts the Cocohatchee River Canal which conveys stormwater from the site. The Cocohatchee River Canal Basin will have the drainage concurrency ne eded to prevent adverse impacts, provided the development maintains a discharge rate of 0.04 cubic feet per second per acre. 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 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. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The MPUD is required to provide at least 30% of the gross area for usable open space. No deviation from the open space requirement is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 11 of 21 May 9, 2017 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 the time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time, a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This MPUD was approved with two deviations pursuant to Ordinance 2011-08, and the petitioner is now seeking four new deviations, requiring an evaluation to the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this MPUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Each new deviation requested by the petitioner is itemized and analyzed in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff report on page 13. Staff is supportive of all deviations, because 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 GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 12 of 21 May 9, 2017 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. The property is currently zoned MPUD and would remain as such. Staff responded to this criteria in the initial rezoning petition by stating the following: The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the abutting lands are also zoned PUD. Additionally, the project is required to provide a vehicular interconnection to the adjacent developments. No changes are proposed to the interconnections with this petition. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the MPUD. 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 MPUD 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 PUD Ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project’s stormwater management system is designed to the current PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 13 of 21 May 9, 2017 Cocohatchee River Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.04 cubic foot per second per acre. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) 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 the changes proposed to this MPUD 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 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 Tree Farm MPUD is currently vacant and staff does not anticipate this amendment serving 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 z oning; however, the proposed design standards cannot be achieved without amending the MPUD. 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. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 14 of 21 May 9, 2017 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 PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 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. Deviation Discussion: This PUD was approved with two deviations pursuant to Ordinance 2011-08. The petitioner is now seeking to add four additional deviations, and those deviations have been directly extracted from the proposed PUD Ordinance, itemized in Exhibit E (see Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance). The petitioner’s justification and staff analysis/recommendation for each deviation are listed below. Proposed Deviation #3 (Off-Street Parking) “Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G – Parking Spaces Required for Multi- Family Dwellings, which requires one parking space per residential unit plus 0.75 guest spaces for one-bedroom residential units and 1 guest space for two bedroom and larger units. In the event that Tract C is developed as leased multi-family units, this deviation proposes to establish the PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 15 of 21 May 9, 2017 required number of parking spaces for leased multifamily residential units at 1.65 spaces per one bedroom unit and 1.8 spaces for two bedroom and larger units (inclusive of resident and guest parking spaces).” Petitioner’s Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The LDC standards do not distinguish between apartment and condominium multi-family land uses. Multi-family condominium projects generally have greater occupancy and as such a greater parking demand than rental apartment uses. In the event that the residential portion of the project is developed as a leased apartment development under single ownership, this deviation proposes to allow for a required parking ratio that is more appropriate for the parking demands associated with that use (based on Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines and a site specific parking analysis of similar uses). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The above justification references a leased apartment development. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved for a leased apartment development. Zoning staff is supportive of this deviation, provided that it be applicable only for multi-family dwellings proposed on Tract C (see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 19). In this instance, staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for a leased apartment development, 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 #4 (Dumpsters and Recycling) “Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.04.G – Dumpsters and Recycling, which requires that multi-family rental units provide dumpsters or a compactor to allow for rental units to have the option for building staff to transport bulk containers from storage areas internal to the buildings to designated areas for pick up by the solid waste and recycling hauler.” Petitioner’s Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: In the event that rental units are proposed within the project, the requested deviation would provide flexibility in the type of services provided to residents and the provision of solid waste and recycling pick up. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Public Utilities 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.” PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 16 of 21 May 9, 2017 Proposed Deviation #5 (Width of Right-of-Way) “Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N – Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards. The LDC establishes a minimum 60-foot right of way width for local streets. This deviation proposes to reduce the required right-of-way width for local streets to 50 feet. See Typical 50’ ROW Cross Section Exhibit.” Petitioner’s Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The number of lanes and required lane width can be accommodated within the proposed 50-foot rights of way and the reduction in the minimum required width will provide for a more efficient and compact development project. 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 #6 (Off-Street Parking Distance) “Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G – Parking Spaces Required for Multifamily Dwellings allows for a reduction of the number of required parking spaces for small- scale recreational facilities within multi-family developments based upon the proximity of the units to the small scale recreational facility. The LDC allows for the required parking at the recreational facilities to be calculated at 35% of the normal requirements in cases where the majority of the multifamily units are located within 300 feet of the recreational facilities. This deviation proposes to increase the specified distance for the reduction of parking requirements for small-scale recreational facilities from 300 to 500 feet.” Petitioner’s Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The proposed project will have a system of connected pathways from the multifamily units to the small scale recreational facilities that will allow for efficient pedestrian access to recreational facilities and will encourage walking within the potential multifamily uses. 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.” PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 17 of 21 May 9, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): For the initial rezoning petition (PUDZ-2009-AR-14425), the applicant held a NIM on December 7, 2009. Five people from the public signed in. A representative from the Naples Pathway Coalition was also in attendance. With respect to issues brought up at the NIM, the staff report dated November 18, 2010 identified the following: 1. It was verified that the project is located on the NW corner rather than what had previously been advertised as the NE corner. 2. One attendee questioned the possibility of a nightclub or bar and expressed interest in having one. Staff note: The proposed amendment contains permitted uses which does include drinking places but does not allow for cabarets. See Exhibit A, page1. 3. Residents expressed concern about the pathway and the developer commitments. They want to be sure the pathway is not removed from the proposal. Robert Duane explained that the canal would be relocated and a 10-foot wide pathway would be made, that 1.6 acres will be dedicated to the County and another bridge would be built to the west. A second NIM was scheduled and duly noticed for December 16, 2010 to address project density and building height; however, no one from the public attended the second meeting, so no presentation was made. For the proposed petition, the applicant conducted a NIM on December 21, 2016 at St. Monica’s Episcopal Church at 7070 Immokalee Road in Naples. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:36 p.m. The NIM meeting minutes are included in Attachment 2 – Application and Support Material. The applicant’s team consisted of Wayne Arnold, Dan Waters, Bruce Layman, Richard Yovanovich, Norman Trebilcock, and Sharon Umpenhour. Mr. Arnold opened the NIM by explaining the intent of the project. An attendee mentioned that he thought the maximum building height of the current ordinance should not be allowed. A question was asked if the buildings would have elevators, to which Mr. Arnold responded he believed they would if the buildings exceeded three stories. An unidentified male, who lived in Esplanade, asked if the extra traffic anticipated by this request was taken into consideration. When asked if a traffic light would be installed, Mr. Arnold answered that he did not think there would be a light at the entrance to the proposed MPUD. He re-iterated this later in the NIM, and a longer discussion ensued about the anticipated traffic movements. Earlier at the NIM, however, Mr. Trebilcock responded to transportation related question by explaining how the proposed changes to the MPUD would reduce traffic intensity by about 30% of what is currently approved. Mr. Arnold and an attendee discussed preserve requirements and the removal of exotic species. The attendee later commented as follows: PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 18 of 21 May 9, 2017 Because we live on the street facing - this is our view and we look across the golf course and we see these beautiful trees that are right here. And so we're worried that these trees are going to get cut down and that's why I asked about exotic vegetation. More long discussion about landscaping ensued with the following statements: Mr. Arnold: Uh-huh. Unidentified Male Voice: And as far as the height, 40 and 50 feet, those trees are pretty tall. So we're hoping that if the trees remain, even if you do build that high, we still will have our view. We don't wish any harm on your development. We're not trying to get against it, but, you know, we have a nice. Mr. Arnold: Sure Unidentified Male Voice: We were told that was a preserve. So can you address that question? Where is this buffer? You showed it on this other map, but where would it be on this? A lot of us -- a lot of us through here live right on this side of the street. Mr. Arnold: It's roughly along part of our northern boundary and on our western boundary. Unidentified Male Voice: That doesn't do us a bit of good. Unidentified Male Voice: Right here. Right here. Unidentified Male Voice: So you're going to cut down all these trees over here? Mr. Arnold: Yes, sir. It would be for the commercial tract in the front. Unidentified Male Voice: So it – Mr. Arnold: That was always the intent (indiscernible). Unidentified Male Voice: We're going to look at golden arches and Wendy's? Mr. Arnold: Well, under the existing PUD that's there today, that was always the intent, that the whole site was not going to be preserved. Unidentified Male Voice: Is there any way that you can avoid that? Mr. Arnold: I would like to say (indiscernible). Unidentified Male Voice: The answer is probably no. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 19 of 21 May 9, 2017 Mr. Arnold: Right. Unidentified Male Voice: So you're going to cut down all these trees. And then what -- there's no requirement for a buffer here? Mr. Arnold: There are buffering requirements for the county. Unidentified Male Voice: So you're going to plant new trees? Mr. Arnold: Yeah, the county requires the minimum buffering standards between all projects. So the vegetation would have to be replanted to at least meet that minimum criteria for buffering. Unidentified Male Voice: And what's -- is there any height – Mr. Arnold: Well, the county has heights. It's certainly not – Unidentified Male Voice: It's not 65 feet. Mr. Arnold: It's not 65 feet. Unidentified Male Voice: So probably 12, 14-foot trees (indiscernible)? Is there any way -- and maybe I'm addressing this to the gentleman from Collier County, if you're going to plant new trees, why go to the expense of cutting down these beautiful tall trees that are giving us some privacy and then having to go to the expense to plant a shorter tree? Can something be worked out? I don't see any disadvantage to the developer. Mr. Arnold: Well, one of the difference, and Dan is probably the guy that can address it in much more detail, but the challenge that we have for a lot of sites is that a lot of fill has to be brought in and the existing vegetation can't be retained where you have to place so much fill material on the site. Do you live in Esplanade? Unidentified Male Voice: Yeah. Mr. Arnold: That was probably one of the hardest fought environmental battles that occurred in Collier County since I've been here, and I know Rich and I both had some involvement in that over the years, but, you know, you have to keep in mind that all of your property that's now developed looked just like that. Unidentified Male Voice: So what I'm hearing is within six months all those trees are going to be gone. Mr. Arnold: A lot of the portion of -- you know, the southerly portion, that's certainly the intent, yeah. Ma'am, you've been very patient. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie’s Corner MPUD Page 20 of 21 May 9, 2017 When asked if the project was going to federal low-income housing, Mr. Yovanovich responded that it would not be federal low-incoming housing and that it would be market-rate housing. Mr. Arnold discussed off-street parking and how they are requesting a deviation. With respect to building height, an attendee commented that a 65-foot structure would be met with “significant resistance from everybody living in the area.” Mr. Arnold answered more questions about the preserves on the subject property, and stated that there would be a minimum PUD setback of 15 feet for the residential tract and 25 feet on the western periphery of the commercial tract. When discussing building heights and fill for the property, Mr. Arnold inform ed the crowd that the 65- foot building height would be measured from the center line height of the nearest arterial road, which is Immokalee Road. He also stated the County requires a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along Immokalee Road and a ten-foot wide buffer along Esplanade PUD. When Mr. Arnold informed the crowd that a hotel is still allowed, an attendee commented “That would be a totally inappropriate use of that site.” Toward the end of the NIM, Mr. Arnold clarified that it would unlikely that a six-story building would be proposed where the MPUD is restricted to a maximum zoned height of 45 feet. He ended the NIM by clarifying that an assisted living facility is considered the same as group housing. The NIM ended at approximately 6:38 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on May 3, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval, contingent upon the following: 1. Staff recommends approval of Deviation #6, but only to the extent that it is applicable to Tract C and if developed with multi-family dwellings, designed as an apartment complex whereby the individual units are not owner-occupied. The type of land use will be determined at the time of SDP. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) FLUE Consistency Memorandum 4) Density Map 5) Legal Notifications 6) Emails_Letters from Public ORDINANCE NO. 2017 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2011-08, THE ADDIE'S CORNER MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW 349 MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS OR GROUP HOUSING/RETIRMENT COMMUNITY USES IN TRACT C AS SHOWN ON THE MASTER PLAN AND 75,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GROUP HOUSING/RETIREMENT COMMUNITY USES IN TRACT A AS SHOWN ON THE MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN; BY PROVIDING FOR REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 23.33+/- ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20150001776) WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 2011-08 which established the Addie's Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD); and WHEREAS, Creekside West, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: [16 -CPS -01565/1337595/1] 125 Addies Corner /PL20150001776 5/8/17 Page I of 2 SECTION ONE: The PUD document for Addie's Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development is hereby amended in accordance with the revised Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: Developer Commitments [16 -CPS -01565/1337595/11 125 Addies Corner /PL20150001776 5/8/17 Page 2 of 2 2017. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman EXHIBIT "A" LIST OF PERMITTED USES ADDIES CORNER MPUD Regulations for develooment of the Addies Corner MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this MPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any site development plan or plat. Where this MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. 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: I. Tract A - Permitted Commercial Principal Uses: A. Commercial Professional Retail & General Office Permitted Use (Sic In Parenthesis) 1. Accident & Health Insurance Services (6321) 2. Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping Services (8721) 3. Adjustment services (7322) 4. Advertising (consultants) agencies (7311) 5. Advertising, not elsewhere classified (7319) 6. Agricultural uses (N/A) 7. Architectural services (8712) 8. Auto & Home Supply Stores (5531) 9. Bakeries, Retail (5461) 10. Banks, commercial: national (6021) 11. Banks, commercial: not chartered (6029) 12. Banks, commercial: state (6022) 13. Banks, savings: Federal (6035) 14. Banks, savings: not federally chartered (6036) 15. Barber Shops (7241) 16. Beauty Shops (7231) 17. Book Stores (5942) 18. Business Associations (8611) 19. Business Consulting Services, not elsewhere classified (8748) 20. Camera & Photographic Supply Stores (5946) 21. Candy, Nut & Confectionery Stores (5441) 22. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning (7217) 23. Civic, Social and Fraternal Associations (8641) 24. Clothing & Accessory Stores, Men's & Boy's (5611) 25. Clothing Stores, Women's (5621) 26. Collection Services (7322) 27. Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers (6221) 28. Commercial Art & Graphic Design (7336) 29. Commercial Photography (7335) 30. Commercial Economic, Sociological & Educational Research (8732) 31. Computer & Computer Software Stores (5734) Words underlined are additions; wordso-ue�gh are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page 1 of 16 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. Computer Facilities Management Services (7376) Computer Maintenance and Repair (7378) Computer Processing & Data Preparation Services (7374) Computer Programming services (7371) Computer Rental & Leasing (7377) Credit Reporting Services (1323) Credit Unions, Federal (6061) Credit Unions, State: not federally chartered (6062) Dairy Products Stores (5451) Data Processing Consultants (7379) Dance Studios, Schools & Halls (7911) Data Processing Services (7374) Dental Laboratories (8072) Dentist Office/Clinic (8021) Direct mail advertising service (7331) Direct Selling Establishments (5963) Doctors - Medicine Offices & Clinics (8011) Doctors - Osteopathy Offices & Clinics (8031) Doctors - Chiropractors Offices & Clinics (8041) Drapery, Curtain & Upholstery Stores (5714) Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages); Bottle Clubs and Cabarets are (5813) not permitted Drug Stores (5912) Eating Places (5812) Engineering services: industrial, civil, electrical, mechanical, marine (8711) and design Executive Offices (9111) Executive & Legislative Offices Combined (9131) Fire, Marine & Casualty Insurance Services (6331) Floor Covering Stores (5713) Florists (5992) Food Stores, Miscellaneous (5499) Foreign Branches & Agencies of Banks (6081) Foreign Trade & International Banking Institutions (6082) Furniture Stores (5712) Funeral home or parlor (7261) Gasoline Service Stations (5541) General Government, not elsewhere classified (9199) Gift, Novelty & Souvenir Shops (5947) Grocery Stores (5411) Hair weaving or Replacement Services (7299) Hardware Store (5251) Health practitioners - not elsewhere classified (8049) Hobby, Toy & Games Shops (5945) Home health care services (8082) Hotels & Motels (7011) Household Appliance Stores (5722) Hospital & Medical Healthy Services (6324) Information Retrieval Services (7375) Insurance Carriers, not elsewhere classified (6399) Investment Advice (6282) Words underlined are additions; words stare/ A eugh are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page 2 of 16 81. Jewelry Stores (5944) 82. Land Subdividers & Developers (6552) 83. Landscape architects, consulting & planning (0781) 84. Laundries (Coin Operated) & Dry-cleaning (7215) 85. Legal services (8111) 86. Libraries (except regional libraries) (8231) 87. Life Insurance Services (6311) 88. Liquor Stores (5921) 89. Loan brokers (6163) 90. Luggage & Leather Goods Stores (5948) 91. Management Services (8741) 92. Management Consulting Services (8742) 93. Markets, Meat & Fish (Seafood) Markets (5421) 94. Markets, Fruit & Vegetable Markets (5431) 95. Medical Equipment Rental & Leasing (7352) 96. Medical Laboratories (8071) 97. Membership Organizations, not elsewhere classified (8699) 98. Miscellaneous amusement and recreational services not elsewhere (7999) classified. Only judo instruction, karate instruction, moped rental, motorcycle rental, rental of bicycles, scuba and skin diving instruction are permitted 99. Miscellaneous Business Credit Institutions (6159) 100. Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores (5399) 101. Miscellaneous Home Furnishings Stores (5719) 102. Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified excluding (7299) massage parlors, steam baths, tattoo parlors and Turkish baths. 