Loading...
CCPC Agenda 10/05/2017 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., OCTOBER 5, 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—July 20,2017 and August 17,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. PL20170000007: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 95-33, the Briarwood PUD, as amended, to add 320 multi-family dwelling units in Tract B & C: multi-family residential as an alternative to commercial development on Tract B & C: commercial community; to add development standards for Tract B &C multi-family residential; to add Exhibit A-1 Tract B & C Master Plan and Exhibit A-2 enhanced Type D buffer for property consisting of 209.17± acres; located on the east side of Livingston Road, north of Radio Road, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the August 17, 2017 CCPC meeting, the September 7, 2017 CCPC meeting and the September 21,2017 CCPC meeting: A. PUDA-PL20170001626: An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2005-63, as amended, the Cirrus Pointe RPUD, to reduce the minimum floor area for multi- family dwelling units, and to approve a Second Amended and Restated Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement to allow the Developer to have the option of constructing owner occupied units or rental units designated as affordable housing units. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.92 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] B. PUDZ-PL20160001985: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Cleary RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 63 residential dwelling units or 200 group housing units for seniors on property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately one quarter mile east of Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 8.99+ acres. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] C. PL20150002167: An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to revise the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District to add the previously requested 150,000 square feet of commercial land uses for the 14.492 acre tract per petition no. CP-2003-1; to add 50,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area to the existing 200,000 square feet of commercial land uses and the previously requested 150,000 SF of commercial land uses for a total of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of commercial land uses; to remove a development restriction related to transportation impacts; to amend and re-order the text; and providing for transmittal of the adopted amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability; providing for an effective date. The subject subdistrict is 47.94+acres and located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and approximately 1/4 mile west of Collier Boulevard in Section 34,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] D. PL20150002166: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2005-19, the Carolina Village Planned Unit Development by changing the name of the Planned Unit Development to Vanderbilt Commons PUD; by adding 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area for a total of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable area for commercial uses; by decreasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 64 to 58 dwelling units; by revising the legal description and reducing the acreage of the PUD from 15.88 acres to 14.49 acres; and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 15.8+/- acres, is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and approximately 1/4 mile east of Collier Boulevard in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl,AICP, Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the July 20, 2017,August 17, 2017 CCPC meeting, the September 7, 2017 CCPC meeting and the September 21, 2017 CCPC meeting: E. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two,Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending: Chapter Three — Resource Protection, including section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, to amend design standards relating to off-site preserves and to modify requirements for monetary payment and land donation off-site preserve alternatives; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP,LDC Manager] F. PL20170000596/CPSP-2017-1: A Resolution relating to the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, providing for the Annual Update to the Schedule of Capital Improvement Projects, within the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan based on the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities (AUIR), and including updates to the 5-year schedule of Capital Projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element (for fiscal years 2018 — 2022) and the schedule of Capital Projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element for the future 5-year period(for fiscal years 2023 —2027), and to sections relating to the public school facilities Capital Improvement Plan and work program, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Neighborhood Information meeting(NIM)discussion. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi,Director] 11. PUBLIC COMMENT 12. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp I July 20, 2017 Page 1 of 35 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 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, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Patrick Dearborn Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Ned Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative July 20, 2017 Page 2 of 35 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday July 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. 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 is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt had a conflicting environmental seminar he had to attend today, so that's why he won't be here. Addenda to the agenda. We only have one item on today's agenda for the advertised public hearing, and it's discussion of the preservation standards that we previously reviewed in January. Then I have -- I remember from past that Stan had wanted to add a discussion at some point concerning submerged land -- no, sea level rise. Do you still want to do that, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eventually, yeah. Today would be good, but I can wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get past it so we know what it is your issue is. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's add it to -- since today there's only one item on the agenda, let's add it to new business; new business, 10A. Then 10B -- I heard from the County Attorney's Office that Ned -- and I saw he passed something around this morning -- has an issue he'd like to discuss about NIMs. Ned, is that okay for today's agenda? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 11B (sic). COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, because those are announced today, if there's any action needed on those, we may have to forgo the action till it's properly noted, but we'll see what the issues are when we get to them. Planning Commission absences: We originally had scheduled a meeting for the 31st in the evening to discuss an LDC amendment, and there's no need for that now based on some recent actions by the Board of County Commissioners, so the Planning Commission's meeting on the July 31st will not occur. And we have no cases to discuss on August 3rd. So the Planning Commission meeting on August 3rd is canceled. And, for your benefit, there are two items tentatively scheduled for the second meeting in August. You'll probably be notified by staff on whether or not they end up getting advertised and put forth on that date or they move to another date, which takes us to the next -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Yes, sir. July 20, 2017 Page 3 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. Just so that you know, I will not be in attendance on the second meeting in August due to an unavoidable out-of-town conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Approval of minutes. We have two sets of minutes that were included in our electronic transmittals. May 18th. Does anybody have any changes to May 18th's minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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 DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The second one is the July 1st meeting. Anybody have any changes? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move their approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move approval by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That takes us to -- well, we're not going to -- there's no BCC report and recaps. Ray's not here, and we'll let Mike -- get him off the hook on that. I have no chairman's report. Consent agenda, there's nothing on it. ***We'll move right into the first advertised public hearing, which is 9A. It's an adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code, and this particular one is for 3.05.07, the preservation standards. We don't normally swear in for these. I don't see a need to today. We'll just go into presentation and discussion. Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Good morning. Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager with Growth Management July 20, 2017 Page 4 of 35 Department. Happy to be here again. It's been quite some time since we reviewed this amendment last, and looking forward to finally getting through it today. So we have at least one new planning commissioner today, so I'll give just a brief overview of the history of the amendment and some of the other things that are changing in the amendment. So this amendment actually goes back to 2015 when the Board had some concerns about the amount of money that came along with land donations for off-site preservation and gave staff direction to increase the land management endowment so that it lasted longer than the current endowments are lasting, and to also consider removing the land donation alternative. So we had kind of two options as we started this amendment. And as we've gotten into the amendment, we've also tried to -- or gotten into this section, we've also tried to include in the amendment closing some loopholes, some issues that we've noticed in this section, so there's a number of other changes to the section in addition to the changes regarding the land management endowment. So beginning with the applicability section, I'll just kind of walk you through each section. What we -- what this section does is allows for off-site preservation for the preserve requirements for projects that have a preserve requirement of up to one acre. There is an exemption from that one-acre limitation for affordable housing and essential services facilities. There's also a PUD deviation section where off-site preservation can be allowed for preserve requirements up to two acres