103. Miscellaneous Retail Stores, not elsewhere classified (5999) 104. Mortgage Bankers & Loan Correspondents (6162) 105. Musical Instrument Stores (5736) 106. News Dealers & Newsstands (5994) 107. Nondeposit Trust Facilities (6091) 108. Optical Goods Stores (5995) 109. Optometrists - offices & clinics (8042) 110. Paint, Glass & Wallpaper Stores (5231) 111. Pension, Health and Welfare Funds Services (6371) 112. Personal Credit Institutions (6141) 113. Photocopying & Duplicating Services (7334) 114. Photographic Studios, Portrait (7221) 115. Photofinishing Laboratories (7384) 116. Physical Fitness Facilities (permitted only when physically (7991) integrated and operated in conjunction with another permitted use in this district - no stand alone facility permitted) 117. Podiatrists - offices & clinics (8043) 118. Political Organizations (8651) 119. Professional Membership Organizations (8621) 120. Professional Sports Clubs & Promoters (7941) 121. Public Relations Services (8743) 122. Radio, Television & Consumer Electronics Stores (5731) 123. Radio, Television & Publishers Advertising Representatives (7313) 124. Real Estate Agents and Managers (6531) Words underlined are additions; words so-uek Apougk are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page 3 of 16 125. Record & Prerecorded Tape Stores;adult video rental orsales (5735) prohibited 126. Religious Organizations (8661) 127. Repair Shops & Related Services, not elsewhere classified (7699) 128. Retail Nurseries, Lawn & Garden Supply Stores (5261) 129. Secretarial and Court Reporting Services (7338) 130. Security Brokers, Dealers & Flotation Companies (6211) 131. Security and Commodity Exchanges (6231) 132. (fL289y&94-) Exchange of Securities or Commodities, not elsewhere classified 133. (6E494-ZN) 134. Shoe Repair Shops and Shoeshine Parlors (7251) 135. Short -Term Business Credit Institutions, except agricultural (6153) 136. Social Services, Individual & Family (activity centers, elderly or (8322) handicapped only; day care centers for adult & handicapped only) 137. Sporting Goods Stores & Bicycle Shops (5941) 138. Stationery Stores (5943) 139. Stores' Children's and Infants Wear (5641) 140. Stores' Family Clothing (5651) 141. Stores, Miscellaneous Apparel 6\Accessory (5699) 142. Stores, Shoes (5661) 143. Stores, Women's Accessory & Specialty (5632) 144. Surety Insurance Services (6351) 145. Surveying Services (8713) 146. Tanning Salons (7299) 147. Tax Return Preparation Services (7291) 148. Title Abstract Offices (6541) 149. Title Insurance Services (6361) 150. Tobacco Stores &Stands (5993) 151. Travel Agencies (no other transportation services) (4724) 152. Used Merchandise Stores (5932) 153. Veterinary services for animal specialties (0742) 154. Video Tape Renta[ adult video rental or sales prohibited (7841) 155. Watch, Clock &Jewelry Repair (7631) U. Tract Ao['Tract _[`' Permitted Group Housing/Retirement Community/Principal Uses:_(g��ylhousing shall only be permitted on Tract C if no residential dwelLlnp_unitsare constructed on Tract C_.j A. Group Housing, 8051 Skilled Nursing, Intermediate Care Facilities 8052, Nursing and Personal Care not else classified 8059. B. Independent Living Units C. Assisted Living Units Ci Retirement Community Ill. Tract C - Permitted Residential Princioal Uses: [If onIv residential dwelling units are constructed in Tract Cl Words underlined are additions; words stpuek thp-mtghare deletions Au0ievCorner Mv/V) Revised 0510812017 Page *of 16 A. Dwellinp, Units - Multi -family and Townhouse pri cipal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. 141V. T-Faa A Permitted Accessory Uses: Accessory Uses to Group Housing/Retirement Community Principal Uses in Tract A and C and Commercial Principal Uses in Tract A: Ac-eeSSGFY uses C-WStOfflffil�'asseeiated with the PeFFA.4ed ffiff-ipal uses, OHONdift, bUt H8t lim*ted A. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses within this MPUD document. B. Water management facilities to serve the project such as lakes. C. Clubhouses, Communitv administrative facilities intended to serve residents and their guests. D. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. rG E. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature with the foregoing by the BeaFd ef ZeRing Appeals, pursuant te the PFGeess eutlined in - t -D& uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this MPUD as determined by the BZA or the Hearing Examiner. Tract C --Accessory Uses to Residential Only Principal Uses: A. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this MPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas and screen enclosures. B. Water management facilities to serve the proiect such as lakes. C. Clubhouses, Communitv administrative facilities intended to serve residents and their guests, including leasing and construction offices. D. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails gazebos and picnic areas, E. Anv other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in�nature�\Adth the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this MPUD as determined by the BZA or the Hearing Examiner. W. Tract B - Permitted Principal and Accessory Preserve Area Uses: Words underlined are additions; words stpuek thi-ough are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page 5 of 16 No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for the preserve area depicted on the MPUD Master Plan, that 65 FequiFed `e be Aef 4 85 ^^fes, other than those uses allowed by Section 3.05.07 H.1.h. of the LDC, or any successor provision. VI. Group Housing/Retirement Community Commitments: The developer of the group housing/retirement community, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and be subject to the following operational standards for the units in the retirement community, including but not limited to, independent living units, assisted living units or skilled nursing units: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed so that a resident can age in place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars. Words underlined are additions; words smuek thr�k are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page 6 of 16 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADDIES CORNER MPUD The tables below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Addies Corner MPUD. 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. I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT A, COMMERCIAL ^'� T,� A AND GROUP HOUSING AND TRACT C, GROUP HOUSING/RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (if no residential dwelling units constructed in Tract C only). * No structure maybe located closer than 20 feet to the top of bank of a lake (allowing for the required minimum 20 foot wide lake maintenance easement). ** Per principal structure, kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures shall be permitted to have a minimum floor area of twenty five (25) square feet and shall be subject to the accessory structure standards set forth in the LDC. .ra.l. ***� The maximum height and setbacks shall be the same as those for office buildings. Words underlined are additions; words smuek tkreargh are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 05/08/2017 Page 7 of 16 PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) ***** From Immokalee Road Canal ROW 25 ft. SPS From Eastern Project Boundary 25 ft. 15 ft From Western Project Boundary 25 ft. 15 ft. From Northern Project Boundary - ^—�—R 200 ft. Minimum X200 ft. Minimum MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)***** Internal Drives/ROW 15 ft. 10 ft Rear 10 ft. 10 ft. Side 10 ft. 10 ft. Lakes 25 ft. 20 ft.* Preserve 25 ft. 10 ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 1/2 the sum of building heights** 10 Ft. MAXIMUM HEIGHT ZONED ACTUAL Retail Buildings 45 ft. 65 ft. 35 ft. Office Buildings 55 ft. 65 ft. 35 ft. Group Housing/ Retirement Community 45 ft. 65 ft. 35 ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREAS&round floor) 1,000 sq. ft. ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS COMMERCIAL AREA X375,000 sq. ft.'"""" N/A GROUP CARE FACILITIES INTENSITY Maximum 0.60 F.A.R. up to 26 units per acre* * *7 &-* * * * N/A HOTEL & MOTEL INTENSITY Maximum 26 units per acre ***; & **** & "'"`*"`* (F.A.R. Not Applicable) N/A * No structure maybe located closer than 20 feet to the top of bank of a lake (allowing for the required minimum 20 foot wide lake maintenance easement). ** Per principal structure, kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures shall be permitted to have a minimum floor area of twenty five (25) square feet and shall be subject to the accessory structure standards set forth in the LDC. .ra.l. ***� The maximum height and setbacks shall be the same as those for office buildings. Words underlined are additions; words smuek tkreargh are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 05/08/2017 Page 7 of 16 The preserve area shall not be used in calculating the F.A.R. for G.-C-.R-.&g-r-o-uS--H-o-u-s-it-IZLR-et-ir-e-m--e-n-t-C-O--m-m--Lj-n"-tY use or the density for Hotel/Motel. Landscape buffer easements shall be separate tracts on the subdivision plat -OrSDP. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE (PER -,UNIT) MULTI-FAMIILY Minimum Lot Area 1,440 SIF 43,560 SF Minimum Lot Width 18 feet NLA Minimum Lot Depth 80 feet N Minimum Front Yard Setback*2 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback*1 5 0 10 feet 0110 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback*5 15 feet 15 feet Maximum aqLlding Height Zoned Actual 45 feet 50 feet 55 feet 65 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 20 feet 20 feet Floor Area Min. fS. F.), oer unit 750 SF 700 SF Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Front Yard Setback*2 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback*5 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback*5 10 feet 10 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 0/10 feet QLQ_feet Maximum Height Zoned Actual, 20 feet 25 feet 35 feet 40 feet AMEN!TYAREA PRINCIPAL,STRUCTURES*3 Minimum Lot Area*4 21,780 SF Minimum Lot Width*4 140 feet Minimum Lot Depth*4 140 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback*2 20 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 20 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 25 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 20 feet Maximum Height Zoned Actual 35 feet 40 feet *1 -Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling ed, shall be 20'. Words underlined are additions; words stpuek tho-ough are deletions A ddies Corner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page 8 of 16 *2 —Front yards shall be measured from back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed) for private streets or drives, and from ROW line for anypublic roadway. *3 -Accessory structures within the Amenity Area shall utilize the development standards for accessory structures in Tract C, Residential Only District. *4 — Minimum lot dimensional standards are ons applicable if amenity area is platted as a separate tract. *5 — Landscape buffer easements shall be separate tracts on subdivision plats or separate tracts on SDP. Note: nothing in this MPUD Document shall be deemed to aDDrove a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. 4111. DEVELOPMENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST In the event amendments are made to the Tree Farm MPUD to the east of this MPUD to allow for a unified development plan of both properties, a zero setback shall be allowed along the common property line of this MPUD. i+IIV. ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING EAST PROPERTY LINE A minimum 6 -foot height hedge, minimum 3 -foot in spread, planted a maximum 4 -feet on center, 100% opaque at planting shall be installed along the east property line, in lieu of a wall, along with other requirements of a Type B Landscape buffer. WV. A stipulation has been added that outside amplified music is prohibited. Words underlined are additions; wordssow4 Aiwug54 are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page 9 of 16 TREE TREE FARM (MPLID) (VACANT) NNRE SHARED ACCESS tTPE W O.R. BOOK 3643, Pg, 3261 UD VA ) U tWE'K BtsAm 70 THE EAST -OMAwON NP. 1 -- UAL BOOK 3643,I a ... « �!-I=— Pg. - Imw Pg. 3261 RE6WD3 PRW054D PARRAV LAKE wIRPER � I /1j1 a O ( 2YIYPE b' II II I I •. .. �J to'rmca mRs� aumn ?N� r._.—._ l < n ; ,, P0.0PDSD,D_,2' i PRE E V TRACT 1 A PA AT ME'A' II O L._._.—. _ 1DTTPE V mffrER ii O I C MIRASOL (PUD) - « .. « • « ,n rnvE D.R. BOOK 2867._-_ Pg. 2319 �' r t6 ME eurxen 1V TKE-A' MIRASOL (PUD) (VACAN FUTURE SHARED ACCESS O.R. BOOK 2887, Pg, 2322 TO THE NEST F]DSIINO PAA AARAEOE I PROJECT ! TRa u pAIDJ I SITE I FARM II {I nP�00E�RT[s 'fv,J(I ff A� TDm ! wAn°�° omic 1 _L„II S1TF SI IMMARY III i1' -<®R I � I I O?Id' 1' I I o f I!I III I; U I I I AI u' I I I Ill NI I II< 0 AI W I .W! 'll �il} AI Q Mi PM* ui Y 4 I i I I ii 1 1 e i till EI tll � ! I II Ti 1 PRYPDAtD RbIT TURK LUTE I AI I I I 143 i I M� Emsulc smEwAuc 4 Ai nRov6sln A'I i ill! AP' I I ACREAGE OPEN 7. OF TOTAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT12371 135,000 S.F. OF OFFICE AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 4,573 53.02 R,GNT OF WAY EASEMENT• PRESERVE AREA (TRACT8,85± Lett 1.311 8.1151 6.90 37.94 LANE O.Sok 0.501 2.14 W 23.33t 15,23± 100.00 III i1' -<®R I � I I O?Id' 1' I I o f I!I III I; U I I I AI u' I I I Ill NI I II< 0 AI W I .W! 'll �il} AI Q Mi PM* ui Y 4 I i I I ii 1 1 e i till EI tll � ! I II Ti 1 PRYPDAtD RbIT TURK LUTE I AI I I I 143 i I M� Emsulc smEwAuc 4 Ai nRov6sln A'I i ill! AP' I I -RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT SUBJECT TO FINAL DESIGN PLANS (LEGEND: MAAMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY: PRESERVE II"".... .. 135,000 S.F. OF OFFICE AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ALONG NiTH OTHER PERMITTED USES, Addies Corner CPUD TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 309- 7.8 Ac. y'! M I TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 6S7 1 = 15.21 Aa III i1' -<®R I � I I O?Id' 1' I I o f I!I III I; U I I I AI u' I I I Ill NI I II< 0 AI W I .W! 'll �il} AI Q Mi PM* ui Y 4 I i I I ii 1 1 e i till EI tll � ! I II Ti 1 PRYPDAtD RbIT TURK LUTE I AI I I I 143 i I M� Emsulc smEwAuc 4 Ai nRov6sln A'I i ill! AP' I I 1 Y ' `P0.0POSm TETT RIW! lAl£ ! I I I NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION: Addies Corner CPUD I I y'! M I PUDZ-2009-AR-14425 II .85 Aa OR 37.937 PROVIDED. Submitted: 7/9/10 I ! W i Iij ! I I I NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION: 4 22.85 Aa OF NATIVE HABITAT x .15 = 3.4± Ac. REO'D. I I p .85 Aa OR 37.937 PROVIDED. III II W I A AI 1 III t ! I 9 i PARED FOR „�E �W.y REND .7/69/20,0 ADDIE'S CORNER LARRY MPOSINI aplee, FL, 34110 REMSED 04/12/2010 ri tzas)2642DDD REVISED OS/16/2010 EXHIBIT 'C' — CPU. MASTER PLAN HAPPY #4 FAMILY RPORA'fION RTAND0.b1 £RUE FlmIJ0CW6mle Rf REVISED 11/03/2009 PRi6DURON, PA 1 AuOmilARlbn Na17A2 REVISED 10/30/2008 f4b1E; Nt216tl60399 GROSS SITE AREA 23.33± ACRES PUBLIC ROW/CANAL 1.50± ACRES NET SITE AREA 21.83± ACRE RESIDENTIAL OR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY/GROUP HOUSING (TRACT C) - 9.82± ACRES (45%) COMMERCIAL (TRACT A) - 4.32± ACRES (20%) AMENITY AREA (PART OF TRACT C) - 0.59± ACRES (3%) PRESERVE (TRACT B) - 3.45± ACRES (16%) WATER MANAGEMENT - 0.95± ACRES (4%) BUFFERS/OPEN SPACE - 2.70± ACRES (12%) TRACT A COMMERCIAL MAXIMUM 75,000 S.F. GROUP HOUSING 0.6 FAR HOTEL 26 U/ACRE TRACT B - PRESERVE REQUIRED: 3.45± ACRES (13.81 ±ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X 25%) PROVIDED: 3.45± ACRES TRACT C RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM 349 D.U. (16 DU/AC) - IF ALL RESIDENTIAL GROUP HOUSING 0.6 FAR - IF NO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN TRACT C OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30% PROVIDED: 30% 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE, ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. 3. 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. L LEND INGRESS/EGRESS ® DEVIATIONS ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD PRESERVE ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD RESIDENTIAL 15'x133' WIDE TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 30'x110' WIDE TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25'x164' WIDE TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL SHARED 20'x232' WIDE TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 100' WIDE COLLIER COUNTY COCOHATCHEE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY 15' WIDE TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER _ . . .. . . .. . . . . . . WATER I ' I MANAGEMENT I�15' WIDE TYPE "B AREA I _ LANDSCAPE BUFFER TREE FARM MPUD 1I I` UNDEVELOPED I I TRACT C ❑3 DDD I' RESIDENTIAL, OR GROUP HOUSING I (SEE EXHIBIT A, ITEM II OF THE PUD ORDINANCE) I' Zw BUFFER PER LDC I' i QQ I' FUTURE SHARED ACCESS — _ — 15' WIDE TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER ESIDE GN ITRACT A I COMMERCIAL AND GROUP HOUSING�I 20' TYPE "D"� LANDSCAPE BUFFER EDGE OF WATER +N a® . SCALE: I"= 200' �IMMOKALEE ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 846) 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY m --\ Q o 1 M� <LM n.t;a,1"maM"am." GradyMinor IslE S® 0"nno SpFlngg. norma 3x134 n Civil Engineers " Land Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architects ."a,6nmo. c6 aaps1.;1 roa.wwm. 66 nmsirl n,,.,or;,. Lr. ze .. n"nlu Splill l: 23'9.' 94].1144 F.n Myer": 239.690.4380 ADDIE'S CORNER MPUD EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN VEM 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION ADDIES CORNER MPUD The North one-half (1/2) of the West one-half (1/2) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; and The South one-half (1/2) of the West one-half (1/2) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; excepting the south 100 feet thereof; and The East one-half (1/2) of the East one-half (1/2) of the East one-half (1/2) of the Southwest one- quarter (1/4) of the Southeast one-quarter (1 /4) of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, excepting the south 100' thereof. Words underlined are additions; words gh are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 05/08/2017 Page 11 of 16 EXHIBIT "E" LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC 1. Deviation #1seeks relief from LDC Section SlB.02.H.1.a,commercial and industrial districts, which require iflocated onacontiguous residentially zoned property, the wall and/or fence shall be a minimum of six (6) feet and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and shall be located a minimum of six (G) feet from the residentially zoned district, to not require a vva// within a Type 8 buffer along the east property line of this MPUD adjacent to the Tree Farm MPUDtothe east. (See Exhibit[, K4PUD Master Plan.) As mitigation for the wall, a 6 -foot height hedge shall be required in addition to the requirements of Type B Landscape buffer. (Also, see Exhibit B ' Development Standards pertaining to Landscaping). 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 to allow the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) to be increased from 0.45 to 0.60 for a Group Housing/Retirement Community. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G - Parking Spaces Recluired for Multi - Family Dwellings, which reauires one parking space per residential unit plus 0.75 guest spaces for one -bedroom residential units and I guest space for two bedroom and larger units. In the event that Tract C is developed as leased multi -family units, this deviation proposes to establish the required number of parking spaces for leased multifamily residential units at 1.65 spaces per one bedroom unit and 1.8 spaces for two bedroom and larger units (inclusive of resident and guest parking spacesl 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.04.G - Dumpsters and Recycling, which reguires that multi -family rental units provide clumosters or a compactor to allow for rental units to have the option for building staff to transport bulk containers from stgEgZg_ areas internal to the buildi-iRs to desiRnated areas for pick in by the solid waste and EgLycling 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06,01.N — Street Svstem Reguirements and Appendix B, Tvoical Street Sections and Right -of -Way Design Standards. The LDC establishes a minimum 60 -foot right of way width for local streets. This deviation proposes to reduce the reguired right-of-way width for local streets to 50 feet. See Typical 50' ROW Cross Section 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G — Parking, Spaces Required for Multifamilv Dwellings allows for a reduction of the number of required parking spaces for small-scale recreational facilities within multi-familv clevelooments based upon the proximit of the units to the small scale recreational facility. The LDC allows for the required parking at the recreational facilities to be calculated at 25% of normal requirements in cases where the maiority of the multifamily units are located within 300 feet of the recreational facilities. This deviation Proposes to increase the spgcified distance for the reduction of parking requirements for small-scale recreational facilities from 300 to 500 feet. Words underlined are additions; words mowk Ar -6 ugh are deletions AubicsCorner J/PUD Revised 0510812017 Page ovrm ADDIE'S CORNER PROPOSED 10' P.U.E. 50' RIGHT OF WAY ~— MULTI -FAMILY 2 CONCRETE 4 2' 12' TRAVEL LANE 12' TRAVEL LANE 2' 4' CONCRETE 2 SIDEWALK ASPHALT CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) / / \/O ' LIMEROCK /\\\/0/�\%/�\\/\\ ELEVVAR ESI STING GROUND //\\//\ STABILIZED /\\//\\//� BASE SUBGRADE FUTURE 1COMMERCIAL 0' P.U.E. DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) LEGEND ADDIS'S CORNER MPUD © GradyMinor CrPJ nJ�llIv PA pn��pEo - ;3RIlU Via Ucl Rn} Ro�inu dpriu�. FlprtJd 34f34 n E as 4 DEVIATION #S �N=n Civil Engineers A Land Surveyors Planners Landscape Architects c n n C F➢E NAND c CIN of 1ufh. EBIIINI,-i151 (:erl-M loth-I.R UINlilil ftuune:t f.f: 2fi R12H6 TYPICAL 50 ROW CROSS SECTION o[vS CNOSSSEcnOu Booth Springs: 239.947-114! a x.GrreOy 11mac ro? Fm4Nlycr,,: 239.6904330 SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT ADDIES CORNER MPUD TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS (Amended by Transportation Staff on 2/4/10) changes accepted on 3/26/10 and then CAO edits put in) 1. The Owner Chas dedicated in fee right-of-way for the purpose of relocating the Cocohatchee Canal as depicted on Tom* -the MPUD Master Plan, that includes compensatory right-of-way for the turn lane into the project. This area comprises ± 1.6-2-5 acres and , based en the ....OSt nt inferY,.,atie-h _ailabliQ to the Co4R -. The County will be responsible to relocate the canal, except only thole portions immediately adjacent to (approximately 100' each side of) the proposed bridge. Collier County Transportation will provide design direction to the developer as to the ultimate alignment of the relocated canal prior to the time of SDP approval. See O.R. Rook 5087, Page 93. 2. The Owner, his successor or assigns shall provide a roadway connection available to adjacent properties to facilitate interconnection to the pFapeFties pLg2erty to the east (the Tree Farm MPUD) and will reserve land for an optional roadway connection to the West (Mirasol PUD), at the time of submittal of the first development order application. 3. When Owner constructs the bridge providing connection to Immokalee Road it shall be constructed in a location consistent with the future location of the Cocohatchee Canal to accommodate the ultimate canal configuration. This will include relocation of the canal immediately adjacent to (approximately 100' each side of) the proposed bridge. 4. The Owner, his successor, or assigns agrees to construct at no cost to the County a 12' multi -use pathway along the North side of the future location of the Cocohatchee Canal, within property owned by Collier County, which shall connect to the pathway to the West. A 10' pathway may be substituted at this location if consistent with the County's Comprehensive Pathway Plan. This pathway shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The development within this project shall be limited to 4-,044662 unadjusted two-way PM peak hour trips (or -7G&447 adjusted two-way, PM peak hour trips; the updated tFa4ie-stUdy iRfffmatien dated NeyembeF,2009); allowing for flexibility in the proposed uses without creating unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway network. The terms "adjusted" and "unadjusted" shall reference allowances for pass -by and internal capture trip reductions. For purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation of this PUD, Words underlined are additions; words aMfte k Moi eugh are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 05/08/2017 Page 14 of 16 the lesser of the weekday PM peak hour trips as calculated in the Institute of Traffic Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip Generation, 84 -9th Edition or the trip generation as calculated in the then current ITE Trip Generation Report shall be utilized. 6. The Owner, his successor, or assigns affees to be-^ss^eensik ^has paid for 2% of the construction costs (not to exceed $50,000) to be considered the PUD's proportionate share of the improvements to the intersection of C.R. 951 and Immokalee Road. o.,,,.,. ent shall H., ,11.,, ,.Oithk, 99 daYS „f r,,,eipt of the GewRty's The term "improvements", in this paragraph, means the relocation of the canal, the at -grade improvement of turning movements and turn lanes, all other ancillary at -grade improvements (curbs, bike lanes, etc), construction of a relocated bridge over the Cocohatchee Canal, and signalization for all movements. The term does not refer to potential future, grade -separated intersection improvements. Check received 12/17/15. impacts« • parcel that was dedicated Collierto • part of development order submittalfor MPUD, the owner, its successors, or assipns will clear r. parcel of vegetation and place the sufficient fill required to impact the wetlands within the right-of-wav parcel upon approval of right of way permit. Collier County will reimburse the owner for the reasonable cost of mitigation, clearing, and filling of ♦ oarcel, upon• r i approval of certification of •sts after completion of the work. The cr o creditsCollier County will be responsible for reimbursement of within the 1.5± ��� of -way parcel include, but are not limited to: (1) costs for the purchase of mitigation • r • impacts to r parcel, costsof clearing and grubbing within the 1.5± acre right-of-wayparcel, gradecosts for the import and final grading of fill material required to elevate the ROW of • parcel to an elevationto remove area from SFWMD and ACOE wetland iuriscliction and (4) the costs of transferring the permits foro parcel to Collier County• r comoletion of • rn, Collier Countyapprove all constructigDplans pertaining to r parcel prior tocommencement of r owner shall be allowed to clear vegetation County owned portion - project an« maintain this property, ••approval of a right-of-wav permit, until such time as Collier County proceeds with the planned • -r improvements. II. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. If no residential units are constructed: Based on total site acreage of 23.34-33 acres and 22: 13.81 acres of native habitat area, -3-.42.07 acres (15% of habitat area) is required to be preserved pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code. The MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C, shall provide &.-952.07 acres (0.15 x 13.81) of preserve area. Words underlined are additions; words spuek Mmugh are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 05/08/2017 Page 15 of 16 2. if residential units are constructed: Based on total site acrealze of 23.33 acres and 13.81 acres of native habitat area, 3.45 acres (25% of habitat area) is re uired to be preserved pursuant to the LDC. The MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C, shall provide 3.45 acres (0.25 x 13.81) of preserve area. -23. ^^u---~ .--'---" '----------- '—' -- --- —-- '-- Habitat management plans shall beprovided for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, wood stork and any other protected species which inhabit orutilize the areas within the project. rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 2. All other applicable state or fecleral-permits must be --obtained-- before commencement of the development gff shared access depicted on the master plan exhibits. Words underlined are additions; words emuek thme �mrdeletion, Ao6YouCorner MPUD Revised 0510812017 Page /oo{m 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page - 1 - of 4 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 25, 2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review APPLICATION NUMBER: PUDA-20150001776 Review 5 APPLICATION NAME: Addie’s Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Amendment REQUEST: To amend Addie’s Corner MPUD, approved via Ordinance #11-08, to add a third tract, “Tract C,” to allow up to a maximum of 349 multi-family residential dwelling units (DU’s) and reduce the maximum allowable square feet of commercial and general office development in Tract A from 135,000 to 75,000 square feet. This petition requests 4 additional deviations be added to “List of Requested Deviations from the LDC.” The proposed deviations address parking spaces for multi-family dwelling units, dumpsters and recycling, Right-Of-Way width for local streets, and parking spaces for recreational facilities within multi-family developments. The amended Development Commitments adds owner (or assigns) responsibility for the permitting impacts to wetlands and costs of grading, clearing, and grubbing within the ±1.5-acre Right-Of-Way dedicated to Collier County. The proposed PUD amendment also removes the language referencing the minimum number of preserve area acres required in “V Tract B: Permitted Preserve Area Uses.” The updated Exhibit ‘C’ Master Plan shows a reduction of preserve acres from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed amendment would allow the following uses: Tract A: • Maximum of 75,000 square feet of commercial and general office (Tract A only); • Group housing/retirement community for age 55 and above, at a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.60 • Hotel/motel at a maximum intensity of 26 units per acre. • Note: Preserve area shall not be used in calculating F.A.R. for Group Housing/Retirement Community use or the density for Hotel/Motel 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 4 Tract B: • Preserve Tract C: • Residential - multi-family residential dwelling units (with a maximum of 349 DUs) IF ONLY residential dwelling units are constructed in Tract C OR Group housing/retirement community for age 55 and above, at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.60 – ONLY IF there are no residential dwelling units constructed in Tract C LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and the Cocohatchee Canal, approximately 600 feet west of Plateau Road (northern extension of Collier Blvd.), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property, containing approximately ±23.33 acres, inclusive of ±1.50 acres conveyed to Collier County for future Right-of-Way (ROW), is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict (#3), as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. According to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), “the Mixed-Use Activity Center (MUAC) concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. Mixed- Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. Further, they are generally intended to be developed at a human scale, to be pedestrian-oriented, and to be interconnected with abutting projects – whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged.” Mixed-Use Activity Centers are intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including commercial development such as the uses approved with this Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Eligible land uses within the Mixed-Use Activity Center include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, and hotel/motel uses at a density consistent with the Land Development Code. Addie’s Corner MPUD is entirely located within the Activity Center #3. The Future Land Use Element MUAC factors (for commercial use) were reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff at the time of the original PUD rezone submission in 2010. Since this PUD amendment petition is reducing the maximum square footage of commercial (75,000 sq. ft. instead of the previously approved 135,000 sq. ft.), Staff is of the opinion that this consistency review analysis does not need to re- consider the factors that were previously analyzed with the original Addie’s Corner PUD (Ordinance #2011- 08) petition. The MUAC also provides that: “Mixed-use developments ‒ whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building ‒ are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed-Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre.” The petition is requesting 349 multi-family dwelling units. The table below shows the calculations for FLUE density eligibility. The calculation is based on acreage that is exclusive of the +1.50 total acres of ROW that was conveyed to Collier County and no longer owned by petitioner (23.33 – 1.50 = 21.83 acres). 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 4 Table: FLUE Eligible Density without ROW Acreage FLUM Designation Acres +/- Total Eligible Density Units/Acre Eligible Total Dwelling Units Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict without ±1.50 acres of ROW conveyed 21.83 16 349.28 = 349 Select FLUE Policies are given below, followed with [bracketed staff analysis]. FLUE Policy 5.4 “New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).” [It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff, as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis. Note that the Mixed-Use Activity Centers are to be developed on a human-scale with a pedestrian-orientation.] FLUE 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.” FLUE Policy 7.1 “The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.” [Addie’s Corner Exhibit ‘C’ MPUD Master Plan indicates one (1) direct access connecting the subject property with Immokalee Road to the south, identified as a principal arterial roadway in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.] FLUE Policy 7.2 “The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.” [Addie’s Corner – Exhibit ‘C’ MPUD Master Plan shows two internal accesses – one from the residential/group housing (Tract ‘C’) and one from the commercial (Tract ‘A’) development. Both of these internal accesses connect to the development’s internal drive that will run from the southwestern boundary of the subject site and Immokalee Road and continue along the western/northern boundary of Tract ‘A’. These internal accesses will allow Addie’s Corner residents to travel to the MPUD’s commercial tract without having to utilize nearby collector and arterial roads.] FLUE 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. [Addie’s Corner MPUD Exhibit ‘C’ - Master Plan indicates a future shared access interconnection with Tree Farm Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), located to the 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 4 east, and a potential shared access interconnection to the west with Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD, formerly known as Mirasol PUD. These interconnections are described in ‘Development Commitments Specific to the Project’ - #2 in Exhibit ‘F’. As shown on the existing Exhibit ‘C’ Master Plan, the Tract ‘B’ Preserve and the Water Management Area on the northern portion of the site precludes interconnection to the north. Since the PUD to the north is the same as to the west of Addie’s Corner, and staff is recommending an interconnection to the west, staff is of the opinion that it is not necessary to include a second interconnection to the north to Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD.] FLUE Policy 7.4 “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.” [Common open spaces are shown on Addie’s Corner Exhibit ‘C’ - MPUD Master Plan with the Tract ‘B’ Preserve Area and the Amenity Area. Civic uses are allowed per Exhibit ‘A’, List of Permitted Uses, item no. 23. Exhibit F: ‘Development Commitments Specific to the Project’ #4 agrees to provide at no cost to the County a 12-foot multi-use pathway along the north side of the future location of the Cocohatchee Canal within property owned by Collier County, which shall connect to the pathway to the west. No sidewalk deviations were requested; therefore, the PUD is subject to LDC requirements for sidewalks.] CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL2015-1776 Addie's Corner MPUD R5.docx p 0 300 600 900150Feet Zoning: PUD Zoning: RPUD Zoning: MPUD Zoning: PUD Esplanade BLVDPlateau RDBellaire Bay DR Wea the red S ton e DR Quartz LNIn digo Lak es D R Toscana WAY Burnt Pine DRAmour CTSage AVE Cortona WAY P e b b le b ro o k e D R Bellano CT Savannah DR Gervais CIRCavano STKey Royal CIR Broken Back R D Breakwater DR Sweet Bay LNS p id e r L ily L N Skipping Stone LNSi l k O a k LNKey Royal LNLa ur e l L ak e s W AY Backwater CTWaterview PTCanoe PTSki ppers PTFly Caster PTV o l t e r r a C T Weathervane PTCrystal CT Big Acorn CIR Hollow Brook CIR Tu s ca ny Co ve DR Zoning: P UD Zoning: RPUD Zoning: P UD Zoning: A Zoning: A Zoning: A A GROSS DE NS ITY UNIT S PER AC RE (UP A) FO R A DDIE'S COR NER MPUD A ND SU RR O UN DIN G PR O PER TIES ³ SUB JE CT PROPE RT Y:ADDI E'S CORNER M PU D Density:1 per 5 a c. RichlandDensity:3.1 Tuscany CoveDensity:4.8 Cr ystal Lak eDensity:3.0 7 Esplanade Golf and Country Club of NaplesDensity:0.74 Tr ee FarmDensity:7 He ritage Ba yDensity:1.3 Bent Cree kPreserv eDensity:3.26 Published DailyNaples, FL 34110 Affi davit of PublicationState of FloridaCounties 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. Affi ant 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 offi ce in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next pre-ceding the fi rst publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affi ant 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 1579090 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA 45-176563 Pub Dates April 28, 2017 _______________________________________ (Signature of affi ant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This May 02, 2017 _______________________________________ (Signature of affi ant) _______________________________________ (Signature of affi ant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This May 02, 2017 _______________________________________ (Signature of affi ant) 10A Friday, April 28, 2017 Naples Daily News + NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M.,on May 18th,2017,in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room,third floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Ta miami Tr ail,Naples FL.,to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2011-08,THE ADDIE’S CORNER MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,TO ALLOW 349 MULTI- FA MILY DW ELLING UNITS OR GROUP HOUSING/RETIREMENT USES IN TRACT C AS SHOWN ON THE MASTER PLAN AND 75,000 SQUA RE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND GROUP HOUSING/RETIREMENT COMMUNITY USES IN TRACT A AS SHOWN ON THE MASTER PLAN;PROV IDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN;BY PROV IDING FOR REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS;AND BY PROV IDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 23.33+/-ACRES AND IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846)AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951),IN SECTION 22,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.(PL20150001776) 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,Fo urth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Ta miami Trail,Suite #401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Wr itten comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to May 18th,2017. 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 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. 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 Fa cilities Management Division,located at 3335 Ta miami 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. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN April 28,2017 ND-1579090LoganBLVDNI-75 ImmokaleeRD CollierBLVD. PROJECT LOCATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at 9:00 A.M.on May 18,2017,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Ta miami Trail,Naples FL.,to consider: A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 85-5,AS AMENDED,THE PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT,PROV IDING FOR SECTION ONE:EXTENSION OF BUILD OUT DATE AND EXPIRATION DATE;SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE:CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER,TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;AND PROV IDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND NAPLES BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.[PL20160002736] All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk’s Office,Fo urth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Ta miami Trail,Suite #401,Naples,FL,one we ek prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to May 18th,2017. 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 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. 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 Fa cilities Management Division,located at 3335 Ta miami 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. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN,CHAIRMAN April 28,2017 ND-1579610GOODLETTE-FRANKRDNTAMIAMITRLNPINE RIDGERD VA NDERBILTBEACH RD AIRPORTPULLINGRDNLOGANBLVDSLIVINGSTONRDI75. PROJECT LOCATION what happened.” Hagmann saw a Chrysler Sebring spin out during a heavy rainstorm and hit the guardrail. She stopped to render aid and let the driver, Lauren Richardson of Ontario, California, sit in her GMC Arcadia. Every- thing was fine until she went to retrieve a blanket from her trunk. A massage thera- pist, Hagmann carries blankets. As she was unfolding a blanket, she said she first heard and then felt the secondary crash. The FHP report said Hagmann was standing between her Arcadia and Richard- son’s car when a Mercedes hit the Sebring, which was still blocking part of I-75 near the Luckett Road exit. “I had looked, I remember my mom say- ing, ‘Don’t stand between cars at a crash,’ ” she said. “I thought ‘is this a joke’ and then excruciating pain and then no pain.” Her next memory was lying on the grass looking up at EMTs. “Don’t look at your legs,” she said the EMTs told her. And, Hagmann said, she heard the voice of her grandmother, who died last year, telling her to relax and be calm. She said she focused on the face of an EMT who was hovering over her, looking him in the eyes and giving him an order: “I have kids, and I’m going home. I’m not dy- ing tonight. I’m going home.” That determined promise was the last thing she remembers, she said, before she awoke in the hospital. The days since have been a kind of crazy hodgepodge of medical care, family and friends tending to her, thoughts of what happened and what’s to come. It hasn’t all been easy. Far from it. She was in good spirits while giving an interview to a television news crew Wednesday, but the ensuing night was not pleasant and her thoughts turned to her in- juries. With her spouse, Lindsey Johns, holding tight to her right hand, Hagmann recount- ed: “Last night,” she said she was thinking, “why me, why do I have to hurt like this?” Her children, two of her own and three others she has “adopted” from a bad situa- tion, only know she has had surgery and is in the hospital. She will share with them what happened when she, and they, are ready. Any talk of insurance claims, lawyers and the like will come later, Hagmann and Johns said. “There’s a lot of stuff we have to wait for,” Johns said. “We will get through this just fine.” Several stuffed animals lay at the end of her hospital bed, including “Bob,” also known as “Teddy from Hawaii,” a stuffed bear Johns got from a pal in the island state. Hagmann said there has been some talk of the recovery process, but it is still too early. That process may hamper a planned trip she and a friend were to take to England in July. “It’s just somewhere we wanted to go,” she said. But, despite still wanting to go on the current timetable, rehab is going to be the deciding factor even if she could possi- bly go. “I don’t want to be a burden,” she insist- ed. Meanwhile, disbelief is her reaction at the response to her plight, some of it from strangers. “It is unbelievable,” she said. “I still can’t believe the things people are saying and do- ing.” Comments calling her a hero and laud- ing her actions on Sunday morning are odd to her. “Who is this person they are talking about,” she said. “I didn’t do it for attention. Anyone should do it.” She marvels at the help, from an offer of free prosthetics from a Lee County ortho- pedics company to checks and cash from complete strangers. Two gofundme.com sites have collected more than $30,000, and the family opened a Wells Fargo account in her name. At her North Fort Myers home there have been ramps built in anticipation of her needs, Johns said. “I never once for a second thought any- thing like this would happen,” Hagmann said. “That an entire town or county would band together to help. This is emotional, but a good emotional.” Hagmann credited Johns, her spouse of two years, for helping through the first few days following the crash. “She is an incredible person,” she said, looking at Johns holding her hand. “You for- get there are people who support you. Even if you don’t see them, they are there. She is my strength when I am weak.” Johns boasted about Hagmann’s strength: “She’s gonna walk out of rehab, she’s not going to stop, she’ll be fine. Just be- cause of who she is.” Hagmann has known Johns since their North Fort Myers High School days. She smiled at the thought and said she sort of had a crush on her spouse even then. She added that Johns and a fellow North Fort Myers high student whom she consid- ers her best friend are among a tight group of former teen pals. “Facebook helps,” Hagmann said. Proof of that, she said, came from one fellow Red Knight who sent her flowers when he heard online about the crash and said he always looked up to her. Her father, Steven Berkowitz, said his daughter was intolerable of people being picked on in high school and was known for defending weaker students. “I just don’t like bullies,” she laughed. That attitude has been her guidepost and was what was at play when she stopped at the crash Sunday. “I just can’t see a need and walk away,” she said. Survivor Continued from Page 5A The former site director of one of Hen- dry County’s largest primate farms has filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit against the facility. In the suit, veterinarian Kelly Hopper of Fort Denaud alleges she was fired for re- porting wrongdoing at the Mannheimer Foundation’s rural Haman Ranch, between LaBelle and Clewiston. Hopper told Florida regulators the foundation claimed members of its medi- cal staff, including the executive director’s wife, were licensed veterinarians when they weren’t, and then used that misinfor- mation to get lucrative federal grants. Hopper complained about chronic time card violations as well, and also refused to fire a pregnant worker the company want- ed to force out to avoid paying family leave, she said. When the state sent Mannheimer a let- ter ordering it to stop misrepresenting em- ployees as state licensed vets with medical degrees from U.S. veterinary schools, it neglected to remove Hopper’s name. Hop- per was called into a meeting and berated, then fired a few days later. Joseph Wagner, Mannheimer’s execu- tive director, declined to comment on the suit when reached by phone, saying he hadn’t yet received it, “so I think that it’s probably best not to discuss the issues at hand at this time.” Granted tax-exempt status in 1969, the foundation was started by chemist Hans Mannhemier, who invented no-tear baby shampoo, as a way to care for his hundreds of pet chimpanzees and small monkeys. Since Mannheimer’s death in 1973, the trustees transformed the organization into a money-making operation that, among other things, breeds primates for biomedi- cal research, while maintaining its non- profit, tax-exempt status. It has two locations: a headquarters in Homestead and the 200-acre Haman Ranch, which housed 2,302 macaque mon- keys last September, the last month for which USDA inspection records are avail- able. In 2015, the last year for which its IRS returns are on file, it reported paying Wag- ner $218,000 annually and having assets of $39.6 million. In a 2015 letter to Hendry County fol- lowing a zoning complaint, Wagner wrote his facility does no research, testing or ex- periments on primates, nor does it import them. “We provide macaques for the devel- opment of new medical treatments aimed at improved human health,” he wrote. Yet Hopper said that two veterinarians working for Mannheimer, Krisha Rivas- Wagner – the wife of the CEO – and Vittorio Palmieri, who were both trained in Venezu- ela, were holding themselves out as clinical veterinarians and doctors of veterinary medicine. Rivas-Wagner and Palmieri could not be reached for comment. A foreign-trained veterinarian can be- come licensed in Florida but must meet li- cense requirements, which include testing. “It’s a lot of work, which is why some peo- ple don’t bother doing it,” Hopper said. In 2015-16, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation got 27 complaints