through that PUD deviation process. There are -- there's also a stipulation that you cannot get a deviation if those preserves have already been identified on an SDP or plat. The current restrictions section is being retitled to a prohibition section. What this does is ensures that these prohibitions can't be deviated from. And then getting to what was the subject of most of our discussion back in January, the off-site preservation alternatives. There are two alternatives for off-site preservation. The first is a monetary payment. In this case, just a monetary payment is paid from the developer and that monetary payment is made up of two elements: The cost to purchase the land. And at the last Planning Commission meeting, you all had talked about basing that on the AUIR. And the next element of that payment is the land management endowment. So this is where we had the most discussion; what that endowment should be. That's based on the staff estimate of the annual cost for exotics maintenance and then also an initial exotics removal cost. And it's that staff estimate of annual exotics that we've made modifications to, and that's really the main change from the last time you saw this in January. The second alternative is the option for a land donation that -- in addition to the donation of land also comes along with that land management endowment, again, made up of the same two elements: The annual exotic maintenance cost and the initial exotics removal cost. And there's also a 4-1 donation ratio included. So, as I said, we made some modifications to that annual cost, the estimated annual cost for exotics management. And you can see the change here. At the last meeting we were using a figure of $558 per year, and we've modified that now to $304 per year based on a couple of changes, namely to the costs for site visits, administrative tasks and signage replacement, so, really, some of the staff costs associated with managing these parcels. So in your packet today there was -- there's a table in Exhibit 1 that identifies the management costs for Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head. Since sending that packet out to you, we've been able to put together a little bit more information about actual costs that Conservation Collier has paid for just the exotics removal portion of that -- of the management of those parcels. And so you can see in the case of Red Maple Swamp the average cost over about four years was $142 per acre. So if we were to take the staff costs identified on that last slide and add that to the $142 for exotics removal, that total cost would end up to be $300 per acre to manage the parcels in Red Maple Swamp. And then looking at Winchester Head, the average cost for three years of management was $506. Again, that's just for the exotics maintenance portion. Adding the staff costs to that brings that cost up to 664. So looking at these two examples, looking at some of the other examples in Table 1 in Exhibit 1, I July 20, 2017 Page 5 of 35 think that the modification to that land management -- annual land management cost really does represent kind of a minimum of staff costs associated with managing these parcels. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, can we ask questions at any time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to Jeremy. I was going to kind of let him get through it to see if he answers some of your questions, but if you have something, I don't know why we can't. MR. FRANTZ: I'm happy to take questions whenever. It's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I kind of remember asking about the exotics in Winchester Head at one time, and I was told that there was no exotic removal because the parcels were so disjointed. Are you removing the exotics from Winchester Head parcels? And how effectively are you doing? 100 percent removal, or is this just some parcels, some -- MR. FRANTZ: My understanding is that the removal that we're doing is only for parcels that have been donated, but I will stand corrected. That's correct. So only for the parcels that have been donated. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So all the parcels that have been donated have had all the exotics removed from them? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. MS. SULECKI: Good morning. Alex Sulecki, for the record, Conservation Collier Coordinator. Yes. Thank you for the question. We remove exotics to approximately 5 percent. That's our goal. And all of the donated parcels in Winchester Head have been treated. They were initially treated when they were given to us, and we've treated them again to follow up on that initial treatment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Back up. You said we removed parcels -- we remove exotics to approximately 5 percent. What does that mean? MS. SULECKI: That means we like to have no more than 5 percent exotics on the property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So if I were to go out there and take a look, I wouldn't hardly see any exotics at all on any of the parcels in Winchester Head that the county owns? MS. SULECKI: You would see a lot less than what's next door depending on where you are in the cycle. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. MS. SULECKI: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So then, if you recall, we were using a 20-year model to generate that endowment cost using the annual maintenance cost. So plugging that $304 into that same 20-year model we used in the past comes out to an $18,000 land management endowment. So what that means for these two alternatives in terms of the costs associated, you can see here we have two different costs for the monetary payment alternative depending on the location of the development, whether it's in the urban area or non-urban area, and then again for the land donation alternative there is that land management endowment per acre as well as a 4-1 donation ratio. I have a couple of corrections to your packet that I just wanted to go over really briefly. On Page 4 we have this image that kind of depicts the applicability for off-site donations for a number -- in a number of circumstances. And you can see where I've got this red line crossing out right-of-way acquisitions. That was an existing provision that was removed early on in the vetting process of this amendment, but it was never removed from this image. And on Pages 8 and 9, we have two tables that describe the elements of the land donation fee. In your packet it calls the numbers in the right-hand column the per acre cost. That was incorrect. The per acre cost is actually in the parentheticals on the left-hand side, and the total cost that you see on the right-hand side is actually the total cost per donation in those instances due to the donation ratios. And on Page 24, this is actually in the amendment text we noticed that there was a reference to a couple of sections that have been deleted, and so we've just removed that reference. So that's the end of my presentation, and we're open to any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, being the newest member to this group, would not presume to offer substantive changes to things July 20, 2017 Page 6 of 35 which have been looked at very carefully by the people, the other people up here. But when I looked at the proposed LDC language, I found it, at least in my perception, not to be sufficiently clear. And so I attempted to revise it in a way that, at least with one exception, was intended not to make any substantive changes in what staff was proposing and that this commission had previously reviewed with the sole objective being to make it more clear and readable, also in the event that down the road this language were to become a dispute of some sort between adverse parties, that the county would, at least from my perception, be in a better position to defend the substance of what was being offered. So having said that, and in order to present in as clear a way as possible my suggested changes to this language, I have handed out a redliner, a black and white redliner that, unfortunately, probably because of the limitations of my printer, is hard to read, and so I apologize for that. I also printed one color copy, and for some reason the color copy picked up my additions but not my deletions. So it was of limited value. But staff already has that in hand for use on the overhead. May I go through these, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. That would be best, Ned. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. First of all -- and you might refer to the redliner. You will see that I've suggested a subject for Subsection F that seems to incorporate everything that is being addressed in that subsection. I then moved purpose and intent into its own subsection so that it would apply to the entire section. It then occurred to me that I was confused by the section captioned "applicability." It seemed to me rather that that section was intended to deal with preserve requirements of one acre or less. And so I reorganized the language so that Subsection 2, little romanette ii, dealt only with preserve requirements of one acre or less. Then there was language -- and I should say that I've had several very helpful conversations with Jeremy about this off-line, and he helped me focus on what the intentions were so that I could be sure that I didn't change the meaning unintentionally. But the last sentence of what was No. 2, applicability, I believe is intended to apply not only to one-acre-or-less situations but the greater preserve requirement -- acreage requirement as well. So I moved that to a free-standing Sub 3 so that it's clear it applies to both one acre or less and greater than one acre. Let's see. I renamed -- I moved the 2D from exceptions to the subject that seemed to -- at least wording, which in my judgment, at least, better captured what was to be said in there: Preserve requirement of greater than one acre. So all of that deals with that. And then the new Subsection 4 is the language that is intended to apply to both situations: One acre or less and greater than one acre. Then I rewrote slightly the prohibition section to try to make it a little more clear without, I hope, changing any of the substance of it. The Subdivision C of what is now 6 was actually changed by staff, and I accepted their changes. I had raised the question that it didn't seem to make any sense to me as written, and so they changed it, and I embraced their changes. Then the only substantive change I made is down in what is now 7A on Option 1 -- well, it's also on Option 2. But, first of all, I had to get over the hurdle of whether a land donation was a required option under the GMP. I looked at the language, and the word "or" is used between -- or among the options rather than "and." So I took it from that that land donation does not have to be an option as long as at least one of those disjunctive options were offered. So having gotten over that hurdle though, I