about unlicensed veterinari- ans and issued 10 cease-and-desist notices. Hopper’s attorney, Benjamin Yormak of Bonita Springs, said reporting wrongdoing to state regulators is a “statutorily protect- ed activity” and that an employer can’t re- taliate against an employee for doing it. “It may be uncomfortable to keep someone employed, but the law protects the person. You can only imagine what would happen to complaints of wrongdoing if employers could fire you and there was nothing you could do about it.” Federal suit filed against Hendry monkey farm Haman Ranch AMY BENNETT WILLIAMS AND MELANIE PAYNE USA TODAY NETWORK - FLORIDA COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department April 28, 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 18, 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 Number 2011-08, the Addie’s Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow 349 multi-family dwelling units or Group Housing/Retirement uses in Tract C as shown on the Master Plan and 75,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development and Group Housing/Retirement Community uses in Tract A as shown on the Master Plan; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; by providing for revised development standards; and by providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 23.33+/- acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (PL20150001776) 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 STA FF 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. P lease 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 information 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, Flor ida 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 EricJohnson@colliergov.net Collier BLVDImmokalee RD IMMOKALEE ROAD BURNT PINE DRIVE HOLLOW BROOK CIR DRIVEPEBBLEBROOKEBROKEN BACK ROADCOLLIER BOULEVARDBELLAIRE BAY DRIVEESPLANA DE BOULEVARD ESPLANADE BOULEVARDAMOUR COURTCAVANO STREET CAVANO STREET ESPLANADE BOULEVARDAMOUR COURTTRACT R-2 TRACT R-1 TRACT R-1 2 1 TRACT R TRACT R3TRACT 8 TR C-2TRACT C-6PARCEL L-1 NOTTINGHAM AT PEBBLEBROOKELAKES CONDO PARCEL 2 TRACT 8TR C-5 TRACT 4TRACT 1 TRACT R-1TR FTRACTL-2 TRACT G TRACT 2 9 68 27 27.2 TRACT R1 TRACT L3TRACT L5 TRACT L4 TRACT L2TRACT O6TR O4TRACT O1TRACT O1TRACT O1TRACT O1 TRACT L1 TRACT GC1 TRACT S TRACT C TRACT R2 TRACT R2TRACT GC1 TRACT R2 TRACT GC1 TRACT R2TRACT R1X11X10 X70 X23 X26 À1 À1 À2 À69À79À81À78À80À75À76À77 À66 À63À74À71À67À64À72À65À70À73À68 À2 À1 À1 À1 À46À27À25À55À61À59À26À57À60À56À62À58 À45À28À24 À29 À44 À52À54 À47À51À49À53À50À48À23À30 À43 À11 À42À31 À3 À2À10À32À41À39À33À37À40À36À35À38À34 À1À9 À8 À1 À7 À6 À1 À5 À2 À4 À3 À1 À1À1À1À2À2À3À4 À1 À3 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1À2 À3À4À5À6À7 À8À9À10À11 À12 À24 À25 À26 À27 À28 À29 À30 À31 À35 À36 À37 À38 À39 À40 À41 À42 À43 À44 À45 À46 À47 À48 À49 À50 À51 À52 À53 À54 À55 À56 À57 À58 À59 À60 À61 À62 À63 À64À65À66 X27.3 DRI PUD RPUD PUD MPUD A MPUD TREEFARM ESPLANADE GOLFAND COUNTRYCLUB OF NAPLES HERITAGEBAY RICHLAND ADDIE'SCORNER Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2015-1776 PROJEC TLOCATION SITELOCATION ¹ Docu ment Path: M:\GIS_Requests\2016\06-June\0 6-17-2016 PL 201500017 76\workspace\site-location.mxd 1 JohnsonEric From:Jane Rollins <naplesjane1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 9:02 AM To:StrainMark; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; JohnsonEric Subject:Collier County Planning Commission Project # 20150001776. May 8, 2017 Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Collier County Planning Commissioners Diane Ebert, Stan Chrzanowski, Joseph Scmitt, Mark Strain Collier County Commissioners Burt Saunders, Donna Fiala, Penny Taylor, Bill McDaniel, Andy Solis, cc: Dave Lykins, Michael Brownlee, Angela Goodner, Sherry Greco, Sue Filson Re: Addie’s Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project # 20150001776. We are homeowners who live in in Esplanade Golf & Country Club full time and registered voters in Collier County. We have several primary concerns about our home investment as it will be impacted by the Addie’s Corner Development: 1. Safety and Traffic. We are a gated community. We are requesting that the density be lowered considerably below the proposed plan. 349 living units plus a possible group house would have a sizable impact for all of us currently living off Immokalee Rd.if we needed to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. We have no north bound route until I-75, about 4.5 miles from Collier Blvd. We have only one paved entrance and exit from our neighborhood and it is Immokalee Rd. To leave, we have to share the turn out with cars making U turns in the same space as us. People don’t realize who has right of way and this makes for a dangerous situation. The impact of adding as many as 349 living units, a group home and an unknown number of businesses to the traffic flow west of the Collier Blvd traffic light so close to our exit from Esplanade will make this dangerous situation even worse. We would like to see a traffic light installed at our entrance. We would like to see Barron Collier keep this project on hold until Collier Blvd is widened and operational and require them to direct most of its traffic out the Collier Blvd. side. 2. Sight and Sound. We would request the developer put an opaque wall around their property. To reduce the impact of this development, Barron Collier should not be allowed to reduce the acreage devoted to preserve by 61% (8.85 acres to 3.45) as they have requested, rather keep it as originally stated. We request the buffer areas be enlarged and exotic trees replaced with trees of similar size. We request that outdoor lighting be pointed away from our neighborhood and facing downward. We request living units be no more than 2 stories in height. We request no business or living unit amenity have outside amplified noise (there is a water management area at the north end of the property and water does amplify noise). 3. April 28, 2017 Amendment To The Master Plan. The revision calls for even more housing than the original plan. It asked for a group home in Tract A with only a slight reduction in commercial space in addition to the requested 349 living units in Tract C. This is a large change from the September 2015 Master Plan done by Grady Minor Engineers. Respectfully, please do not grant these changes. We would like to attend the Planning Commission Meeting but unfortunately we will be out of the country on May 18th. Thank you for your consideration. 2 Sincerely, Michael & Jane Rollins 9368 Terresina Dr., Naples, FL 34119 1 JohnsonEric From:Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:51 PM To:StrainMark Cc:Bill McGee; Robert Knuppel; JohnsonEric Subject:Addie's Corner Mark, we thank you for the generosity of your time and expertise. Please also thank Mrs. Ashton (spelling?) on our behalf. We listened and learned. Before our neighborhood group proceeds with anything specif we wish to meet with our Esplanade developer, Taylor Morrison, next week. We also hope you have some additional patience to clarify a few points from our meeting on Friday. 1) The latest Barron Collier proposal has Exhibit C which portrays the shape, sizes and locations of the plan, Tracts A, B and C. Do these things become fixed upon approval or can such an exhibit be altered after approval? 2) One of our key concerns is the retention of the 8.85 acres of Preserve in the current zoning. The Environmental section on pages 16 and 17 discuss the proposal of the reduced preserve. The determination of the preserve seems to be very formula driven. The current zoning specifically cites 22.65 acres of Native Habitat times 15% equals 3.4 acres required, then without explanation specifies 8.85 acres are required. The new proposal, without residential, cites only 13.81 acres of Native Habitat at 15% for 2.07 acres. How does BC justify the reduction of the Native Habitat? The new proposal, with residential, cites the same reduced 13.81 acres at 25% for 3.45 acres. This seems to say that residential requirements are 25% while non-residential is only 15%. If the full Native Habitat of 22.65 acres is used in the formula it results in a required preserve of 5.66 acres for residential and 3.40 for non-residential. What happened to the rest of the Native Habitat? Note - the entire parcel of land is the same covered with trees, no part is naked. Thank you. 3) You enlightened us that the current zoning has tow limitations for the Senior Center, 55'/65' in height and a FAR of .6. The new housing proposal asks for 349 units with a minimum SF of 700, thus 244,300 SF, plus perhaps more for larger units and ingress and egress. Do you have any idea what the square footage is allowed for the current senior Center? While the allowable height may be the same, the density may be quite different. 1 JohnsonEric From:TrochessettAimee Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:43 PM To:TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; SolisAndrew; JohnsonEric; StrainMark Cc:BrownleeMichael; FilsonSue; GoodnerAngela; GrecoSherry; LykinsDave Subject:Emailing - BCC Correspondence - Addie's Corner 2017-03-21.pdf Attachments:BCC Correspondence - Addie's Corner 2017-03-21.pdf See attached correspondence received today at the BCC offices. Aimee D. Trochessett Customer Service Specialist Communication & Customer Relations Division 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102 Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8075 aimeetrochessett@colliergov.net 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. Cot[ier County Commissioners Cot[ier County Ptanning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Cottier County PrincipaI Ptanner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner devetopment Cottier County Ptanning Commission Project # 20150001776. We live in Esptanade Gotf & Country Club, on lmmokalee Rd. We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie's Corner Devetopment: Shared Access Point. Current ptans show a shared access point (driveway) between Esplanade and Addie's Corner. Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate, we are concerned who witl be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there, the paved road witl make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community. Headtights from vehicles wi[[ shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. Traffic. lt is atready very difficutt to exit Esplanade onto lmmokatee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound [ane. ln addition, cars making a U-turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional chatlenge. Even if onty 'l 50 residential units are permitted, the additional residentia[ and retait traffic exlting Addie's Corner witt create [onger detays and more of a safety issue. We understand significantty more devetopment is planned at Cottier and lmmokalee. lmmokalee Rd. cannot handle the current votume of traffic. Removal of trees. loss of orooertv vatue. The current view entering Esptanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esptanade Btvd., with many tatl trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master ptan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25' in width, with a smatl area at 30'in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likety to see the buitdings through the thin tree [ine. ln addition, the thinner tree [ine wit[ increase sound and tight affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buitdings witt rise above the trees and degrade the views and property vatues. lf 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner, why shoutdn't the proposed devetopment be held to the same size? We encouraqe vou to: a. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie's Corner b. Widen lmmokalee Rd. before allowing any more devetopment. Not a[[ow the reduction of the preserve, or atternatively, increase the buffer to a minimum of 150'and require a type C buffer. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer, or if they must be removed, then require that they be replaced. Limit this development to 2 story buitdings and no more than 150 residential units. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. 86'1?- Qer,.-ra S.r-, 3+rr7 Address 1. 2. 3. c. d. e. t. F"^*tr^,1t+-7v^11;c- &^oJ -*a c.tt;ar' - J*^'^'-t'-!'u- ?,.l2^"..h\ E M EIUE 2l ,'ii 0 AR ,-^-4f\ A*-,..tnX l!;- i-,c.rs* ii S''<,t'r.f/-li.Jt- '-i1+>al-*i3,aoutt* ac<i J4EE . LD< +26/ 6. & 7"\J dr.i:a-r*- d-D.ldCoe n*a 7.-i**-(. slrcf q Date 1 JohnsonEric From:Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:31 AM To:pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; StrainMark Cc:JohnsonEric Subject:Addie's Corner, PLEASE, Preserve the Preserve, Letter to Collier County Planning Commissioners Attachments:Email to Collier County Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners, 3-18-17.pdf; Picture from rear of Amour Court property, IMG_5226.JPG To: Collier County Planning Commissioners Attached please find a letter and picture file related to the Addie’s Corner Project. Thank you for your consideration. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 March 18, 2017 Collier County Commissioners & Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie’s Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project # 20150001776. We live in Esplanade Golf & Country Club, on Immokalee Rd. We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie’s Corner Development: 1. Removal of trees, loss of property value. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. The residents on Amour Court currently enjoy the view from the rear of their homes, shown in the attached picture. When they purchased their lots, they understood they were facing a Preserve. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15’ to 25’ in width, with a small area at 30’ in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. If 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner, why shouldn’t the proposed development be held to the same size? 2. Shared Access Point. Current plans show a shared access point (driveway) between Esplanade and Addie’s Corner. Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate, we are concerned who will be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there, the paved road will make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community. Headlights from vehicles will shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. 3. Traffic. It is already very difficult to exit Esplanade onto Immokalee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound lane. In addition, cars making a U‐turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional challenge. Even if only 150 residential units are permitted, the additional residential and retail traffic exiting Addie’s Corner will create longer delays and more of a safety issue. We understand significantly more development is planned at Collier and Immokalee. Immokalee Rd. cannot handle the current volume of traffic. We encourage you to: a. Not allow the reduction of the preserve, or alternatively, increase the buffer to a minimum of 150’ and require a type C buffer. b. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer, or if they must be removed, then require that they be replaced. c. Limit this development to 2 story buildings and no more than 150 residential units. d. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie’s Corner e. Widen Immokalee Rd. before allowing any more development. f. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. Thank you for your consideration. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Ct. Naples, FL 34119 1 JohnsonEric From:Mark Scimio <mascimio@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:26 AM To:pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; StrainMark; JohnsonEric Cc:McDanielBill; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject:Addie's Corner Development Attachments:Addies Corner Development Letter of Concern.pdf Dear Commissioners: Please see my attached letter concerning Addie's Corner Development Project #20150001776. Thank you, Mark A. Scimio 8870 Vaccaro Court Naples, FL 34119 Collier County Commissioners Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re; Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project # 20150001776. We live in Esplanade Golf & Country Club, on Immokalee Rd. We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Shared Access Point. Current plans show a shared access point (driveway) between Esplanade and Addie's Corner. Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate, we are concerned who will be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there, the paved road will make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community. Headlights from vehicles will shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. 2. Traffic. It is already very difficult to exit Esplanade onto Immokalee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound lane. In addition, cars making a U-turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional challenge. Even if only 150 residential units are permitted, the additional residential and retail traffic exiting Addie's Corner will create longer delays and more of a safety issue. We understand significantly more development is planned at Collier and Immokalee. Immokalee Rd. cannot handle the current volume of traffic. 3. Removal of trees, loss of property value. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. If 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner, why shouldn't the proposed development be held to the same size? We encourage you to: a. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie's Corner b. Widen Immokalee Rd. before allowing any more development. c. Not allow the reduction of the preserve, or alternatively, increase the buffer to a minimum of 150' and require a type C buffer. d. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer, or if they must be removed, then require that they be replaced. e. Limit this development to 2 story buildings and no more than 150 residential units. f. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. Name Address Date 1 JohnsonEric From:ChrzanowskiStan Sent:Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:08 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Fw: Addies corner So... Eric... how many more copies of this letter am I going to get? When are we going to see the project details? Is Immokalee Road going to be widened ? From: Thomas Kleck <tkleck@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:19 AM To: ChrzanowskiStan Subject: Addies corner Tom & Judy Kleck Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples 8864 Savona Ct. Naples, FL 34119 Tom’s Cell : 317-997-3416 Judy’s Cell : 317-408-4162 tkleck@comcast.net judykleck@comcast.net Collier County Commissioners Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie’s Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project # 20150001776. We live in Esplanade Golf & Country Club, on Immokalee Rd. We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie’s Corner Development: 1. Shared Access Point. Current plans show a shared access point (driveway) between Esplanade and Addie’s Corner. Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate, we are concerned who will be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there, the paved road will make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community. Headlights from vehicles will shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. 2. Traffic. It is already very difficult to exit Esplanade onto Immokalee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound lane. In addition, cars making a U-turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional challenge. Even if only 150 residential units are permitted, the additional residential and retail traffic exiting Addie’s Corner will create longer delays and more of a safety issue. We understand significantly more development is planned at Collier and Immokalee. Immokalee Rd. cannot handle the current volume of traffic. 3. Removal of trees, loss of property value. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15’ to 25’ in width, with a small area at 30’ in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the 2 trees and degrade the views and property values. If 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner, why shouldn’t the proposed development be held to the same size? We encourage you to: 1. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie’s Corner 2. Widen Immokalee Rd. before allowing any more development. 3. Not allow the reduction of the preserve, or alternatively, increase the buffer to a minimum of 150’ and require a type C buffer. 4. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer, or if they must be removed, then require that they be replaced. 5. Limit this development to 2 story buildings and no more than 150 residential units. 6. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. ____________________ __________________________ ___________ Name Address Date Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From:Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:52 PM To:pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; StrainMark; McDanielBill; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc:JohnsonEric Subject:Addie's Corner Ladies and Gentlemen of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners. This message is from Ron Miller, 8670 Amour Ct, Naples FL. 34119, 816-507-0164, ronmiller052645@gmail.com. The matter of a rezoning proposal for Addie's Corner will come before you in the near future, perhaps already has come before you. This rezoning is being requested by the Barron Collier organization. The property known as Addie's Corner is approximately 23 acres located on the north side of Immokalee Road contiguous with Esplanade Golf and Country Club, just west of Collier Blvd. I have been communicating with Eric Johnson regarding the new zoning proposal. He has been most courteous and helpful in the exchange of information. I have provided Mr. Johnson with two detailed analytical messages urging Collier County to reject the new Barron Collier request. Mr. Johnson will provide you those reports in due course. Collier County is booming, you must be very busy. I wanted to summarize my thoughts in my two reports before opinions are formed. The current zoning has Tract A and B. Tract A allows for a certain amount of commercial and the balance for "senior housing" age 55+ with skilled nursing, assisted living etc. Tract B calls for 8.85 acres of permanent preserve. This zoning was approved, I believe unanimously, by your previous colleagues. Much thought and care must have gone into that effort when approved. Barron Collier has purchased the property and now wants to substantially rezone to continue to allow commercial plus 350 residential units in lieu of the senior housing. Perhaps the current senior housing element was well thought out as a need, no such facility is available in the area. This substantial expansion comes at the expense of the neighbors, noise, traffic and the environment. In particular, the environment suffers, the preserve is reduced from 8.85 acres to 3.45 acres to allow for the residential expansion. I strongly urge you to retain the current zoning. To allow Barron Collier to proceed would amount to a repudiation of the care and effort of previous Collier County personnel. I think it is also very noteworthy that developers of the surrounding property have not been allow to expand the previous zoning of their properties. Specifically, the two Taylor Morrison projects know as Esplanade Golf and Country Club contiguous to the west and north and the Tree Farm property contiguous to the east are developing within the previous existing zoning requirements. Why would Collier County make an exception for Addie's Corner? Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to the public hearings. 1 JohnsonEric From:Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 07, 2017 7:26 AM To:JohnsonEric; LenbergerSteve Cc:Joe Pestana; 'Ron Miller'; Tracey Sosnik; SmithDaniel Subject:RE: Updated Addies Corner MCP, buffer requirements Attachments:S3-Addies Corner MPUD Exh A-F (rev2) (002).pdf Eric and Steve, Daniel Smith answered questions below about buffer requirements, but directed me to you regarding the preserve. Per my conversation with Eric Johnson, I believe the attached file represents the most recent proposal by Barron Collier. I understand page 9 is the current master plan and page 10 represents what Barron Collier is proposing. Although we don’t have drawings that are to scale, it appears the length of the preserve area bordering Esplanade and Addies Corner is being reduced from about 600’ to 450’. Although we recognize there will be a buffer along the entire boundary, it will only be 5’ to 6’ high, whereas the buildings will be 45’ to 65’ high. We purchased our homes with the knowledge the preserve and its tall trees would remain and encourage the Planning Commission not to permit this change. Doesn’t the term “preserve” mean the trees will be preserved, (at least the native and non-exotic trees)? What are the conditions under which the Planning Commission might allow the preserve to be reduced, as the developer is proposing? Also, I would appreciate if you can give us some data regarding the existing and proposed preserves: • What is the length of the existing preserve at the border between Esplanade and Addies Corner? • What is the length of the proposed preserve at the border between Esplanade and Addies Corner? • What are the acreages of the existing and proposed preserves? Thank you very much. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: SmithDaniel [mailto:DanielSmith@colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 9:36 AM To: Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; LenbergerSteve <SteveLenberger@colliergov.net> Cc: Joe Pestana <jpestana@jppestservices.com>; 'Ron Miller' <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Updated Addies Corner MCP, buffer requirements Hi Sam, There are not special buffering requirements with lakes. The Type B buffers (or opacity with existing vegetation) still apply. The other issues (height of buildings, preserve requirements) are reviewed through the Zoning and Environmental professional staff, Eric Johnson and Steve Lenberger. I will forward your questions to them. 2 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 11:20 AM To: SmithDaniel Cc: Joe Pestana; 'Ron Miller' Subject: RE: Updated Addies Corner MCP, buffer requirements Daniel, Thank you for sending me the information on the buffer requirements. Yesterday, I referred to some other files I did not have at the time we spoke. Can you review the attached files and please call my cell? I wanted you to see the tree line view we currently enjoy from the rear of our homes. I also wanted to discuss the proposed reduction to the existing preserve. In addition, I wanted to discuss the triangular shaped lake which I believe is on Taylor Morrison’s property to discuss if any different buffering requirements apply there. I believe that lake is closest to what is shown on Barron Collier’s drawing as DA-1A, Future Commercial Development. We are concerned how high they are permitted to build there. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: SmithDaniel [mailto:DanielSmith@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 4:58 PM To: Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Subject: RE: Updated Addies Corner MCP, buffer requirements 4.06.02 - Buffer Requirements modified o Share Link o Print o Download (docx) o Email o Compare A. Applicability of buffer requirements. The buffering and screening shown in table 2.4 below shall be required under this section and shall apply to all new development . Existing landscaping which does not comply with the provisions of this section shall be brought into conformity to the maximum extent possible when: the vehicular use area is altered or expanded (except for restriping of lots/drives), the building square footage is changed, or there has been a discontinuance of use for a period of 1 year or more and a request for an occupational license to resume business is made. For projects subject to architectural design standards, see LDC section 5.05.08 for related provisions. Subdivisions or Developments shall be buffered for the protection of property owners from land uses as required pursuant to this section 4.06.00. Buffers shall not inhibit pedestrian circulation between adjacent commercial land uses. Buffers shall be installed during construction as follows and in accordance with this section 4.06.00: 1. To separate residential developments from commercial, community use, industrial and public use development s and adjacent expressways, arterials and railroad rights-of-way , except where such expressway, arterial, or railroad right-of-way abuts a golf course. 2. 3 To separate commercial, community use, industrial and public use developments from residential developments . 3. To separate subdivisions of residential property that do not result in the submittal of a site development plan pursuant to the provisions of section 10.02.03 from other residential properties. Separation shall be created with a landscape buffer strip which is designed and constructed in compliance with the provisions of this section 4.06.00. Such buffer strip(s) shall be shown and designated on the final plat as a tract of easement and shall not be located within any public or private right-of-way . The ability to locate buffer(s) within a platted or recorded easement shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of this section 4.06.00. buffers adjacent to protected/preserve areas shall conform to the requirements established by the agency requiring such buffer . Landscape buffers , when required by this Code, this section 4.06.00, or other county regulation shall be in addition to the required right-of-way width and shall be designated as a separate buffer tract or easement on the final subdivision plat. The minimum buffer width shall be in conformance with this section 4.06.00. In no case shall the required buffer be constructed to reduce cross-corner or stopping sight distances, or safe pedestrian passage. All buffer tracts or easements shall be owned and maintained by a property owner's association or other similar entity and shall be so dedicated on the final subdivision plat. B. Methods of determining buffers. Where a property adjacent to the proposed use is: (1) undeveloped, (2) undeveloped but permitted without the required buffering and screening required pursuant to this Code, or (3) developed without the buffering and screening required pursuant to this Code, the proposed use shall be required to install the more opaque buffer as provided for in table 2.4. Where property adjacent to the proposed use has provided the more opaque buffer as provided for in table 2.4, the proposed use shall install a type A buffer . Where the incorporation of existing native vegetation in landscape buffers is determined as being equivalent to or in excess of the intent of this Code, the planning services director may waive the planting requirements of this section. Buffering and landscaping between similar residential land uses may be incorporated into the yards of individual lots or tracts without the mandatory creation of separate tracts. If buffering and landscaping is to be located on a lot , it shall be shown as an easement for buffering and landscaping. The buffering and screening provisions of this Code shall be applicable at the time of planned unit development (PUD), preliminary subdivision plat (PSP), or site development plan (SDP) review, with the installation of the buffering and screening required pursuant to section 4.06.05 G. If the applicant chooses to forego the optional PSP process, then signed and sealed landscape plans will be required on the final subdivision plat. Where a more intensive land use is developed contiguous to a property within a similar zoning district, the planning services director may require buffering and screening the same as for the higher intensity uses between those uses. Landscape buffering and screening standards within any planned unit development shall conform to the minimum buffering and screening standards of the zoning district to which it most closely resembles. The planning services director may approve alternative landscape buffering and screening standards when such alternative standards have been determined by use of professional acceptable standards to be equivalent to or in excess of the intent of this Code. C. Types of buffers . Within a required buffer strip, the following types of buffers shall be used based on the matrix in table 2.4. (See Figure 4.06.02.C-1) 1. Type A Buffer: Ten-foot-wide landscape buffer with trees spaced no more than 30 feet on center. When a Type A buffer is located within a residential PUD and adjacent to a lake, the required trees may be clustered on common property lines to provide a view of the lake. Clustered tree plantings shall not exceed 60 feet between clusters. 2. Type B Buffer: Fifteen-foot-wide, 80 percent opaque within one year landscape buffer six feet in height, which may include a wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof, including trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center. When planting a hedge, it shall be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at planting. When a Type B buffer is located within a residential PUD and adjacent to a lake, the required plant materials may be clustered to provide views. Clustered tree plantings shall not exceed 60 feet between clusters and the clustered hedge plantings can be provided as a double row of shrubs that are a minimum of 30 inches in height. When the adjacent lake exceeds 1,500 feet in width the hedge planting shall not be required. When a community facility is located within a residential PUD and abuts a residential unit, a Type B buffer shall be required. When a fence or wall is used within the buffer a minimum of 50 percent of the trees and hedge plantings shall be located on the residential side of the fence or wall. 3. Type C Buffer: 20-foot-wide, opaque within one year, landscape buffer with a six-foot wall, fence, hedge, or berm , or combination thereof and two staggered rows of trees spaced no more than 30 feet on center. Projects located within the Golden Gate Neighborhood center district shall be exempt from the right-of-way requirement of a six-foot wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof. These projects shall provide a meandering Type D landscape buffer hedge. In addition, a minimum of 50 percent of the 25-foot wide buffer area shall be composed of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. 4. Type D Buffer: A landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to any road right-of-way external to the development project and adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development . Said landscape buffer shall be consistent with the provisions of the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan, which is incorporated by reference herein. The minimum width of the perimeter landscape buffer shall vary according to the ultimate width of the abutting right-of-way . Where the ultimate width of the right-of-way is zero to 99 feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least ten feet in width. Where the ultimate width of the right-of-way is 100 or more feet, the corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least 15 feet in width. Developments of 15 acres or more and developments within an activity center shall provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way . Activity center right-of-way buffer width requirements shall not be applicable to roadways internal to the development . a. 4 Trees shall be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape buffer abutting a right-of-way or primary access road internal to a commercial development . b. A continuous 3 gallon double row hedge spaced 3 feet on center of at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of 30 inches in height in one year shall be required in the landscape buffer where vehicular areas are adjacent to the road right-of-way , pursuant to LDC section 4.06.05 D.4. c. Where a fence or wall fronts an arterial or collector road as described by the transportation circulation element of the growth management plan, a continuous 3 gallon single row hedge a minimum of 24 inches in height spaced 3 feet on center, shall be planted along the right-of-way side of the fence. The required trees shall be located on the side of the fence facing the right-of-way . Every effort shall be made to undulate the wall and landscaping design incorporating trees, shrubs, and ground cover into the design. It is not the intent of this requirement to obscure from view decorative elements such as emblems, tile, molding and wrought iron. d. The remaining area of the required landscape buffer must contain only existing native vegetation , grass, ground cover, or other landscape treatment. Every effort should be made to preserve, retain and incorporate the existing native vegetation in these areas. e. A signage visibility triangle may be created for non-residential on-premises signs located as shown in Figure 4.06.02.C-2 for Type D buffers that are 20 feet or greater in width. The line of visibility shall be no greater than 30 linear feet along road right-of-way line. Within the visibility triangle, shrubs and hedges shall be required pursuant to LDC section 4.06.05.D.4, except that hedges, shrubs, or ground cover located within the signage visibility triangle shall be maintained at a maximum plant height of 24 inches. Within the visibility triangle, no more than one required canopy tree may be exempted from the Type D buffer requirements. 5 6 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 3:41 PM To: JohnsonEric; SmithDaniel Cc: Joe Pestana Subject: RE: Updated Addies Corner MCP, buffer requirements Eric, Please respond regarding the buffer requirements or direct us to the proper person. Thank you very much. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: LenbergerSteve [mailto:SteveLenberger@colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 10:45 AM To: Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net> Cc: Joe Pestana <jpestana@jppestservices.com> Subject: RE: Updated Addies Corner MCP Hi Sam! Buffering requirements are handled by Planning. I will let Eric respond. Thank you! Stephen From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:59 AM To: JohnsonEric; LenbergerSteve Cc: Joe Pestana Subject: FW: Updated Addies Corner MCP Eric and Steve, The email below and attached file was forwarded by Dan Waters of Barron Collier. As you can see, they are proposing a buffer varying between 15’ to 25’. I’m concerned that width is not sufficient to block out the new buildings, particularly because the treeline will become thinner when the 2 types of exotic species are removed. Taylor Morrison told us that a 50’ buffer was required. Is there an ordinance governing the depth of the buffer or is that decided on a case-by-case basis? Thank you. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: Dan Waters [mailto:DWaters@barroncollier.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:47 AM 7 To: Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Subject: Updated Addies Corner MCP Sam, Thanks again for facilitating the meeting earlier this week, I hope it helped to calm any concerns of your neighbors. Attached is the updated version of the MCP that we are planning on submitting to Collier County with our response. The areas of existing vegetation along the western property boundary that we will save are shown on this plan; keep in mind that this is a conceptual zoning plan and that the clubhouse is going to have the configuration shown on the more detailed plan I left with you. The location of the multi-story building is best defined on that site plan and we will save the 30 feet along that frontage, 25 feet by the clubhouse building, and 15 feet along the parking and 20 feet along the entry road. The potential vehicular interconnect that the county is making us show will almost certainly never be constructed, …….. Dan Waters, P.E. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, Florida 34105 Phone: 239.262.2600 Direct: 239.403.6830 Cell: 239.206.7804 dwaters@barroncollier.com This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. 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. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. 8 This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 1 of 15 EXHIBIT “A” LIST OF PERMITTED USES ADDIES CORNER MPUD Regulations for development of the Addies Corner MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this MPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any site development plan or plat. Where this MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. 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: I. Tract A – Permitted Commercial Principal Uses: A. Commercial Professional Retail & General Office Permitted Use (Sic In Parenthesis) 1. Accident & Health Insurance Services (6321) 2. Accounting, Auditing and Bookkeeping Services (8721) 3. Adjustment services (7322) 4. Advertising (consultants) agencies (7311) 5. Advertising, not elsewhere classified (7319) 6. Agricultural uses (N/A) 7. Architectural services (8712) 8. Auto & Home Supply Stores (5531) 9. Bakeries, Retail (5461) 10. Banks, commercial: national (6021) 11. Banks, commercial: not chartered (6029) 12. Banks, commercial: state (6022) 13. Banks, savings: Federal (6035) 14. Banks, savings: not federally chartered (6036) 15. Barber Shops (7241) 16. Beauty Shops (7231) 17. Book Stores (5942) 18. Business Associations (8611) 19. Business Consulting Services, not elsewhere classified (8748) 20. Camera & Photographic Supply Stores (5946) 21. Candy, Nut & Confectionery Stores (5441) 22. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning (7217) 23. Civic, Social and Fraternal Associations (8641) 24. Clothing & Accessory Stores, Men's & Boy's (5611) 25. Clothing Stores, Women's (5621) 26. Collection Services (7322) 27. Commodity Contracts Brokers & Dealers (6221) 28. Commercial Art & Graphic Design (7336) 29. Commercial Photography (7335) 30. Commercial Economic, Sociological & Educational Research (8732) 31. Computer & Computer Software Stores (5734) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 2 of 15 32. Computer Facilities Management Services (7376) 33. Computer Maintenance and Repair (7378) 34. Computer Processing & Data Preparation Services (7374) 35. Computer Programming services (7371) 36. Computer Rental & Leasing (7377) 37. Credit Reporting Services (1323) 38. Credit Unions, Federal (6061) 39. Credit Unions, State: not federally chartered (6062) 40. Dairy Products Stores (5451) 41. Data Processing Consultants (7379) 42. Dance Studios, Schools & Halls (7911) 43. Data Processing Services (7374) 44. Dental Laboratories (8072) 45. Dentist Office/Clinic (8021) 46. Direct mail advertising service (7331) 47. Direct Selling Establishments (5963) 48. Doctors - Medicine Offices & Clinics (8011) 49. Doctors - Osteopathy Offices & Clinics (8031) 50. Doctors - Chiropractors Offices & Clinics (8041) 51. Drapery, Curtain & Upholstery Stores (5714) 52. Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages); Bottle Clubs and Cabarets are not permitted (5813) 53. Drug Stores (5912) 54. Eating Places (5812) 55. Engineering services: industrial, civil, electrical, mechanical, marine and design (8711) 56. Executive Offices (9111) 57. Executive & Legislative Offices Combined (9131) 58. Fire, Marine & Casualty Insurance Services (6331) 59. Floor Covering Stores (5713) 60. Florists (5992) 61. Food Stores, Miscellaneous (5499) 62. Foreign Branches & Agencies of Banks (6081) 63. Foreign Trade & International Banking Institutions (6082) 64. Furniture Stores (5712) 65. Funeral home or parlor (7261) 66. Gasoline Service Stations (5541) 67. General Government, not elsewhere classified (9199) 68. Gift, Novelty & Souvenir Shops (5947) 69. Grocery Stores (5411) 70. Hair weaving or Replacement Services (7299) 71. Hardware Store (5251) 72. Health practitioners - not elsewhere classified (8049) 73. Hobby, Toy & Games Shops (5945) 74. Home health care services (8082) 75. Hotels & Motels – subject to conversion in Exhibit B (7011) 76. Household Appliance Stores (5722) 77. Hospital & Medical Healthy Services (6324) 78. Information Retrieval Services (7375) 79. Insurance Carriers, not elsewhere classified (6399) 80. Investment Advice (6282) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 3 of 15 81. Jewelry Stores (5944) 82. Land Subdividers & Developers (6552) 83. Landscape architects, consulting & planning (0781) 84. Laundries (Coin Operated) & Dry-cleaning (7215) 85. Legal services (8111) 86. Libraries (except regional libraries) (8231) 87. Life Insurance Services (6311) 88. Liquor Stores (5921) 89. Loan brokers (6163) 90. Luggage & Leather Goods Stores (5948) 91. Management Services (8741) 92. Management Consulting Services (8742) 93. Markets, Meat & Fish (Seafood) Markets (5421) 94. Markets, Fruit & Vegetable Markets (5431) 95. Medical Equipment Rental & Leasing (7352) 96. Medical Laboratories (8071) 97. Membership Organizations, not elsewhere classified (8699) 98. Miscellaneous amusement and recreational services not elsewhere classified. Only judo instruction, karate instruction, moped rental, motorcycle rental, rental of bicycles, scuba and skin diving instruction are permitted (7999) 99. Miscellaneous Business Credit Institutions (6159) 100. Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores (5399) 101. Miscellaneous Home Furnishings Stores (5719) 102. Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified excluding massage parlors, steam baths, tattoo parlors and Turkish baths. (7299) 103. Miscellaneous Retail Stores, not elsewhere classified (5999) 104. Mortgage Bankers & Loan Correspondents (6162) 105. Musical Instrument Stores (5736) 106. News Dealers & Newsstands (5994) 107. Nondeposit Trust Facilities (6091) 108. Optical Goods Stores (5995) 109. Optometrists - offices & clinics (8042) 110. Paint, Glass & Wallpaper Stores (5231) 111. Pension, Health and Welfare Funds Services (6371) 112. Personal Credit Institutions (6141) 113. Photocopying & Duplicating Services (7334) 114. Photographic Studios, Portrait (7221) 115. Photofinishing Laboratories (7384) 116. Physical Fitness Facilities (permitted only when physically integrated and operated in conjunction with another permitted use in this district - no stand alone facility permitted) (7991) 117. Podiatrists - offices & clinics (8043) 118. Political Organizations (8651) 119. Professional Membership Organizations (8621) 120. Professional Sports Clubs & Promoters (7941) 121. Public Relations Services (8743) 122. Radio, Television & Consumer Electronics Stores (5731) 123. Radio, Television & Publishers Advertising Representatives (7313) 124. Real Estate Agents and Managers (6531) 125. Record & Prerecorded Tape Stores; adult video rental or sales (5735) Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 4 of 15 prohibited 126. Religious Organizations (8661) 127. Repair Shops & Related Services, not elsewhere classified (7699) 128. Retail Nurseries, Lawn & Garden Supply Stores (5261) 129. Secretarial and Court Reporting Services (7338) 130. Security Brokers, Dealers & Flotation Companies (6211) 131. Security and Commodity Exchanges (6231) 132. Sewing, Needlework & Piece Goods Stores (5949) 133. Services Allied with the Exchange of Securities or Commodities, not elsewhere classified (6289) 134. Shoe Repair Shops and Shoeshine Parlors (7251) 135. Short-Term Business Credit Institutions, except agricultural (6153) 136. Social Services, Individual & Family (activity centers, elderly or handicapped only; day care centers for adult & handicapped only) (8322) 137. Sporting Goods Stores & Bicycle Shops (5941) 138. Stationery Stores (5943) 139. Stores, Children's and Infants Wear (5641) 140. Stores, Family Clothing (5651) 141. Stores, Miscellaneous Apparel & Accessory (5699) 142. Stores, Shoes (5661) 143. Stores, Women's Accessory & Specialty (5632) 144. Surety Insurance Services (6351) 145. Surveying Services (8713) 146. Tanning Salons (7299) 147. Tax Return Preparation Services (7291) 148. Title Abstract Offices (6541) 149. Title Insurance Services (6361) 150. Tobacco Stores & Stands (5993) 151. Travel Agencies (no other transportation services) (4724) 152. Used Merchandise Stores (5932) 153. Veterinary services for animal specialties (0742) 154. Video Tape Rental, adult video rental or sales prohibited (7841) 155. Watch, Clock & Jewelry Repair (7631) II. Tract A or Tract C - Permitted Group Housing/Retirement Community/Principal Uses: [If no residential dwelling units are constructed in Tract C and subject to conversion in Exhibit B] A. Group Housing, 8051 Skilled Nursing, Intermediate Care Facilities 8052, Nursing and Personal Care not else classified 8059. B. Independent Living Units C. Assisted Living Units D. Retirement Community III. Tract C – Permitted Residential Principal Uses: [If only residential dwelling units are constructed in Tract C] A. Dwelling Units - Multi-family and Townhouse Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 5 of 15 B. 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. IIIIV. Tract A- Permitted Accessory Uses: Tract A and C – Commercial and Group Housing/Retirement Community Principal Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with the permitted principal uses, including, but not limited to: A. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses within this MPUD document. B. Water management facilities to serve the project such as lakes. C. Clubhouses, Community administrative facilities intended to serve residents and their guests. D. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. CE. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature with the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the LDC. uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. Tract C - Residential Principal Uses: A. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this MPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas and screen enclosures. B. Water management facilities to serve the project such as lakes. C. Clubhouses, Community administrative facilities intended to serve residents and their guests, including leasing and construction offices. D. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. E. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be 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. IVVI. Tract B - Permitted Preserve Area Uses: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for the preserve area depicted on the MPUD Master Plan, that is required to be a minimum of 8.85 acres, other than those uses allowed by Section 3.05.07 H.1.h. of the LDC, or any successor provision. Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 6 of 15 VII. Group Housing/Retirement Community Commitments: The developer of the group housing/retirement community, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and be subject to the following operational standards for the units in the retirement community, including but not limited to, independent living units, assisted living units or skilled nursing units: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed so that a resident can age in place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars. Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 7 of 15 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADDIES CORNER MPUD The tables below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Addies Corner MPUD. 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. I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT A COMMERCIAL DISTRICTAND TRACT C, COMMERCIAL AND GROUP HOUSING/RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sq. Ft. N/A AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS (External) (See paragraph below From Immokalee Road Canal ROW 25 ft. SPS From Eastern Project Boundary 25 ft. 15 ft From Western Project Boundary 25 ft. 15 ft. From Northern Project Boundary – As Shown 521 200 ft. Minimum 521 200 ft. Minimum MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 15 ft. 10 ft Rear 10 ft. 10 ft. Side 10 ft. 10 ft. Lakes 25 ft. 20 ft.* Preserve 25 ft. 10 ft. MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 1/2 the sum of building heights** 10 Ft. MAXIMUM HEIGHT ZONED ACTUAL Retail Buildings 45 ft. 65 ft. 35 ft. Office Buildings 55 ft. 65 ft. 35 ft. Group Housing/ Retirement Community 45 ft. 65 ft. 35 ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA (ground floor) 1,000 sq. ft. ** N/A MAXIMUM GROSS COMMERCIAL AREA 1375,000 sq. ft. *** N/A GROUP CARE FACILITIES Maximum 0.60 F.A.R. up to 26 units per acre***, **** & ***** N/A HOTEL & MOTEL Maximum 26 units per acre ***, **** & ***** (F.A.R. Not Applicable) N/A * No structure may be located closer than 20 feet to the top of bank of a lake (allowing for the required minimum 20 foot wide lake maintenance easement). ** Per principal structure, kiosk vendor, concessions, and temporary or mobile sales structures shall be permitted to have a minimum floor area of twenty· five (25) square feet and shall be subject to the accessory structure standards set forth in the LDC. *** Total allowable commercial square footage is 1375,000 of commercial development within. For each acre of Group Housing/Retirement Community or Hotel/Motel or fraction thereof developed, 10,914 S.F. of commercial development will be reduced on Tract "A" only. **** The maximum height and setbacks shall be the same as those for office buildings. ***** The preserve area shall not be used in calculating the F.A.R. for C.C.R.C.Group Housing/Retirement Community use or the density for Hotel/Motel. Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 8 of 15 II. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TRACT C RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE MULTI-FAMILY Minimum Lot Area 1,440 SF N/A Minimum Lot Width 18 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 80 feet N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback*2 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback*1 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned Actual 45 feet 50 feet 55 feet 65 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 20 feet 20 feet Floor Area Min. (S.F.), per unit 750 SF 700 SF Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Front Yard Setback*2 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height Zoned Actual 20 feet 25 feet 35 feet 40 feet *1 –Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units, if detached, shall be 10’. *2 –Front yards shall be measured from back of curb for private streets or drives, and from ROW line for any public roadway. Note: nothing in this MPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. IIIII. DEVELOPMENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST In the event amendments are made to the Tree Farm MPUD to the east of this MPUD to allow for a unified development plan of both properties, a zero setback shall be allowed along the common property line of this MPUD. IIIIV. ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING EAST PROPERTY LINE A minimum 6-foot height hedge, minimum 3-foot in spread, planted a maximum 4-feet on center, 100% opaque at planting shall be installed along the east property line, in lieu of a wall, along with other requirements of a Type B Landscape buffer. IVVI. A stipulation has been added that outside amplified music is prohibited. 15' WIDE TYPE "B"LANDSCAPE BUFFERNO BUFFER REQUIRED15' WIDE TYPE "B"LANDSCAPE BUFFER20' WIDE TYPE "D"LANDSCAPE BUFFERFUTURE SHARED ACCESSEDGE OF WATERTRACT C(RESIDENTIAL OR GROUP HOUSING)TRACT A(COMMERCIAL AND GROUPHOUSING (IF THERE ARE NODWELLING UNITS IN THE PROJECT))POTENTIAL SHARED ACCESSBUFFER PER LDCAMENITY AREA WATERMANAGEMENTAREATRACT BPRESERVE15' WIDE EXISTINGVEGETATION TO REMAIN ASTYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER20' WIDE EXISTING VEGETATIONTO REMAIN AS TYPE "B"LANDSCAPE BUFFER30' WIDE EXISTINGVEGETATION TO REMAIN ASTYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER25' WIDE EXISTINGVEGETATION TO REMAIN ASTYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER15' WIDE TYPE "B"LANDSCAPE BUFFER0200'100'SCALE: 1" = 200'GradyMinorCivil Engineers●Land Surveyors●Planners●Landscape ArchitectsCert. of Auth. EB 0005151Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151Business LC 26000266Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.3800 Via Del ReyBonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144www.GradyMinor.com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380NOTES1.THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE ANDIS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUETO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.2.ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE, AREAPPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TOMODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP ORPLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THELDC.SITE SUMMARYGROSS SITE AREA23.33± ACRESPUBLIC ROW/CANAL1.50± ACRESNET SITE AREA21.83± ACRERESIDENTIAL (TRACT C) - 9.82± ACRES (45%)COMMERCIAL (TRACT A) - 4.32± ACRES (20%)AMENITY AREA (PART OF TRACT C) - 0.59± ACRES (3%)PRESERVE (TRACT B) - 3.45± ACRES (16%)WATER MANAGEMENT - 0.95± ACRES (4%)BUFFERS/OPEN SPACE - 2.70± ACRES (12%)TRACT ACOMMERCIALMAXIMUM 75,000 S.F.GROUP HOUSING0.6 FARTRACT B - PRESERVEREQUIRED:3.45± ACRES (13.81 ± ACRESNATIVE VEGETATION X 25%)PROVIDED:3.45± ACRESTRACT CRESIDENTIALMAXIMUM 349 D.U. (16 DU/AC)- IF ALL RESIDENTIALGROUP HOUSING0.6 FAROPEN SPACE: REQUIRED:30%PROVIDED:30%# DEVIATIONSESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUDPRESERVEESPLANADEGOLF ANDCOUNTRY CLUBOF NAPLES RPUDRESIDENTIALESPLANADE GOLF ANDCOUNTRY CLUB OFNAPLES RPUDRESIDENTIALTREE FARM MPUDUNDEVELOPEDINGRESS/EGRESS31456 Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 10 of 15 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION ADDIES CORNER MPUD The North one-half (1/2) of the West one-half (1/2) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; and The South one-half (1/2) of the West one-half (1/2) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of the Southeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East; excepting the south 100 feet thereof; and The East one-half (1/2) of the East one-half (1/2) of the East one-half (1/2) of the Southwest one-quarter (1/4) of the Southeast one-quarter (1 /4) of Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, excepting the south 100' thereof. Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 11 of 15 EXHIBIT “E” LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC ADDIES CORNER MPUD 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.H.1.a., commercial and industrial districts, which require if located on a contiguous residentially zoned property, the wall and/or fence shall be a minimum of six (6) feet and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and shall be located a minimum of six (6) feet from the residentially zoned district, to not require a wall within a Type B buffer along the east property line of this MPUD adjacent to the Tree Farm MPUD to the east. (See Exhibit C, MPUD Master Plan.) As mitigation for the wall, a 6-foot height hedge shall be required in addition to the requirements of a Type B Landscape buffer. (Also, see Exhibit B - Development Standards pertaining to Landscaping). 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 to allow the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) to be increased from 0.45 to 0.60 for a Group Housing/Retirement Community. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3, Development Standards for Signs within Non-Residential Districts, which requires minimum setbacks from signs to the property line and limits sign area, to allow for two project directory signs to be attached to the proposed private bridge providing access to the project (one on each side of the bridge) with a total combined allowable sign area of 140 square feet. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G - Parking Spaces Required for Multi-Family Dwellings, which requires 1 parking space per residential unit plus 0.75 guest spaces for one bedroom residential units and 1 guest space for two bedroom and larger units. In the event that Tract C is developed as leased multi-family units, this deviation proposes to establish the required number of parking spaces for leased multifamily residential units at 1.65 spaces per one bedroom unit and 1.8 spaces for two bedroom and larger units (inclusive of resident and guest parking spaces). 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.04.G - Dumpsters and Recycling, which requires that multi-family rental units provide dumpsters or a compactor to allow for rental units to have the option for building staff to transport bulk containers from storage areas internal to the buildings to designated areas for pick up by the solid waste and recycling hauler. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N – Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards. The LDC establishes a minimum 60-foot right of way width for local streets. This deviation proposes to reduce the required right-of-way width for local streets to 50 feet. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N – Parking Spaces Required for Multifamily Dwellings allows for a reduction of the number of required parking spaces for small-scale recreational facilities within multi-family developments based upon the Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 12 of 15 proximity of the units to the small scale recreational facility. The LDC allows for the required parking at the recreational facilities to be calculated at 25% of normal requirements in cases where the majority of the multifamily units are located within 300 feet of the recreational facilities. This deviation proposes to increase the specified distance for the reduction of parking requirements for small-scale recreational facilities from 300 to 500 feet. Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 13 of 15 EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT ADDIES CORNER MPUD l. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS (Amended by Transportation Staff on 2/4/10) changes accepted on 3/26/10 and then CAO edits put in) 1. The Owner will has dedicated in fee right-of-way for the purpose of relocating the Cocohatchee Canal as depicted on Tract A on the MPUD Master Plan, that includes compensatory right-of-way for the turn lane into the project. This area comprises ± 1.62 5 acres and was based on the most current information available at the time of approval of this ordinance. The property owner will dedicate to Collier County this right-of-way within 90 days of written request of the County at no cost to the County. The County will be responsible to relocate the canal, except only those portions immediately adjacent to (approximately 100' each side of) the proposed bridge. Collier County Transportation will provide design direction to the developer as to the ultimate alignment of the relocated canal prior to the time of SDP approval. See O.R. Book 5087, Page 93. 2. The Owner, his successor or assigns shall provide a roadway connection available to adjacent properties to facilitate interconnection to the properties property to the east (the Tree Farm MPUD) and will reserve land for an optional roadway connection to the West (Mirasol PUD), at the time of submittal of the first development order application. 3. When Owner constructs the bridge providing connection to lmmokalee Road it shall be constructed in a location consistent with the future location of the Cocohatchee Canal to accommodate the ultimate canal configuration. This will include relocation of the canal immediately adjacent to (approximately 100' each side of) the proposed bridge. Collier County will be responsible for providing the required easements to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for access and maintenance of the canal (to satisfy the permitting requirements of the SFWMD in the SFWMD ROW Permit Application authorizing the canal relocation). 4. The Owner, his successor, or assigns agrees to construct at no cost to the County a 12' multi-use pathway along the North side of the future location of the Cocohatchee Canal, within property owned by Collier County, which shall connect to the pathway to the West. A 10' pathway may be substituted at this location if consistent with the County's Comprehensive Pathway Plan. This pathway shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 5. The development within this project shall be limited to 1,044 unadjusted twowaytwo-way PM peak hour trips (or 708 adjusted two-way, PM peak hour trips; correspondent to the highest trip generation scenario of those proposed in Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 14 of 15 the updated traffic study information dated November 6, 2009); allowing for flexibility in the proposed uses without creating unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway network. The terms "adjusted" and "unadjusted" shall reference allowances for pass-by and internal capture trip reductions. For purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation of this PUD, the lesser of the weekday PM peak hour trips as calculated in the Institute of Traffic Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip Generation, 8th Edition or the trip generation as calculated in the then current ITE Trip Generation Report shall be utilized. 6. The Owner, his successor, or assigns agrees to be responsiblehas paid for 2% of the construction costs (not to exceed $50,000) to be considered the PUD's proportionate share of the improvements to the intersection of C.R. 951 and Immokalee Road. Payment shall be due within 90 days of receipt of the County's written request. The term "improvements", in this paragraph, means the relocation of the canal, the at-grade improvement of turning movements and turn lanes, all other ancillary at-grade improvements (curbs, bike lanes, etc), construction of a relocated bridge over the Cocohatchee Canal, and signalization for all movements. The term does not refer to potential future, grade-separated intersection improvements. Check received 12/17/15. 7. The owner, its successors, or assigns, agrees to be responsible for permitting the impacts to wetlands within the 1.5 +/- acre right-of-way parcel that was dedicated to Collier County. As a part of the first development order submittal for the site, the owner, its successors, or assigns will clear the 1.5 +/- right-of- way parcel of vegetation and place the sufficient fill required to impact the wetlands within the right-of-way parcel. Collier County will reimburse the developer for the reasonable cost of mitigation, clearing, and filling of the right- of-way parcel, upon submission and County approval of an engineer’s certification of costs after completion of the work. The construction activities that Collier County will be responsible for reimbursement of within the 1.5 acre right-of-way parcel include, but are not limited to: (1) costs for the purchase of mitigation credits to off-set wetland impacts, (2) costs of clearing and grubbing within the 1.5 acre ROW parcel, (3) the costs for the import and final grading of fill material required to elevate the ROW grade to an elevation sufficient to remove the area from SFWMD and ACOE wetland jurisdiction and (4) the costs of transferring the permits to Collier County following the completion of the construction. The Developer shall be allowed to clear vegetation within the County owned portion of the project and maintain this property until such time as Collier County proceeds with the planned right-of-way improvements. II. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. If no residential units are constructed: Based on total site acreage of 23.34 33 acres and 22.6513.81 acres of native habitat area, 3.42.07 acres (15% of habitat area) is required to be preserved pursuant to the Collier County Land Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions Addies Corner MPUD Revised 02/22/2017 Page 15 of 15 Development Code. The MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C, shall provide 8.852.07 acres (0.15 x 13.81) of preserve area. 2. If residential units are constructed: Based on total site acreage of 23.33 acres and 13.81 acres of native habitat area, 3.45 acres (25% of habitat area) is required to be preserved pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code. The MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C, shall provide 3.45 acres (0.25 x 13.81) of preserve area. 23. As a part of the Environmental Resource Permitting process of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), recommendations from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding impacts to protected wildlife species will be incorporated into the permits issued for this project. The developer shall comply with the guidelines set forth within those permits. Habitat management plans shall be provided for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, Big Cypress fox squirrel, wood stork, and any other protected species which inhabit or utilize the areas within the project. 5. Existing native vegetation along the western property boundary will be preserved within the areas shown in the Master Concept Plan. The preserved vegetation along the western property line will be used to satisfy the buffer requirements after exotic removal in accordance with LDC Sections 4.06.02 and 3.05.07. III. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. 2. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development IV. UTILITIES A stub-out to the Tree Farm PUD property boundary shall be provided if the water distribution system for Tree Farm is not available for interconnection at the time of construction. The location of the interconnection shall coincide with the future shared access depicted on the master plan exhibits. 1 JohnsonEric From:Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:59 AM To:JohnsonEric; LenbergerSteve Cc:Joe Pestana Subject:FW: Updated Addies Corner MCP Attachments:Exhibit C MCP Rev2 (12-08-2016), size of buffer.pdf Eric and Steve, The email below and attached file was forwarded by Dan Waters of Barron Collier. As you can see, they are proposing a buffer varying between 15’ to 25’. I’m concerned that width is not sufficient to block out the new buildings, particularly because the treeline will become thinner when the 2 types of exotic species are removed. Taylor Morrison told us that a 50’ buffer was required. Is there an ordinance governing the depth of the buffer or is that decided on a case-by-case basis? Thank you. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: Dan Waters [mailto:DWaters@barroncollier.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 11:47 AM To: Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Subject: Updated Addies Corner MCP Sam, Thanks again for facilitating the meeting earlier this week, I hope it helped to calm any concerns of your neighbors. Attached is the updated version of the MCP that we are planning on submitting to Collier County with our response. The areas of existing vegetation along the western property boundary that we will save are shown on this plan; keep in mind that this is a conceptual zoning plan and that the clubhouse is going to have the configuration shown on the more detailed plan I left with you. The location of the multi-story building is best defined on that site plan and we will save the 30 feet along that frontage, 25 feet by the clubhouse building, and 15 feet along the parking and 20 feet along the entry road. The potential vehicular interconnect that the county is making us show will almost certainly never be constructed, …….. Dan Waters, P.E. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, Florida 34105 Phone: 239.262.2600 Direct: 239.403.6830 Cell: 239.206.7804 dwaters@barroncollier.com 2 This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. 10' WIDE TYPE "A"LANDSCAPE BUFFERNO BUFFER REQUIRED15' WIDE EXISTINGVEGETATION TO REMAIN ASTYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER10' WIDE TYPE "A"LANDSCAPE BUFFER20' WIDE TYPE "D"LANDSCAPE BUFFER20' WIDE EXISTING VEGETATIONTO REMAIN AS TYPE "B"LANDSCAPE BUFFERFUTURE SHARED ACCESSEDGE OF WATERTRACT C(RESIDENTIAL OR GROUP HOUSING)TRACT A(COMMERCIAL AND GROUPHOUSING (IF THERE ARE NODWELLING UNITS IN THE PROJECT))POTENTIAL SHARED ACCESSSEE NOTE #3 REGARDINGBUFFERAMENITYAREAWATERMANAGEMENTAREATRACT BPRESERVE30' WIDE EXISTINGVEGETATION TO REMAIN ASTYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER25' WIDE EXISTINGVEGETATION TO REMAIN ASTYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER0200'100'SCALE: 1" = 200'●●●NOTES1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE ANDIS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUETO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE, AREAPPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TOMODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP ORPLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THELDC.3. A 10' WIDE TYPE 'D' BUFFER BETWEEN THEPROPOSED INTERNAL ROW AND THECOMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TRACTSSHALL BE PROVIDED.4. EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN ALONGTHE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY WILLBE UTILIZED AS REQUIRED LANDSCAPEBUFFER AND SUPPLEMENTED WITHPLANTING AS NECESSARY.SITE SUMMARYGROSS SITE AREA23.33± ACRESPUBLIC ROW/CANAL1.50± ACRESNET SITE AREA21.83± ACRERESIDENTIAL (TRACT C) - 9.82± ACRES (45%)COMMERCIAL (TRACT A) - 4.32± ACRES (20%)AMENITY AREA (PART OF TRACT C) - 0.59± ACRES (3%)PRESERVE (TRACT B) - 3.45± ACRES (16%)WATER MANAGEMENT - 0.95± ACRES(4%)BUFFERS/OPEN SPACE - 2.70± ACRES (12%)TRACT ACOMMERCIAL MAXIMUM 75,000 S.F.GROUP HOUSING 0.6 FARTRACT B - PRESERVEREQUIRED:3.45± ACRES (13.81 ± ACRES NATIVEVEGETATION X 25%)PROVIDED:3.45± ACRESTRACT CRESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM 349 D.U. (16 DU/AC) - IF ALLRESIDENTIALGROUP HOUSING 0.6 FAROPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 30%PROVIDED: 30%# DEVIATIONSESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUDPRESERVEESPLANADEGOLF ANDCOUNTRY CLUBOF NAPLES RPUDRESIDENTIALESPLANADE GOLF ANDCOUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLESRPUD RESIDENTIALTREE FARM MPUDUNDEVELOPEDINGRESS/EGRESS3145615' WIDE 30' WIDE 25' WIDE BUFFERBUFFERBUFFERBUFFER20' WIDE 1 JohnsonEric From:Joe Pestana <jpestana@jppestservices.com> Sent:Friday, February 24, 2017 4:48 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Addies Corner development abutter Hello Eric, I am contacting you so i can be put on the list for notification of meetings regarding the Addies Corner Development by Barron Collier. I live on Amour Ct in the Esplanade Golf and Country Club property and can be contacted at the address below. I will say that I am very concerned about the change of zoning being requested by the developer. They apparently hope to build some form of mixed commercial and condo type residential 4-5 story structure. They have preliminary site plans greatly reducing the size of the existing preserve space, basically removing all the natural buffer along the property line adjacent to the Esplande as well as putting in an entrance off Immokalee just east of the Esplande entrance so as to maximize their development potential. They knew the uses permitted of this property when they purchased it. I am not sure if it is standard procedure for developers to be able to request and receive these types of adjustments to the zoning. I can tell you that it is deeply concerning to me from a enjoyment of use as well as a property value perspective. The current zoning allows nursing homes, assisted living and 55 and over type property’s. It was designated that for a reason and in my view should remain so. I can be reached at the following address. Thank you Joseph Pestana 17 Grant Dr Bedford NH 03110 8636 Amour Ct Naples. Joe Pestana | President Office: 800.222.2908 Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter | Google+ | JP Blog Tell us about your JP experience here! ***CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT*** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended that any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please immed 2 . 1 JohnsonEric From:DAVID FIX <davedds@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:57 AM To:JohnsonEric Cc:LenbergerSteve Subject:Opposition to the Barron Collier Plan We are writing to you to express our opposition to the proposed change in the PUD to the property east of the Esplanade, known as Addie's Corner, by the developer, Baron Collier. These are the reasons for our opposition: -Homeowners in the area purchased their properties under the existing PUD, therefore changes to the PUD would represent an injustice to these homeowners. -Barron Collier knew what the existing PUD was when he bought the property. If it was satisfactory to him then, it should be satisfactory to him now. -Changing the existing PUD is a overdevelopment of the area. It would result in population density too high. This would increase traffic congestion and reduce safety. It would increase noise and lights to our area. -Changing the PUD would damage the environment and beauty of our area. Baron Collier proposes to tremendously reduce the size of the preserve. -Other developers have been held to their existing PUD's, as should Baron Collier. In conclusion, we urge the board to reject Barron Collier's request to change the existing PUD. We also urge the board to maintain the existing preserve in a mainly untouched condition. We wish to be notified of all meetings regarding the issue. David and Alayne Fix 8656 Amour Court Naples Florida 34119 2 978-618-9137 1 JohnsonEric From:Lilliston, Brent <brent@lilliston.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 8:59 AM To:JohnsonEric; LenbergerSteve; BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject:Addie's Corner Developement To all, My name is Brent Lilliston and settled on my beautiful retirement home in Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples on September 3, 2015. When I purchased my home on Amour Court I was informed that a large portion of the property adjacent to the main entrance of our community, where the view from my Lanai is, was a preserve and that we would always have the beautiful trees and golf course as our view. I am shocked what was revealed to us at a meeting that I attended that Barron Collier Developers were planning to do with Addie's Corner on Immokalee Rd close to the Collier and Esplanade Intersections continuing west to Esplanade Golf and CC on Immokalee Rd. I asked at that meeting how much buffer was going to remain and the spokesman said there would be no buffer! Recently I learned that there would be a 10 to 15 ft buffer of trees which I was told should be a total of 50 ft between property that share commercial and homes. That would be 25ft of trees on Addie's corner. How can you do this to million dollar homes in clear view of our properties facing Addie's Corner? The builders spokesman informed us there could be a 65 ft buildings put on the parcel but would not say whether it was a hotel or senior housing as it was approved for. My additional objections are the plans show yet another entry onto Immokalee Road which just today, I had to wait for 5 vehicles ahead of me just to make a right turn from Esplanade onto 2 Immokalee Rd. The traffic is so overloaded on Immokalee Rd it is becoming dangerous! Plus on top of this we are supposed to yield to vehicles making u-turns from the Laurel Lake community, which is another very high density community. When Esplanade is built out we will have almost 1200 homes. Today we are approaching almost 400 of them built and under construction. What will traffic be like then? Now I understand that the preserve area on that parcel, has been requested to reduce the 9 acre preserve to just 3.5 acres! This is not acceptable and is wrong. Taylor Morrison was asked to maintain many of acres of preserves which was done. Why would you even think about taking a 9 acre preserve and shrinking it to 3,5 acres which is nothing. I moved to Collier County because I thought the city fathers care about this beautiful county. Now it looks like money can buy anything, if your name is Barron Collier. There are many very unhappy people here in Esplanade at this time that paid lot premium of up to $175,000. for their dream home to be built on. Now they will face bright lights and noise from the project being considered in plain view of these homes. When asked if it was housing, senior housing, (which it was approved for) or hotels they said there was no decision on what was going there yet. You have to be kidding us all! They know exactly what the project is! In addition, Barron Collier Development is now asking for more door knobs! Stick to the original approvals In addition I am demanding that a traffic signal be installed at the entrance to Esplanade Golf and Country Club be installed to offset the huge traffic problem we already have before more development is placed on Immokalee Road. Most other communities in the area have a traffic signal! It's time to think safety instead of granting permission for a very dangerous situation on the already overloaded traffic on Immokalee Road. 3 In closing I want to be included on all and future meetings that pertain to this project. It is my right as a Collier County homesteaded resident. Brent F Lilliston Vice President Lilliston Ford Inc. 856-896-6671 Direct Office # in NJ 856-691-2020 Main Number 856-691-3182 Personal Fax 239-261-0735 Florida Home Office 609-381-6949 Personal Cell brent@lilliston.com cardealer@comcast.net Mailing Address: 8682 Amour Court Naples, Florida 34119 1 JohnsonEric From:James Welsh <sirjaw@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 12, 2017 10:33 AM To:JohnsonEric Cc:LenbergerSteve; BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject:Addie's Corner development We in the Esplanade appreciate your review of the request for changinging the PUD for Addie's Corner. We bought our home in the Esplanade mainly for the view we have facing East toward the affected development. It gives you the feeling of being in a secluded area. We understand that the development of Addie's Corner will be developed. We also feel that the developer bought the property understanding the building restrictions under the PUD as we bought our place with the same understanding. If allowed, reducing the preserve area will materially affect our property by reducing the privacy we currently enjoy and expected based on current PUDs. Thank you for your time and help. We hope the status of the current PUD is maintained and we all can move forward with the knowledge of why both parties bought their respective properties. -- Have a great day. Jim Welsh 8648 Amour Ct Naples, Fl 1 JohnsonEric From:Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2017 4:41 PM To:JohnsonEric; BellowsRay; BosiMichael; LenbergerSteve Subject:Fwd: Addies Corner ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Addies Corner To: Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Thank you for your feedback. Please circulate this message to all Collier County personnel involved in the process. My contact information: Ron Miller 8670 Amour Ct. Naples, FL. 34119 816-507-0164 ronmiller052645@gmail.com Thought I would take this opportunity to follow up on my previous message dated December 23, 2016. That message related specific objective reasons for the rejection of the proposal to change the Addie's Corner PUD. The main points of that message is any change after other surrounding residents have built houses is a an unfair retroactive change to our properties, the developer knew the PUD when the property was acquired, the existing preserve would be reduced by more than 58%, and 349 residential units would be added. All of this would create pressure to the surrounding residents, the environment and traffic. Based upon the objective facts in that communication, I asked Collier County to reject the proposal in it's entirety. This message will present additional objective facts regarding the Collier County actions about all of the property surrounding Addie's Corner. Mirasol Property The Mirasol property is contiguous to the west of Addie's Corner. This property is now well under development known as Esplanade Golf and Country Club. The PUD on this property was established in 2004, 2004-41, amended in 2009, Ordinance 2009-21. The property is approximately 1,658 acres. Approximately 1,000 acres was placed into Preserve, allowing approximately 658 acres to be developed, allowing 1,121 housing units. This amounts to a density of 1.5 acres per housing unit. In addition, the Preserve was required to be maintained as was, a point of such importance, it will be addressed separately in this message. The developer who acquired Mirasol has developed the property subject to the Collier County Ordinance 2009-21. Mirasol Addition The same developer who acquired and is developing Mirasol (Esplanade) acquired approximately 20 acres of property north and contiguous to Addie's Corner and also east and contiguous to Esplanade. This property was annexed into Esplanade for additional housing development. The PUD on this property was also established in 2 2004, 2004-41 amended in 2014, Ordinance 2014-36. This Ordinance allowed 112 housing units, approximately 5.6 housing units per acre. The developer has developed the property subject to this Ordinance. In fact, the developer has limited the housing units to 47, approximately only 2.4 units per acre. Tree Farm Property The Tree Farm Property lies east and contiguous to Addie's Corner. This property is approximately 59 acres. It's PUD was also established in 2004, 2004-41, amended in 2007, Ordinance 2007-54. The Ordinance allows 175,000 sq' of commercial on approximately 19 acres and 425 housing units on approximately 40 acres. This is approximately 10.6 housing units per acre. As far as I know, the developer is being held to the standards of this ordinance. Addie's Corner Addie's Corner is approximately 23 acres. It's PUD was also established in 2004, 2004-41. It was amended to it's current status in 2011, Ordinance 2011-08. The current status has a Tract A of approximately 13 acres allowing a combination of 135,000 sq' feet of commercial and/or senior housing (55+ assisted living, etc.) or hotel/motel. The Senior housing is based upon a FAR of .6 or a hotel/motel of 26 units per acre. Tract B is approximately 9 acres of required Preserve subject to Section 3.05.07. More on that later. Under current status, the development of any one of the three uses would reduce the amount of the other two. Barron Collier is requesting another ordinance amendment. Their request would create three tracts. Tract A would allow 75,000 sq" of commercial. Tract B, the Preserve, would be reduced to approximately 3.5 acres, thus allowing the expansion of residential units. This reduced Preserve continues to be subject to 3.05.07. The minimum width of the Preserve is reduced from 521' to 200' and the length is reduced by approximately 150'. Tract C, approximately 10 acres creates a new use allowing 349 residential units, 35 housing units per acre. Conclusions I urge Collier County to reject the Barron Collier request in it's entirety. Barron Collier is a sophisticated developer and knew the current restrictions well. These restrictions were established in 2011, are not a surprise to Barron Collier. Collier County has held the developers of the surrounding properties to their restrictions. Approval of the request would allow a substantial increase in density, a significant reduction of the environment and a substantial increase in traffic in an already congested zone. As objectively outlined above, the development of all of the surrounding contiguous property has held the developers to it's existing restrictions with substantially less density, destruction of the environment and traffic. It seems that Barron Collier knows they can have additional privileges when involved in a development. I would like to close with a quote from President Reagan, what Barron Collier "thinks they know, just ain't so". Preserve Retention The retention of the Preserve is a matter of such importance it needs special attention. There are two matters related to the Preserve. The first is it's size. The existing size is approximately 9 acres. The proposal is to reduce it to 3.5 acres. I urge rejection of that reduction in size. The second matter is the retention of the Preserve. Pursuant to Section 3.05.07, the retention of existing preserves is required unless the developer can somehow demonstrate it is unreasonable or perhaps impossible. Under those circumstances, it can be removed and replaced, a generational period of time. As demonstrated by the development of Esplanade next door, the existing preserve can be retained. I urge Collier County to require it's retention. 3 On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 3:33 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote: Ron, I sent an insufficiency letter to the agent in December. We are still waiting for the agent to address our concerns by resubmitting updated information. Once the application is deemed legally sufficient, staff will generate a staff report, including a recommendation, and schedule the petition for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). One caveat to this is on instances when staff and the applicant “agree to disagree,” and the applicant requests to have their petition go forward. Regardless, the CCPC will advise the Board of Commissioners (Board) to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applicant’s request. Once the CCPC is held, staff will schedule the petition for the Board. Generally, there are 4-6 weeks between the CCPC and the Board, although this may not always be the case. In any event, the Board is the final authority in all such matters. As previously mentioned, the applicant needs to resubmit, and staff will have 30 days to review the new packet. Petitions must meet all public notice requirements prior to being reviewed by the CCPC and the Board. Other than the pre-requisite 15 days public notice requirements, there are no typical timetables. As of today, no CCPC is scheduled, and I do not anticipate one being scheduled for the entire month of February. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: Ron Miller [mailto:ronmiller052645@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 11:36 AM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Addies Corner 4 Eric, this is in follow up to my previous message. Would you be so kind to provide a an overview of the Addies Corner process? The number of public meetings, typical time table, the ultimate voting, who votes, etc. Do you know the date of the next meeting? Thank you. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From:Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 5:34 PM To:JohnsonEric Cc:SmithDaniel; LenbergerSteve Subject:RE: Addie's Corner PUDA - Status of Saving Trees on border with Esplanade Eric, (Dan and Steve), I have been in touch with Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering as stated in my email below. Dan has been cooperative and I think is sympathetic to our concern. I left voice mails for you and Steve today, just seeking to learn anything new since my last contact several weeks ago. Whether there is a code requirement to save the trees would be good to know. However, if the Developer intends to save them, I believe that would be a non-issue. I don’t think you need to forward my email to the applicant, because at this point, I feel there is communication and cooperation. Any news from Dan or Steve would be appreciated. Thanks. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: JohnsonEric [mailto:EricJohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 5:26 PM To: Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Cc: SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net>; LenbergerSteve <SteveLenberger@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Addie's Corner PUDA - Status of Saving Trees on border with Esplanade Mr. Miller, I received your voicemail today and wanted to respond. The County sent an insufficiency letter to the applicant in early December. We are still waiting for the applicant to address our concerns and make a resubmittal. No public hearing date has been set. With respect to your specific request about saving trees in the location as per the attached, I defer that type of question to Dan Smith, the landscape reviewer and to Stephen Lenberger, the environmental reviewer, for either of them to make a determination as to whether there is a code requirement to save these trees. Both staff members are copied on this email and can respond to you directly. I suspect this is a topic of which Dan Smith will opine, but it is better to copy both in case I am wrong. If there is no code requirement to save these trees, I can forward your email to applicant if you’d like? Please advise. Thank you. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner 2 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:36 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUDA - Status of Saving Trees on border with Esplanade Eric, Per my voice mail of today, is there any update on being able to save the tall trees in our view? Thank you. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:21 AM To: LenbergerSteve <SteveLenberger@colliergov.net>; Wayne Arnold <WArnold@gradyminor.com>; Sharon Umpenhour <SUmpenhour@gradyminor.com>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net> Cc: SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Addie's Corner PUDA - Buffer requirements for west side of PUD In follow up to Steve’s email, I spoke to Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering (Barron Collier) this morning. Dan said they met with their landscape architect recently. He said they will try to save existing tall trees in a 15’ to 20’ buffer along the west boundary. He said exotic trees will need to go, for which they would fill in. He said they need to have their ecologist look at and would flag the trees they hope to save. They also need to talk to FPL, Sprint, etc., to learn what clearances are needed for utilities. They also need to clear things with Land Management, so it may be 2 to 4 weeks before he has a more clear understanding. He was not making any guarantees, but he said he is sympathetic of our concerns and is trying to do the right thing. He also said he thinks the tall trees help their property. We also discussed the “potential shared access” along with west border shared with the Esplanade community. We discussed that Esplanade is a gated community, that headlights coming from Addie’s corner would shine into the homes facing it and that the point of shared access is where a lake currently exists on the Esplanade property. I don’t believe Barron Collier intends to build a road at this point or that they requested the shared access into Esplanade. It seems to make sense to remove that shared access into Esplanade. I appreciate everyone’s cooperation at the County and Barron Collier. I would appreciate being kept informed of the progress on this issue, including notices of hearings, public meetings, etc. Thank you very much. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: LenbergerSteve [mailto:SteveLenberger@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 9:14 AM To: Wayne Arnold <WArnold@gradyminor.com>; Sharon Umpenhour <SUmpenhour@gradyminor.com>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net> Cc: SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net>; Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUDA - Buffer requirements for west side of PUD 3 Good morning! I spoke with Mr. Miller this morning and he may be approaching you concerning proposed buffers along the west side of the proposed project. Mr. Miller understands that retaining existing slash pines in the buffer would not likely survive. Thank you! Stephen From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:52 AM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com' Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:40 AM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com' Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 12:50 PM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com'; JohnsonEric Cc: BrownAraqueSummer; BellowsRay; SmithDaniel Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? Hi Mr. Miller! Landscape buffer requirements to address compatibility of projects with adjacent property owners is handled by Zoning Services. Best to coordinate with Eric Johnson, the County Project Planner handling the petition. Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the application for the requirement for a preserve, which is identified on the attached proposed PUD master plan. The proposed preserve meets the minimum size required by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The location of the preserve also serves as a buffer along a portion of the property, adjacent to your development. Eric will be able to address buffer requirements in areas where the preserve is not located. Generally speaking, existing slash pines to not survive well in landscape buffers because of their sensitivity to disturbance of soil and the effects irrigation. Setbacks for buildings from property lines, type of plantings with landscape buffers and use of larger species of trees such as live oak will help in blocking the view of larger buildings from neighboring properties. Check with Eric on the requirements of these for the PUD. Thank you! Sincerely, Stephen Stephen Lenberger Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division 4 Collier County Growth Management Department 239-252-2915 SteveLenberger@colliergov.net From: BrownAraqueSummer Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:48 AM To: Miller, Sam H.; JohnsonEric Cc: LenbergerSteve Subject: RE: Addie's corner development, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community Mr. Miller, I will speak with Stephen Lenberger, the Senior Environmental Specialist reviewing this petition and we will call you today to discuss. Regards, Summer B. Araque Principal Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Supervisor Development Review Division Phone: 239-252-6290 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 9:46 AM To: BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Addie's corner development, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community Summer, 5 On Wednesday evening, Dec 21st, we attended a Neighborhood Information meeting on the Addie’s corner development, described in the attached article. Eric Johnson was in attendance and gave me your name. We are quite concerned the view from the rear of our homes will be adversely affected if the trees closest to the Esplanade development are removed. Attached is a picture showing the view we currently enjoy from the rear of our properties. Also attached is a map file showing the area involved. Since the developer told us the retail and office buildings may be 65’ high, preserving the trees is even more important. At the meeting, it was explained that fill dirt must be brought in, I believe to satisfy drainage requirements for the site. For that reason, it may be necessary to remove the trees bordering the Esplanade community we are in. I spoke with Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering (part of Barron Collier), asking if they can meet those requirements, without removing the trees. Dan understood our concern and said he would see if that was possible. When we recently purchased our lots and built homes, we were told the wooded area was a “preserve”. We are now afraid we will lose the beautiful view we paid a premium for and will be looking instead at office buildings and a hotel. I hope you can appreciate our concern and can work with the Developer to find a solution that meets the requirements of the County and the Developer, without negatively affecting our view. I would appreciate if you can let me know if that is possible. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From:Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:36 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:FW: Addie's Corner PUDA - Status of Saving Trees on border with Esplanade Attachments:Homes facing new development.pdf; Picture from rear of Amour Court property, IMG_ 5226.JPG Eric, Per my voice mail of today, is there any update on being able to save the tall trees in our view? Thank you. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:21 AM To: LenbergerSteve <SteveLenberger@colliergov.net>; Wayne Arnold <WArnold@gradyminor.com>; Sharon Umpenhour <SUmpenhour@gradyminor.com>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net> Cc: SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net> Subject: RE: Addie's Corner PUDA - Buffer requirements for west side of PUD In follow up to Steve’s email, I spoke to Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering (Barron Collier) this morning. Dan said they met with their landscape architect recently. He said they will try to save existing tall trees in a 15’ to 20’ buffer along the west boundary. He said exotic trees will need to go, for which they would fill in. He said they need to have their ecologist look at and would flag the trees they hope to save. They also need to talk to FPL, Sprint, etc., to learn what clearances are needed for utilities. They also need to clear things with Land Management, so it may be 2 to 4 weeks before he has a more clear understanding. He was not making any guarantees, but he said he is sympathetic of our concerns and is trying to do the right thing. He also said he thinks the tall trees help their property. We also discussed the “potential shared access” along with west border shared with the Esplanade community. We discussed that Esplanade is a gated community, that headlights coming from Addie’s corner would shine into the homes facing it and that the point of shared access is where a lake currently exists on the Esplanade property. I don’t believe Barron Collier intends to build a road at this point or that they requested the shared access into Esplanade. It seems to make sense to remove that shared access into Esplanade. I appreciate everyone’s cooperation at the County and Barron Collier. I would appreciate being kept informed of the progress on this issue, including notices of hearings, public meetings, etc. Thank you very much. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: LenbergerSteve [mailto:SteveLenberger@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 9:14 AM 2 To: Wayne Arnold <WArnold@gradyminor.com>; Sharon Umpenhour <SUmpenhour@gradyminor.com>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net> Cc: SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net>; Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUDA - Buffer requirements for west side of PUD Good morning! I spoke with Mr. Miller this morning and he may be approaching you concerning proposed buffers along the west side of the proposed project. Mr. Miller understands that retaining existing slash pines in the buffer would not likely survive. Thank you! Stephen From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:52 AM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com' Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:40 AM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com' Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 12:50 PM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com'; JohnsonEric Cc: BrownAraqueSummer; BellowsRay; SmithDaniel Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? Hi Mr. Miller! Landscape buffer requirements to address compatibility of projects with adjacent property owners is handled by Zoning Services. Best to coordinate with Eric Johnson, the County Project Planner handling the petition. Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the application for the requirement for a preserve, which is identified on the attached proposed PUD master plan. The proposed preserve meets the minimum size required by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The location of the preserve also serves as a buffer along a portion of the property, adjacent to your development. Eric will be able to address buffer requirements in areas where the preserve is not located. Generally speaking, existing slash pines to not survive well in landscape buffers because of their sensitivity to disturbance of soil and the effects irrigation. Setbacks for buildings from property lines, type of plantings with landscape buffers and use of larger species of trees such as live oak will help in blocking the view of larger buildings from neighboring properties. Check with Eric on the requirements of these for the PUD. Thank you! Sincerely, Stephen Stephen Lenberger 3 Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division Collier County Growth Management Department 239-252-2915 SteveLenberger@colliergov.net From: BrownAraqueSummer Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:48 AM To: Miller, Sam H.; JohnsonEric Cc: LenbergerSteve Subject: RE: Addie's corner development, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community Mr. Miller, I will speak with Stephen Lenberger, the Senior Environmental Specialist reviewing this petition and we will call you today to discuss. Regards, Summer B. Araque Principal Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Supervisor Development Review Division Phone: 239-252-6290 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 9:46 AM To: BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; JohnsonEric 4 <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Addie's corner development, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community Summer, On Wednesday evening, Dec 21st, we attended a Neighborhood Information meeting on the Addie’s corner development, described in the attached article. Eric Johnson was in attendance and gave me your name. We are quite concerned the view from the rear of our homes will be adversely affected if the trees closest to the Esplanade development are removed. Attached is a picture showing the view we currently enjoy from the rear of our properties. Also attached is a map file showing the area involved. Since the developer told us the retail and office buildings may be 65’ high, preserving the trees is even more important. At the meeting, it was explained that fill dirt must be brought in, I believe to satisfy drainage requirements for the site. For that reason, it may be necessary to remove the trees bordering the Esplanade community we are in. I spoke with Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering (part of Barron Collier), asking if they can meet those requirements, without removing the trees. Dan understood our concern and said he would see if that was possible. When we recently purchased our lots and built homes, we were told the wooded area was a “preserve”. We are now afraid we will lose the beautiful view we paid a premium for and will be looking instead at office buildings and a hotel. I hope you can appreciate our concern and can work with the Developer to find a solution that meets the requirements of the County and the Developer, without negatively affecting our view. I would appreciate if you can let me know if that is possible. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 5 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. Homes on Amour Court, directly facing new development Can tall trees adjacent to Esplanade be preserved? 1 JohnsonEric From:Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent:Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:22 AM To:LenbergerSteve; Wayne Arnold; Sharon Umpenhour; JohnsonEric; SmithDaniel Cc:SawyerMichael; BrownAraqueSummer; BellowsRay Subject:RE: Addie's Corner PUDA - Buffer requirements for west side of PUD In follow up to Steve’s email, I spoke to Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering (Barron Collier) this morning. Dan said they met with their landscape architect recently. He said they will try to save existing tall trees in a 15’ to 20’ buffer along the west boundary. He said exotic trees will need to go, for which they would fill in. He said they need to have their ecologist look at and would flag the trees they hope to save. They also need to talk to FPL, Sprint, etc., to learn what clearances are needed for utilities. They also need to clear things with Land Management, so it may be 2 to 4 weeks before he has a more clear understanding. He was not making any guarantees, but he said he is sympathetic of our concerns and is trying to do the right thing. He also said he thinks the tall trees help their property. We also discussed the “potential shared access” along with west border shared with the Esplanade community. We discussed that Esplanade is a gated community, that headlights coming from Addie’s corner would shine into the homes facing it and that the point of shared access is where a lake currently exists on the Esplanade property. I don’t believe Barron Collier intends to build a road at this point or that they requested the shared access into Esplanade. It seems to make sense to remove that shared access into Esplanade. I appreciate everyone’s cooperation at the County and Barron Collier. I would appreciate being kept informed of the progress on this issue, including notices of hearings, public meetings, etc. Thank you very much. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: LenbergerSteve [mailto:SteveLenberger@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 9:14 AM To: Wayne Arnold <WArnold@gradyminor.com>; Sharon Umpenhour <SUmpenhour@gradyminor.com>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; SmithDaniel <DanielSmith@colliergov.net> Cc: SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net>; BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; BellowsRay <RayBellows@colliergov.net>; Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUDA - Buffer requirements for west side of PUD Good morning! I spoke with Mr. Miller this morning and he may be approaching you concerning proposed buffers along the west side of the proposed project. Mr. Miller understands that retaining existing slash pines in the buffer would not likely survive. Thank you! Stephen From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:52 AM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com' Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? 2 From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 8:40 AM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com' Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? From: LenbergerSteve Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 12:50 PM To: 'shmiller@trumbull.com'; JohnsonEric Cc: BrownAraqueSummer; BellowsRay; SmithDaniel Subject: FW: Addie's Corner PUD amendment, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community? Hi Mr. Miller! Landscape buffer requirements to address compatibility of projects with adjacent property owners is handled by Zoning Services. Best to coordinate with Eric Johnson, the County Project Planner handling the petition. Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the application for the requirement for a preserve, which is identified on the attached proposed PUD master plan. The proposed preserve meets the minimum size required by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The location of the preserve also serves as a buffer along a portion of the property, adjacent to your development. Eric will be able to address buffer requirements in areas where the preserve is not located. Generally speaking, existing slash pines to not survive well in landscape buffers because of their sensitivity to disturbance of soil and the effects irrigation. Setbacks for buildings from property lines, type of plantings with landscape buffers and use of larger species of trees such as live oak will help in blocking the view of larger buildings from neighboring properties. Check with Eric on the requirements of these for the PUD. Thank you! Sincerely, Stephen Stephen Lenberger Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division Collier County Growth Management Department 239-252-2915 SteveLenberger@colliergov.net 3 From: BrownAraqueSummer Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 8:48 AM To: Miller, Sam H.; JohnsonEric Cc: LenbergerSteve Subject: RE: Addie's corner development, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community Mr. Miller, I will speak with Stephen Lenberger, the Senior Environmental Specialist reviewing this petition and we will call you today to discuss. Regards, Summer B. Araque Principal Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Supervisor Development Review Division Phone: 239-252-6290 From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Monday, December 26, 2016 9:46 AM To: BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net>; JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Addie's corner development, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community Summer, On Wednesday evening, Dec 21st, we attended a Neighborhood Information meeting on the Addie’s corner development, described in the attached article. Eric Johnson was in attendance and gave me your name. We are quite concerned the view from the rear of our homes will be adversely affected if the trees closest to the Esplanade development are removed. Attached is a picture showing the view we currently enjoy from the rear of our properties. Also attached is a map file showing the area involved. Since the developer told us the retail and office buildings may be 65’ high, preserving the trees is even more important. 4 At the meeting, it was explained that fill dirt must be brought in, I believe to satisfy drainage requirements for the site. For that reason, it may be necessary to remove the trees bordering the Esplanade community we are in. I spoke with Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering (part of Barron Collier), asking if they can meet those requirements, without removing the trees. Dan understood our concern and said he would see if that was possible. When we recently purchased our lots and built homes, we were told the wooded area was a “preserve”. We are now afraid we will lose the beautiful view we paid a premium for and will be looking instead at office buildings and a hotel. I hope you can appreciate our concern and can work with the Developer to find a solution that meets the requirements of the County and the Developer, without negatively affecting our view. I would appreciate if you can let me know if that is possible. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From:Miller, Sam H. <shmiller@trumbull.com> Sent:Monday, December 26, 2016 9:46 AM To:BrownAraqueSummer; JohnsonEric Subject:Addie's corner development, Saving Trees bordering Esplanade community Attachments:NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PUDA-PL20150001776 Addies Corner PUD - Naples Daily News.pdf; Picture from rear of Amour Court property, IMG_ 5226.JPG; Homes facing new development.pdf Summer, On Wednesday evening, Dec 21st, we attended a Neighborhood Information meeting on the Addie’s corner development, described in the attached article. Eric Johnson was in attendance and gave me your name. We are quite concerned the view from the rear of our homes will be adversely affected if the trees closest to the Esplanade development are removed. Attached is a picture showing the view we currently enjoy from the rear of our properties. Also attached is a map file showing the area involved. Since the developer told us the retail and office buildings may be 65’ high, preserving the trees is even more important. At the meeting, it was explained that fill dirt must be brought in, I believe to satisfy drainage requirements for the site. For that reason, it may be necessary to remove the trees bordering the Esplanade community we are in. I spoke with Dan Waters of Peninsula Engineering (part of Barron Collier), asking if they can meet those requirements, without removing the trees. Dan understood our concern and said he would see if that was possible. When we recently purchased our lots and built homes, we were told the wooded area was a “preserve”. We are now afraid we will lose the beautiful view we paid a premium for and will be looking instead at office buildings and a hotel. I hope you can appreciate our concern and can work with the Developer to find a solution that meets the requirements of the County and the Developer, without negatively affecting our view. I would appreciate if you can let me know if that is possible. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 12/6/2016 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PUDA-PL20150001776, Addie’s Corner PUD - Naples Daily News http://naplesdailynews.fl.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=3764372eb 1/2 Naples Daily News | Page A24 Sunday, 4 December 2016 Powered by TECNAVIA (c) Naples Daily News NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PUDA-PL20150001776, Addie’s Corner PUD The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing Creekside West, Inc. on: Wednesday, December 21, 2016, 5:30 pm at Saint Monica’s Episcopal Church, 7070 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34119The subject property is comprised of approximately 23.33± acres, located near the northwest quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Creekside West, Inc. is asking the County to approve this application, which proposes to amend the previously approved PUD to permit up to 349 multi-family residential dwelling units, 135,000 square feet of commercial uses, hotel, and senior housing uses. Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,itisnotapublichearing. Projectinformationispostedonlineatwww.gradyminor. com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail to: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone:239.947.1144 Fax: 239.947.0375 sumpenhour@gradyminor.com December 4, 2016 ND-1379950 Click here to see this page in the eEdition: Homes on Amour Court, directly facing new development Can tall trees adjacent to Esplanade be preserved? 1 JohnsonEric From:Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 23, 2016 2:10 PM To:JohnsonEric Subject:Fwd: Addie's Corner ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:07 PM Subject: Addie's Corner To: Ron Miller <ronmiller052645@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Johnson: This message is in follow up to the Addie's Corner public informational meeting on Wednesday, December 21. This message is from: Ron Miller 8670 Amour Ct. Naples, FL. 34119 816-507-0164 ronmiller052645@gmail.com Thank you for attending the meeting. I request that I receive notices for all such future meetings. I further request you send this message to all Collier County personnel who will be in the process for the requested new revised PUD for the property. I strongly request that the Collier Board reject this proposal in it's entirety and require Baron Collier to honor the current PUD. What follows is an analysis and the reasons for my request. I will circulate this message among other interested parties. The Collier Board analyzed this property in 2011 and substantially changed it's it's PUD from agriculture to the current PUD pursuant to Ordinance 2011-08, which remains in effect today. This property is approximately 23.33 acres. Overview Analysis of the current PUD 2011-08 The property is divided into Tracts A and B. Tract A 56%, Tract B is 38% and the balance is easement. Tract A allows a combination of commercial and or senior housing. The commercial is very broad, allowing 155 different development choices. The senior housing is very narrow, allowing 55 and older residents for skilled nursing, independent living and assisted living units. The overall limit on the amount of combination of commercial and senior housing is beyond my understanding, but there is a limit. Tract B preserve is preserve. Overview Analysis of New Proposal 2 The property is divided into three tracts. Tract A is 20%, Tract B is 16%, Tract C is 48%, the balance is easement. Tract A allows the same as Tract A in Ordinance 2011-08, that is, a combination of commercial and senior housing. Tract B is the same as Tract B in Ordinance 2011-08, that is, preserve. Tract C introduces a new allowance for 349 of undefined multi family residential units. Analysis of Current PUD Vs. Proposed Tract A - this tract has been reduced from 56% to 20%, allowing the same commercial and senior housing. The intent is obvious. This will be developed into 100% commercial. Tract B, the preserve, has been reduced from 38% to 16%, less than half. Tract C, 48%, has been introduced for 349 residential units. Reasons for Rejection of Proposal The property was thoroughly reviewed and raised from agriculture to the current PUD in 2011. If any change is allowed in the future it would be a repudiation of the Collier Board in 2011. The current owner has probably the biggest development history in Collier County. The county is named after the developer. They knew the PUD when the property was acquired and paid a market price for that PUD. To allow any new PUD would be granting a windfall to the developer at the expense of the surrounding residents and environment and traffic. Please don't be taken in by a request for 349 residential units with a compromise of fewer. A reduction, which is planned for in the request, would have their lawyers high fiv'ing in the hallways. Many surrounding residents, me specifically, actually checked the PUD of this contiguous property before purchasing property. Approval of any new request would be changing our property rights retroactively. Any new proposal would also negatively impact the environment and traffic. Such changes are beyond the scope of this message. My request is for the Collier Board to do the right thing, rejection of this and any other change proposal. I write my request with some trepidation, an analogy of David vs. Goliath, but with optimism, remembering the outcome of that incident. Thank you for your consideration.