thought about when off-site donations or off-site -- payments for off-site preserve requirements are made, it seemed to me that they should -- those payments should reflect not the situs of the donated land but the situs of the original land so that in urban areas the higher price would apply to the calculation of the donation than it would in rural areas. And so that shows up as a parenthetical in what is now what I would propose to be 7A. And those were the changes that I made or am proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like clarification, but I certainly think we're going to have to July 20, 2017 Page 7 of 35 provide some time for staff to see if the clarifications produce the equivalent intent that was intended from the way staff had written it. Unless you've already reviewed it ahead of time, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, we did get the opportunity, as I said, to speak about his changes. I have looked at the -- a version prior to this that was passed out today. And I don't have any objections myself to the changes. I don't see any changes that would affect the substance of the amendment, so unless there's an objection maybe from the County Attorney's Office to any of the changes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my only concern is if it's not been vetted as thoroughly for us to read ahead of time and possibly other members of staff or stakeholders who may want to read it. That's the immediate concern if you get into this extensive kind of change. MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. Mike Bosi, the Planning and Zoning Director. One of the things I would like to do if we would take any action on this, it would have to be -- it would delay, because we would need environmental staff, we would need Conservation Collier, we would need all the stakeholders to be able to also, you know, come to the substantive -- or the agreement that these aren't substantive changes and that it's been vetted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get through the day and see where it all goes, and we'll have to make a decision if we want to go forward after that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I didn't get it ahead of time, but I did read through Mr. Fryer's changes. I do have a couple changes to his language if you'd like me to address it now or wait until we get to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll just wait until we -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just wait till we get to it in the section, if that's okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there may be -- we're going to -- typically we walk through these kind of step by step, so we're still going to do that. We can see how these changes -- or you can react to them as we get into each page. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which, honestly, takes us to any other questions from the Planning Commission, holistically, before we just walk through the pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one item I had thought about last night; because I have been very, very troubled over this issue of monetary payment and endowments and also the issue of what we, as quality in Collier County, look to in our developments, and one of the greatest things we have is preservation and green space. And we have a lot more of it than most other counties. We have great architecture. There's a lot of things we do that are different than Lee and Miami and other places, and we need to keep those up. What bothers me most about this entire thing is it's all based on the allowance of a deviation for preservation that somehow turns into a monetary buy-out for a program that I'm not sure -- I'm not very comfortable with. And why do we even need to go there in the first place? I mean, I went through yesterday and found examples of where we prohibit deviations in other parts of the code and when we have strict criteria that looks at public health, safety, and welfare and things like that in other parts of the code if they're going to ask for a deviation. And I'm just now taking a step back, and it's not because I thought the deviation initially was a bad idea. It's because I think this is a bad idea where this is heading in the way we're arbitrarily pulling numbers together to say this is how much you've got to pay. I just don't like the methodology here. But in thinking about that, I thought, well, if we want Collier County to be what it's been, why are we allowing these preservation areas -- now, in some areas of this you called them preservation areas, but in the GMP I think it's referred to as open space or other kind of -- maybe not -- maybe not preservation, but green space. I forgot the other words. But why aren't we looking at this and just keeping it and saying if you -- not encouraging. Because if July 20, 2017 Page 8 of 35 you give a deviation as an option, they're going to take it. And if you give them up to two acres, they're going to take it, and this just isn't coming out right. I think we're going to be encouraging when we're trying to discourage. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: Again, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. And I appreciate the comments from the Chair. And I think what Jeremy's response would be was we were reacting upon a specific direction from the Board of County Commissioners to address the endowment cost. The questions and the comments that the Chair made are much more programmatic and influenced from a policy discussion. And the question is the direction and the allowance for off-site preservation, should that be an acceptable deviation within our codes that we provide for? That's a much different question than what the Board of County Commissioners asked us to act upon. I think that's a fair recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners that they have concern with the allowance -- the continued allowance for off-site preservation within our LDC and ask the Board of County Commissioners, could we revisit that or should we revisit that in whatever manner that you would like. So I think because we touch those issues within this amendment, it's a fair recommendation to make to the Board of County Commissioners. But from staff's perspective, we were tasked specifically with the charge to find a more appropriate endowment for the off-site -- when we have conservation land provided for. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, if memory serves me correct, we started down this path a number of years ago when we had an industrial property. I believe it was, like, a towing company, and the on-site preservation was kind of silly because it was a very small lot, and it just made no sense to preserve a small number of trees. And we've somehow expanded that concept to something that was very different than what we were originally talking about. You know, eventually you get to the point where it's become almost like an exaction where we don't really want you to do a preserve in these areas, so wink, wink, wink, give us money and, you know, we'll put it to better use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and, Jeff, when -- my reading of that last night again, I just can't -- I can't accept the monetary issues put forth in this document. And then I got to thinking, why are we even doing this in the first place? This is not what has made Collier County better; by encouraging ways or providing ways to circumvent our rules. And I would just as soon maybe we take a look at this in a different light. And I know, Jeremy, you've spent a lot of time on it. I would have mentioned it to you when we had talked this week. It was last night when I finally gave up trying to figure out what all these numbers meant. And I got to thinking of a couple things. When I -- I had a little fishing boat, 17-foot long. And I remember people used to joke with me. Do you know what a boat is? And I said, what? They said, well, it's a hole in the water you continuously dump money. Well, when 91 percent of Conservation Collier's purchases are in the rural lands in areas that, by the way, already have a lot of environmentally sensitive areas that are protected and they buy something out there and they try to maintain it, it becomes another hole in the landscape that we're constantly going to dump money into. And proof of that is, there's $32 million in Conservation Collier's budgeted account now for maintenance. Now, they've got 3,700 acres, a little less than that. That's like $9,000 an acre for perpetual maintenance going on out there. And as Einstein once said -- and I had to write the quote down -- the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. We will never see a different result in the rural area until those areas are cleared surrounding them and the seed source starts diminishing. It's like Stan had brought up a long time ago. Everywhere he and I kayak or he and Duke or other people kayak, all we see is exotics. We're never going to get rid of them piecemealing it and picking one hole and dumping continuous taxpayer dollars into it. So I am not comfortable with this. And I know you've spent a lot of time on it, but it's the monetary July 20, 2017 Page 9 of 35 part of it that gets me. And then I thought, well, how do we stop that? All of a sudden a light bulb went on and said, why don't we just stop the deviations? Without the deviations, there's no monetary issue. So, anyway, that's kind of a tact I've been trying to think of. I wanted to express that to you today to see what kind of reaction and discussions we have, and maybe that's a better way to go. MR. BOSI: And as the characteristics of Jeremy, he -- in his thorough due diligence, he did call to the attention, I think, a relevant fact related to the Growth Management Plan related to these off-site preserves. Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: So regarding the deviation, there is a section in the GMP conservation -- or the CCME that requires a deviation process from these standards from the off-site donation process. So that's the reason that we have that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa. It says -- look at the third word; "may." You think "may" is a requirement? And, by the way, it says "native vegetation." It doesn't say preservation or preserves, habitat, and things like that. So if you've got a native tree there, it could theoretically fit the green space objectives that many of us have moved here for. But do you really think that the "may" is a mandatory? MR. FRANTZ: Well, this is the section that we're relying upon when we included the deviation process. Under the current program, you can get a deviation. It's just not enumerated in this section, and so there's no upper limit on the deviations, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your starting comment was, it's required. I'm wondering if it's required or just it's something we should consider. MR. BOSI: And I think you have to read that sentence in -- fully. And it's saying it may grant the deviation, and because it may grant the deviation, you have to have in place the Land Development Code regulations for how you process that deviation. So you don't have to grant the deviation, but by having the possibility in the GMP, it enhance -- requires that you have an LDC regulation that dictates for how you could obtain that deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but if it says the county may grant a deviation, wouldn't that mean we have the choice whether we want to even grant it or not? And if we don't want to, we simply write the implementation code, which is the LDC, so that we don't -- they're prohibited. We're actually doing it. We've done it in numerous cases. MR. BOSI: Well, I think you would have a conflicting policy within your GMP. You're specifically saying you may grant them a deviation, but then within your LDC regulation you're saying that there's no opportunity for deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the choice we've made based on that policy. MR. BOSI: Well, that would be an inconsistency. That policy would need to be addressed, I believe. And I'm not saying that it's not appropriate. And, once again, let me say that this is a discussion, I believe, that is at a policy level that the Board is -- or the Planning Commission would potentially request the Board to make an evaluation upon because of the concerns, and they're expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the value of IRMA preserves, and there's justification for it. It's just it's much greater than, you know, the specific action that Jeremy was tasked with from the BCC. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But, Mike, don't we already have a deviation process by allowing one or two acres to go off-site? MR. BOSI: Yes, we do, and I think what the Chair is suggesting that maybe the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that we eliminate the opportunity for that off-site deviation process. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think what he's suggesting is the off-site deviations beyond the one or two acres. Am I correct -- or for the whole section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Heidi, this -- the effort to deal with a monetary piece of this thing has been such a nightmare, and it's so seemingly arbitrary in the number of different ways it could be done. I just am not comfortable with it. And then I tried to figure out a way, okay, we need to get away from this. I don't think it was right, and if it isn't, how do we get away from it? Well, don't allow deviations for preserves to begin with or native vegetation. July 20, 2017 Page 10 of 35 And, by the way, it is native vegetation. It's not preserves. It's a big difference. And we keep focusing on preserves, and we are not thinking necessarily just of native vegetation, but it can be either one. So someone doesn't have to have a site with preserves on it, preserve-quality green space, but they've got to have a -- if the site has native vegetation, that in itself would qualify for the ability to leave it on site, and then they'd have to have, by this language, a deviation to take it off-site. MR. KLATZKOW: There needs to be policy decision underlying all of this, and the policy decision is whether or not you're required to do this, period, or if you reach a certain size we don't care. And I don't really know that we've ever had that discussion. I mean, again, my recollection was we had this one instance where we had this one parcel, and it seemed to be an unfair result, and this all grew out of that. I don't know that we ever had that basic policy decision as do we want these preserves in these -- we call them preserves -- in these urban areas, and what size should they be. And if we're not going to call them preserves, native vegetation is fine, too. Or what do we want? Do we want preserves or do we want green space? I mean, they're very different ideas. That's the basic policy issue that everything else will flow from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, by instituting this deviation process or even supporting it, we're encouraging you to come through as a -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what policy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- variance. MR. KLATZKOW: What policy does the deviation support is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I'm -- well, apparently the deviations to support Policy 611 of the CCME. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I don't know what the GMP says, but what's the policy? What do we want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's another whole -- that's a board-level discussion, I agree with you. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yes. But at the end of the day, you're the body here charged with looking at this stuff and making recommendations to the Board. And if you don't believe that a certain mechanism is currently working -- and, apparently, you don't -- you know, it's -- one of the things the Planning Commission does is make recommendations to the Board to fix it. But what I'm saying is you need a core policy here that everything else grows out of, and I don't know that we have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and as an alternative, too, Jeremy and I started talking, and I think yesterday we actually met. Because on Monday I suggested, if we're going to go provide an opportunity to go from one to two acres off-site -- and there doesn't seem to be anything limiting the first acre except the prohibitions -- then what's the criteria to go from one to two? Because without criteria, it becomes more arbitrary. And so Jeremy tried to write up criteria. And I got thinking about that last night, and I related it back to variances. And I thought, well, wait a minute. If we undid deviations for this preservation or native habitat and we left it as a variance application with a prohibition above a certain threshold, then they would have to meet the hardship criteria and other criteria of the variance. That might be a better standard to consider in leaving it like that as its treated elsewhere in the code and not get into this whole new ball of wax involving a deviation for something that may not be the right policy to begin with. Anyway, that's how I got to where my thoughts were. I thought I'd express them so that at least during the discussion we have time to talk about them. And Summer's up here anxiously trying to patiently say something. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. I'm Summer Araque, Environmental Planning Supervisor. As the supervisor of the section who uses this, I really wanted to make some key points on some things that have been said. Currently the GMP does allow for deviations, but deviations are not included in the code, in this section of the code. So applicants can go back to the GMP and refer to that to request their deviation but, like you said, July 20, 2017 Page 11 of 35 there's no criteria; so with that, the sky is the limit. They can request as much as they want. So that's why we put limitations in here. Currently, a commercial property can take two off without getting any deviations if the preserve requirement is two acres or less and they don't meet any of the restrictions, prohibitions, et cetera. So that's why we went with that two acres. So, actually, we moved it down to, across the board, one acre or less, but you could deviate up to two, and two is the limit. And that's why we did that, because of properties wanting to come in and remove seven, eight -- they start with seven, eight acres requesting a deviation. Who knows what the acreage is next that they request. And I think, too, in regards to the native vegetation, the way that this policy is written is that it's referring to the native vegetation on the site is what we use to determine the preserve requirement. So just some clarification there. And I'm happy to answer any other questions, and I might pop up again depending on the conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, please do. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just expressing some thoughts I had last night, because I cannot get comfortable with this monetary issue we're dealing with, and I'm trying to avoid a way to have to do that, so -- MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. And that's a whole different issue that's really outside of my section, but I think that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. It's in your section now. That's what we're doing here today. I wish we weren't. MS. ARAQUE: But what I mean is my -- that's a Conservation Collier thing. When I say "my section," I say Environmental Planning. Yes, it's in our section of the code. But as far as we're concerned, we're dealing with the property comes in, can they take the preserve off-site? And if we're not going to amend the GMP, and that's not up to me, then we -- I would really highly request that we have something in the code that limits petitions from coming in and requesting as much acreage as they want, because currently they can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we were to consider -- MS. ARAQUE: -- and have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the recommendation will never be to take the deviation process out of this section of the code, it would be to make the preservation and prohibition then to remove it. So it wouldn't be -- you wouldn't have that issue anymore. MS. ARAQUE: Currently, there is no deviation section in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, but apparently there's people that believe we need to put one in there based on what you just said because of this Section 6.1.1. MS. ARAQUE: Right, because of the GMP, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's the need and we put it in there but we take and address the "may" as, okay, that means we can or can't -- MS. ARAQUE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll decide not -- maybe we could decide not to and leave the preservation alone. We've got -- the flood of deviations coming in with PUDs is getting more overwhelming than necessary, and I'm not getting very comfortable with it, and I thought maybe it would stabilize, but it doesn't seem to be going that way. MS. ARAQUE: And if it weren't for the GMP, I would -- then it would be really easy to not allow any deviations in this section. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, we had left off and starting to move into the document. And just for our discussions, does the rest of this board want to walk through the pages of the document? I know Ned already has, and he's distributed a document which -- if it's clarifications that help the situation, by all means, they July 20, 2017 Page 12 of 35 should be considered by staff and go forward with it. As far as my comments on the rest of this, I have a few. I don't know if the rest of you had any others. Anybody have anything else that they want to -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just some observations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The endowment models, if you look at them, they -- because you have a certain interest rate that it starts out with, the 2.25 percent, and then you have this maintenance number that increases by 3 percent, the model, because of the way they picked the numbers, it starts going up and then it starts coming down. So I took their Excel sheet and duplicated it and ran it all the way down. And in 50 years you totally run out of money, period. So it's not in perpetuity. It's just 50 years. The DSAC model, though, runs a little longer, though, because they figure in the first few years you're going to spend a lot of money to take out the exotics, and then the amount of maintenance after that is going to be lower. I don't know if that's true or not. And you were talking about all the different places you see exotics. We canoed to Lely Outfall Canal yesterday, down over the spreader weir and out into the Naples Bay. It's a beautiful ride if anybody wants to do it. And one of the best features of that is you will see every exotic known to man along the banks: Carrotwood, Melaleuca, the Brazilian pepper. The only one I didn't see was downy rose myrtle. But if you want an example of where it's a good teaching tool to show people what these things look like, Australian pines just huge. You're not going to get rid of this stuff. You're just not. You were right about that. I agree with almost -- I agree with everything you said. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, he's out in the woods as much as I am or, actually, you're out more than I am anymore. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm retired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. It makes it a little easier. I just -- the experiences I have out there just don't seem -- I don't know how we're ever thinking that we can keep dumping money into this and see a different result. I just don't. But, anyway, with that, if we want to walk through the comments we have on the rest of it, just depending on how this goes so everything at least is on record, we have the first part of the first few pages, let's say through Page 3 of the packet. Does anybody have any questions? And this is on Page 4 of 20 of the packet. It's labeled Page 3, but it's actually electronic page 4. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comments, I've basically already stated them. I'm concerned about the -- if we allow the deviation, you're going to have it for zero to one for every project that doesn't fall into the prohibitions. The prohibitions aren't criteria. There's a different level, so I still think we need the criteria. So even if they don't hit one of the prohibitions, we still need to see criteria to say, okay, you're not prohibitive because you don't have this kind of vegetation, but what's some criteria that we could put on there that might help not see it moved off-site? So that piece of it's still part of the discussion that I saw on Page 3, for example. But the piece from one to two acres is more concerning, because if we even insinuate you can go up to two acres, you'll have everybody in here. They'll hire an expert to say what they want them to say, and the experts will stand here and tell us it's bad vegetation, and it will all be disappearing, so -- but that's just what happens. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Can you just remove deviation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to -- wait till we get done walking through this. That's something we probably need to talk about, and I want to hear public speakers and other things, too. If we go to the next few pages, and on the bottom right of your packet, it should say Packet Page 4 of 20, for example. Let's go to Page -- through Page 7 of 20 and see if we have any other issues. And this is where we get into the references to the deviations section and how many acres, and it July 20, 2017 Page 13 of 35 might be here, if nothing else, we decide not to open the deviation up for one to two acres, and we just prohibit past one acre and then drop that other piece out. We get into the -- after that we get into Pages 8, 9 and 10. If we could look at those. If anybody has any questions. Jeremy corrected a table or two on there that needed some correction. We get into a discussion on Page 8 of CLACC's 4-1 ratio for land donations and how it applies, and that's the piece that's starting to get us into the monetary part of it. So I would certainly like to understand the 4-1 ratio. If we were looking at using the AUIR, now how does a 4-1 ratio fit in? But I think -- I don't know what's the rest. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just a point of clarification. What's an AU -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Annual update inventory report. In a couple of meetings, you will experience it live. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's actually one of the more interesting and probably one of the most important documents this county deals with. It sets the pattern for all the expenditures of our budget for the upcoming year. It talks about all the capital improvements, what each department's doing, and how they want to spend their money. And it's there, if we make changes, will probably have the greatest impact on the budget. But very few people who involve themselves with the AUIR. We sit here to an empty audience, and we talk about it, and it's very limited in, unfortunately, how much the public gets involved. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything else on those pages. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into the actual text, it starts on Page 10 of 20, and I think on Page 11 of 20 we start getting into the actual issues. Some of it's already been talked about in the narrative that Jamie (sic) provided in the first 10 pages. In the CCME, Jeremy, it refers to native vegetation retention. It doesn't say anything about habitat or items like that. How do we look at determining what is -- how do we determine the functionality of the native vegetation retention, say, if it was less than one acre or even between one and two acres? Case in point, Addie's Corner came in to us. They originally had to set aside a certain quantity of preserve, and nobody ever did anything there. So over 10 years the exotics supposedly invaded the balance of the property, and now the preserve count could be reduced. And that means the functionality then was no longer viable because -- the functionality of what? The functionality as habitat? The functionality as wetlands? Whereas, the CCME refers to just native vegetation retention. So does that mean if those exotics weren't cleared, the native vegetation couldn't have survived? Because if it could, then why would we change it? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. So on Page 12 of 20 there's some of the applicability provisions that we've struck through. And we had a couple of sections that dealt with that issue. And in this -- in the revision we've eliminated that analysis of the success of the preserve or the exotics coverage so that is no longer a factor in the revised amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if -- and let's use Addie's Corner because it's a relative -- it's a most recent example. If they came in after this was adopted and they said, we want to reduce our preserves because we've hired someone who says that it's got greater -- it's got over 75 percent exotic infestation, would we then say, well, you can't -- that doesn't matter. You go in and clear the exotics out, and the native vegetation should still survive? I mean, it does, so why would we say it's not functional? So we wouldn't? MR. FRANTZ: Right. I mean, unless they met some of the other applicability. But, yeah, just in terms of their preserves are, you know, covered in exotics; that's no longer one of the applicability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that surely would have helped a lot of people understand it better from the neighborhood there. Anybody else got any on Page -- we're up to Page 12. And that's the page that starts with your PUD July 20, 2017 Page 14 of 35 deviations, and that's part of where my introduction discussion had -- where I was focusing on. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get into the next couple of pages, and we start talking about the options that Ted has -- or Ned -- I'm sorry, Ned -- Ned has offered some suggestions to as well. And I, you know -- again, my struggle has been trying to deal with the monetary issues here. I still am concerned about that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, if no one else has any comments, my comment is on Page 12, Line 16, 17 and 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And it's also -- Mr. Fryer picked up part of the conflict. So you have your prohibitions for the off-site preserve, and then it says, the remaining portion of the on-site preserve must be a minimum of one acre in size. And then that last sentence, unless preserved with higher quality habitat not qualifying for off-site native vegetation; something needs to be done with that section. Because it's either saying you can have less on-site preserve or you have to have more on-site preserve. If it says more on-site preserve, then I don't know how staff will enforce that greater than one acre because it's going to be anywhere between one and two acres. So it either needs to say "or greater if preserved with higher quality habitat," which then will create conflict with staff and the developer as to how much between one and two acres in addition to the one needs to be on site, or you just say the minimum has to be one acre. I don't know how you want to go with that, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer? Jeremy? MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, for the record. I'm fine with your recommendation to just put a period after one acre in size -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: -- because what this section is currently saying, in so many words -- but I think it's difficult to understand -- is that if you have a high-quality habitat referred to in A and B above, like a xeric scrub, I think is one of the examples, and you wanted to leave, say, just a half an acre of that, you could with this provision. So if we just want to stay to, if you're going to take anything off site, you can't leave small amounts on. You just need to either take it all off or keep it on. Does that make sense? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think that the prohibition, if it has any of the A or B, then they can't take it off site. They can't take part of it off site and say we'll just keep the part that has the xeric scrub. I don't think that's how this is written. MS. ARAQUE: I think that original writers of this may have been trying to think of 50 different scenarios that you could come across, and one of those scenarios could be that you might have, say, a pop ash area, which is a rare habitat, and maybe it's only just a half acre but surrounded by something else that's not necessarily protected by A and B, so then in that case they would take the half acre of the -- what's not covered under A and B off but leave the other half acre on. It's really, in my opinion, not something that's been utilized. I think that it is considering a situation that may or may not be out there, and I think that it's just fine to put a period after "one acre in size." MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And then there is some excess language going back to Page 11 on Lines 49, 50, and 51, where it says shall not be allowed to have the on-site native preservation retention provided off-site. That's kind of duplicative now that you've changed it to a prohibition. So I would recommend deletion of that language. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And then while I'm here, at one point I would like to go through Mr. Fryer's and put those up on the visualizer page by page when we get to that point. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what we'll do is we'll walk through the pages, then we'll step back again, and now that you've had time to take a look at some of Ned's comments you can -- we'll bring them up then. That would be good. As we go into the options on those Pages 12 and 13, Jeremy, the per -- on Page 12, which is electronic page 13, Option 1, and I think it -- yeah, it does actually get used. And Option 2 is a reference to a July 20, 2017 Page 15 of 35 percentage. The per-acre land value for nonurban designated land shall be 8.37 percent of the current AUIR. How did we pick 8.37 percent? MR. FRANTZ: That was based on the costs that Conservation Collier has -- the difference in costs that Conservation Collier has paid for urban preserves and nonurban preserves, and then we applied that ratio to the AUIR number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how does the 4-1 ratio relate to the 8.37 percent? MR. FRANTZ: It's not a part of the monetary payment alternative. That's only applicable to the land donation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And that 4 -- the reason that ratio exists was to -- one of the discussion points that we've had at past Planning Commission meetings was to see if there was a way to find some parity between the costs associated with these two alternatives, and so that was the motivation for adding that ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else, if we're moving on to, let's say, Page -- well, that takes us -- the LDC language ends on Page 15 of 20, which is -- that's your electronic, down in the right-hand corner. Then we get into tables and your exhibit. Let's take the rest of the pages. Anybody have any other issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to hear -- oh, you wanted to walk through Ned's stuff first, Summer? You want to do that right now? MS. ARAQUE: Whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're either going to have public speakers or you. What would you prefer? MS. ARAQUE: Let's do public speakers, because I have not had time to look through all of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, then why'd you ask? MS. ARAQUE: I was just saying, if you're giving me the option, I'll take the later option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, would you -- let's start, if we have any -- let's start -- if there's any registered public speakers, call those first, then we'll go to those that aren't. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. We do have one registered speaker. It's Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't need to -- well, if you want to register, you're fine. If you don't, we'll still call you. MS. JOHNSON: Following the rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. You always do. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I can't, obviously, comment on some of the proposed new language. I do appreciate your desire to make this more understandable because this is complicated. So probably if the stakeholders would have some additional time, if you do decide that you would like to incorporate some of that new language, to bring that back to a future meeting. In looking at this policy section in its entirety, the Conservancy's preference would be for it to all go away, not because of the issues of the monetary donations and land donations and payments, but because it just isn't a good policy idea to allow for on-site preserves, on-site native vegetation and green space to be taken off site. And I remember when this idea came up. And, Jeff, I didn't recall that it really started with an industrial parcel, but I do remember sitting at the table will Bill Lorenz going around and around in circles and saying, how can you -- how can you determine that at one acre an on-site preserve is so not valuable that you can just go ahead, wipe it out, and take it off site? Where is that magic number? And there really is no magic number. I mean, that's the problem. The Conservancy fought very hard to make sure that we could get that off-site option to be so low as possible. One acre, at least for the residential and PUDs, was that number. But that is supposed to be a ceiling. And I think what we've seen recently is that it's simply a floor that provides a launching pad to then take acres and acres of preserve off site, and that's what we were concerned would happen. July 20, 2017 Page 16 of 35 So, ideally, if it could all go, that will be great. If that isn't possible, then tightening up the language to make sure that it isn't abused like it has been in the past is going to be very, very important. So some of the things that we like about what staff has done is, you know -- and I think that it does, in the first parts -- and I'll just go by the -- not the packet page but just the LDC page number, Page 10, is hopefully under the purpose and intent it's saying that the purpose is to preserve native vegetation on site and to make it very clear, if you're going out off site, it's in very limited circumstances. I do have a question on Line -- I guess it's Line 24 and 25 where it talks about existing portions of preserves located within single-family platted lots. I don't know what that means. In talking with staff, there is a little bit of confusion about, you know, is this if you have a PUD that has a little bit of their preserve on a platted lot, then you can take that off site, but if that's in an already-developed community, you shouldn't be going back and removing preserves. So the Conservancy would recommend that you eliminate that No. B. It was a carryover from what was already in there, but staff is recommending removal of other what I would call problematic language on Page 11 and so we'd recommend that that be removed also. Going to Page 11. On Line 12, where it talks about the existing and proposed preserves with that 75 percent exotic coverage, the Conservancy definitely agrees that that should be removed. I mean, right now the irony is a landowner is incentivized to allow their property to become exotics infested because then they have to preserve less on site. So we want to remove that incorrect incentivization where we can. And then also, No. G, starting on Line 17, if you're not managing your creative preserve as you should be, you should not be rewarded by allowed -- being allowed to go off site. As far as the PUD deviations under 2, little i, starting on Line 31, the Conservancy's recommendation would be you prohibit deviations for this. Again, that one acre or the two acre for commercial industrial, that was supposed to be a hard ceiling. And if you allow deviations like this, it's no longer a hard ceiling. If you have to have some sort of deviation, then allow it between one acre and 1.1 acres. Okay. If you're just a hair over one acre, then we'll let you apply for a deviation, but it should not be doubled to two acres. So our recommendation: Remove it in its entirety. If you can't, then make it really a very nominal number. As far as the options for the Conservation Collier, the monetary payment and land donation, you know, it looks like reference to the AUIR could be a good way to make sure that if you are in the urbanized area and you utilize the off-site preservation policies, that the cost is commensurate with what you're getting in return. It needs to be painful, because we really don't want people using this option. So it has to hurt a little bit. And, you know, hopefully with the numbers that Jeremy has put in here for what the AUIR for the parks shows, there is going to be that painfulness. As far as the land donation and the 4-1 ratios, that's something that the Conservancy really hasn't weighed in on in the past. We don't really have, as a policy department, the expertise to weigh in on that. It is interesting the vast array of recommendations from the CCLAC to DSAC to staff, but we're leaving that for the land management experts. So with that, if you have any questions for me, I think that summarizes -- oh. And we agree with Heidi that on Page 12, that Subparagraph C, it's confusing. I'm not sure that putting a period after "one acre in size" really eliminates all the confusion, but I'm going to have to think on that a little bit more. So with that... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Johnson, I'm coming down the road toward where you are on getting rid of all of it, but along the way I ask myself and would ask you, in the case of native vegetation areas that -- where the area is simply too small to be viable, I don't know whether it's slash pines or some other vegetation that just isn't going to live very well in the same sandbox with the development, those situations, on a small scale, I assume you'd be willing to move off site? MS. JOHNSON: Well, it gets to how do you define viable. Are you talking about viability as, you know, part of a home range for a panther? Are you talking about urban wildlife may be able to utilize the site? July 20, 2017 Page 17 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just talking about viability of the vegetation itself. MS. JOHNSON: Well, as long as you don't go in there and plow it over, it's going to be viable. The vegetation will survive. So I'm not sure that there's any magic number that below that number, the vegetation won't survive. If you set it aside and you manage it or you don't pave it or dump all your stormwater in it, the vegetation itself is going to survive. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The other question I had has to do with affordable housing which, as you know, is an express policy of the BCC. And in some cases, it's been proposed that some of the allowances for off-site preservation be more generous in the case of affordable housing because it would enable more affordable housing on site. What is your position or your organization's position on that? MS. JOHNSON: Well, you know, it's -- there's this balance between you don't want to dis-incentivize affordable housing and, yet, if you're putting in an affordable housing community, having some of that native vegetation could be a nice amenity for the people living there. We haven't, you know, taken a specific position on that affordable housing component in these policies, but certainly an affordable housing community, I think, could benefit from some green space, open space, just as every other community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree completely. I think the developers, though, would say that in order to make the affordable housing affordable, we've got to reduce costs or increase capacity or density, and that's why they would want to move the native vegetation off. MS. JOHNSON: That excuse has been used by -- I've heard it used by the non-affordable housing. You know, if I have to preserve on site, then my project is no longer marketable and viable, but then when they decide that they might not have the votes of the County Commission, all of a sudden, well, they can preserve on site because they can make it work. So if you allow an allowance for off site, then I think every applicant is going to say, yeah, I have to go off site to make it work. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My final question, I guess, is really for the Chair or the Commission or County Attorney or staff, and that has to do with the history of this. In the little reading I was able to do to try to gain some background, it seemed to me around 2010, at the time of the recession, it was decided or determined that in order to continue to incent developers to undertake developments, that we would make it easier for them to comply with some of these rules, and that's why things like off-site reserves and donated land and the like came into being; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Without checking the time frame, Ned, I couldn't tell you for sure. I know that after the recession we tried to open up the floodgate for development in Collier County, just like the governor tried to open the state up, and I don't think we've but a cork in it yet, so maybe now is the time to start considering that. But I can't tell you the time frame now. MS. JOHNSON: I think these policies predated the recession, but I think the recession allowed these policies to really not be used. But it seems like it was a number of years. I don't know if Summer -- MS. ARAQUE: (Nods head.) MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In any event, seeing as we may well be out of the recession, it may be an appropriate time to consider things like tightening these restrictions somewhat. MS. JOHNSON: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in or out of a recession, if we can keep the standards of values for the natural habitat in Collier County higher, it's going to benefit all of the property owners in Collier County, because all of our properties will stay stronger. So just eliminating these would help that. Second of all, affordable housing; one of the criteria that we stress so vividly to allow affordable housing, it's no different than the regular housing. We want everybody to fit in. We want the communities to be compatible with one another. Well, if they've got the exception not to have the green space everybody else requires, we're hurting that compatibility. So maybe they can find a way to work with the people who should benefit from it, just like everybody else in Collier County does, and that green space -- as the prelude to this whole document said, there's a benefit to the trees, 20 times what they're worth. July 20, 2017 Page 18 of 35 Last question of you in particular, Nicole, is Conservancy, I believe, owns parcels of land throughout Collier County. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you have some down in Rookery Bay. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- yeah, I think you do. I've been down in that area. And I'm going to have to notify Code Enforcement you're not clearing your exotics like we do on our property. But it goes to the point, I don't think most agencies are. I think right now -- and you have -- whether it's Big Cypress or the rest of them that have got these huge swaths of land in the rural area, they're not out there maintaining it and clearing it every single year because I think they realize it's a hole in the water you are going to just pour money into. So I think maybe we need to rethink about how we treat our rural landscape in regards to perpetual maintenance of exotics. I think that's the biggest failure of the language I've seen in this document which is triggering the other concerns I've expressed today, so... And now that you don't do it, I mean, there's your example. There's the gold standard for Collier County right there. MS. JOHNSON: We try. You know, it's a phased approach. And we're doing some great work in our preserves on site, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your -- the Conservancy facility in the urban area. Oh, yeah. MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's real tough. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On your home. MS. JOHNSON: But you're right, it's -- you do have to allow for the fact that it is -- it's a constant battle to get rid of exotics and then keep them off properties. So, yeah, it's -- you have to cut the land managers some slack on that. And just one final thing. We were talking about affordable housing. I know that the Habitat for Humanity project that was proposed on Whitaker Lane -- I'm not sure where that eventually panned out, but even though -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're still processing a conditional use. They just got acknowledged that -- they had a meeting in March, so that it was able to allow them to continue processing, so... MS. JOHNSON: But they, at least in their initial plans, even though they didn't have to retain native vegetation on site, they chose to do so, at least in their initial application. So I think that goes to show that you can have an affordable project and still retain native vegetation. I don't know where it's gone from there, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a different twist. They originally came in and were going to take advantage of no vegetation on site, but then they ran into the part of the site that's actually a flowway that's -- MS. JOHNSON: Ah, they had to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- somewhat controlled by either South Florida or Big Cypress, and they weren't finding it as flexible with their rules to remove all that as they were with our rules. So I think that's why most of it's now staying. That's the last I heard. MS. JOHNSON: Okay. Well, thank goodness for some agency being tough on that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You made a comment during your presentation about how developers are allowing their parcels to become infested with exotics because it lowers the value. Is that why you guys do it? If you -- MS. JOHNSON: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just, you know, you said cut the land manager some slack. MS. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you go out 41 past Port of the Islands five miles, there is July 20, 2017 Page 19 of 35 the east river on the right. If you go -- launch into that area and go under the bridge and take the canal on the north side of 41 up maybe another mile, there's a route that goes out into -- up into the Everglades, up into the Big Cypress, Fakahatchee, whatever. As you get about a mile away from 41, it becomes solid Brazilian pepper. I mean, it's everywhere. Now, this is not a -- you know, not a matter of cutting the land manager some slack. You guys have totally lost control of exotics, just totally. It's so thick you can't go through it. MS. JOHNSON: I don't disagree, but I think that's a different issue than -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, it's not. MS. JOHNSON: -- the urban parcels -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That is the seed source. MS. JOHNSON: -- that then benefit. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's the seed source for everything else that's infested in Collier County. I can show you county parcels -- and I don't know if they're still there -- that are infested with earleaf acacia. That stuff is everywhere. You know, you've got a handle on the Melaleuca, but it's coming back. The Brazilian pepper is just out of control. I'm seeing Carrotwood in places where, you know, it shouldn't be. It's a lost cause. And, you know, it's just -- like he said, it's a hole somewhere that you're just pouring money into just to pay people to do something. But it's senseless. It really is. But that's just me. MS. JOHNSON: Well -- and I don't believe that you're referring to Conservancy property in the Everglades area, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, no, no. I'm talking about the National Park Service who is a federal agency who somebody should get on their butts and say, hey, you know, you've got this big thing. Why don't you have a big fire, you know? MS. JOHNSON: But when we're talking about having native vegetation, having green space in urban parcels, that is negatively impacted by the fact that those parcels that have been sitting in the urbanized area and accumulating exotics year after year after year then benefit from the fact that it's exotics infested and they have to set less aside, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What benefit is to the park system to do that, you know, to let their parcels infest? (Simultaneous speakers.) COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's not a matter of somebody's benefit from it. It's a natural process, and you've lost control of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew that this would get Stan going, and we succeeded. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sorry. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Stick a fork in me; I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nicole. Any other registered public speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes; Mr. Doug Fee. MR. FEE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. FEE: Okay. I live up in the Wiggins Pass area. And I appreciate this conversation and the fact that you all are discussing it this morning. I wasn't planning to defend the Conservancy; however, I live in Tarpon Cove, and across the street from the entrance of my development is 13 acres that the county owns. It's owned by the Utility Department and is used for a flowway in the Wiggins Pass area. I have yet to see the county take care of its exotics on these 13 acres, okay. So we can all point fingers, but what I can tell you is it's very important to maintain exotics, to get rid of them. As a homeowner in a development that has preserves -- let's say we have 20 percent of our development -- we put money into our reserves every year to make sure that we get rid of exotics. And, in July 20, 2017 Page 20 of 35 fact, the county code requires it, and the county Code Enforcement will come around if we do not do it. So there is great value in maintaining preserves. The other thing I wanted to mention was we know the expense of taking care of preserve land green space. The Conservancy in our area has, for many years, performed water testing in the Cocohatchee River area, and that is very valuable because it lets us know where the water quality is and, you know, what we can do to make sure that we keep the standard up there. So thank you, Conservancy. Why I came down here was to encourage you to maintain preserves in Collier County, okay. And what I mean by that is, I'm not exactly sure -- I'm right with you, Mr. Strain. Nicole said it very well. I'm not sure how this actually got started. In North Naples, you can see this map -- and I'll use a pointer here -- much of this area is golf course. It's green. And, in fact, you tell any of the homeowners who live on these golf courses that we want to change preserve requirements, they will be up in arms because it's a big part of why they buy here in Naples. You go six miles, 10 miles north, there may not be those requirements. So we do have green space that is contiguous. It's important to keep it. Specifically, what happened was a year ago or two years ago there was seven acres on 41 that a Mercedes dealership built, and they were able to mitigate their property. I do not believe they put any preserves on that property. It was seven acres. They got to buy land out in the eastern area and then develop the site. Well, interesting, directly behind the seven acres was a homeowner association that had eight to 10 acres itself, and it has a conservation easement and, in fact, that homeowner association maintains it for the wildlife, for the preserve. So it was contiguous. So I think sometimes you have to look at what's surrounding. We have a property on Wiggins Pass. Right now it's only one acres (sic), and if they don't have a preserve requirement, they're going to donate 17,000 to Conservation Collier. That money is then going to buy land somewhere else. But, in fact, in this one acre, it's next door to the 13 acres that the county owns for the flowway, okay; property owner adjoining. So I'm just throwing out some things that -- you know, it's hard -- I guess case by case, but in this case I don't understand why you'd have the mitigation when, in fact, in that very area there is green that's required and being maintained. The other thing that I wanted to talk about was -- so I would be for basically getting rid of the deviation, okay. I can see in very highly industrial areas where it would be appropriate to intensify and allow mitigation. But when it comes to strip centers, residential, I don't want to see you lower the standards. We need our green space. It's very important. And I don't think you can even distinguish between the urban area and the rural area, okay. One of the other things I wanted to mention was, right here, this is the beach and Delnor-Wiggins and Barefoot. Many years ago, and several times over the years, I have mentioned that the county should consider an NRPA in this area, okay; Cocohatchee River. Conservation Collier -- you'll hear the environmentalists stand up and say, we need to, you know, take this money and prioritize, and let's pick the NRPAs, which I believe is appropriate. But we have an area that really needs to be established as a NRPA. And if you're going to deviate, allow the deviation and have the money come in, you have an area in the urban area that you could spend these dollars and preserve and not necessarily send it out east. While I'm for green space and preserving and all that, you have an area that, over the years, is going to have pressure. And my point is only that if you're going to go forward with any of this language -- I've talked to Alex -- there should be identified lands in the areas that we're allowing the mitigation that can be bought with those funds that benefit that area that's giving up the green space, okay. Much like impact fees, you collect them in that area. You spend them in that area. It's supposed to benefit the area that is having the development. So I guess what I would say is if you're going to have this language, if there's any way to allocate the money in the general area -- you might even pick the district -- keep the money, spend the money in that area because, certainly, there is going to be lands that can be preserved wholly, you know, in the big picture. And so I hope that helps you in your planning. And I appreciate each one of you taking the time. And, of course, you know, we want to make sure Naples, Collier County stays above the standards that they July 20, 2017 Page 21 of 35 have in other counties. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, are there any other registered speakers? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question for Mr. Fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I agree with the points you made about, basically, spending the money locally. My question to you, though, sir, you mentioned that exotic vegetation seemed to be taking over in some areas owned by the county. Have you been able to bring this to the attention of anyone at staff? MR. FEE: The county doesn't have immense funds, I'll just put it to you that way. There's a lot of programs that need funds. And while I do support and I know it's necessary, there must be reasons why those 13 acres, the utility -- the other thing about it is is somebody has mentioned that if it's not developed land and there's no homeowner associations, no PUD, that there may not be an exotic removal requirement. I don't know if that's the case or not. If the county owns land that hasn't been developed but it's just holding it, does it have that requirement on itself to maintain it? I don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll ask the same question. MR. BOSI: And I'll defer to environmental staff. But if it's undeveloped property, there's no DOs. There's no local DOs. There's no requirement to remove exotic vegetation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But if a parcel is developed, you have to remove the exotic vegetation, right? MR. BOSI: Once again, I'll defer to my environmental staff who applies this, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And my next question was going to be, isn't the Lely Outfall Canal considered a development? And why is it lined with exotic vegetation on both sides? And if I tell you that, will you send somebody out to remove it? MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. We're getting into a rabbit hole here, but this is interesting. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Never mind. I take that back. I want to get home today. MS. ARAQUE: I can give you -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'm serious. I take it back. I don't want to know. MS. ARAQUE: I can give you the number to Code Enforcement. That's all you need to do is file a complaint with Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, don't do that to Code Enforcement. Don't do that to Code Enforcement. MS. ARAQUE: My staff will assist Code Enforcement in the investigation. Thanks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just going to give you some projects that were not developed, and they are big; the old Mirasol, kind of in that area GL has built behind it the different ones now. If that had not started development, is that correct that they do not need to do anything? You can be a landowner? And, I mean, that's hundreds of acres. But as long as they just let it sit there -- MS. ARAQUE: Correct. Until you develop, you're not required to remove the exotics unless we receive a complaint, and then they have to remove so many feet into the property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Like 75 feet or something like that? MS. ARAQUE: I think it's 200 feet. I would have to clarify that, but I think that's what it is. But they have to receive a complaint from the adjacent property owner that's being impacted. Not anybody can just make the complaint. It has to be an impacted property owner. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Very good. Thank you. July 20, 2017 Page 22 of 35 MS. ARAQUE: While I'm up here, Mr. Fryer, would you mind emailing me those revisions, and then I can have the board office print those out so we can take a look at those? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly. You bet. MS. ARAQUE: I sent you an email, so you should have my email address. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did say earlier, Summer, you wanted to talk about his revisions. Is that something you want to do now, or what would you -- MS. ARAQUE: I'm fine unless the court reporter and other people need to take a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was -- that's why I'm asking. If you're going to speak -- MS. ARAQUE: We can wait till after the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other members of the public here today that would like to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've finished with public speakers. When we get back from break, you will be the first up, and we'll hear whatever you've got to say, and then we can finish talking about it. MS. ARAQUE: Maybe over the break I can give some copies to others to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Copies of what? MS. ARAQUE: Of his proposed revisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're available. MS. ARAQUE: Because some of our stakeholders don't have a copy of that. I'm going to have the board office print that out. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that we'll take a break for -- we'll come back at 10:40. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Mike. Okay. Welcome back from our break. We're going to resume the meeting. We left off with the ending of the public comments, and we'll move into Summer's discussion about the handout supplied by Ned earlier this morning. Summer, are you -- yeah, Summer's coming. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I say one sentence before? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, what I endeavored to do here was just that, to clarify, without indicating support or opposition to either option or the language, although I do have some evolving and becoming rather strong opinions, and they're aligned, I think, with yours on what to do going forward. So this is not an indication that I was in support of either of these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. I think everybody's taking it that way. The clarifications -- and I like it that you focus on this because these -- every clarification we can have is much, much welcomed, because our code is real confusing. And if we can make it easier to read -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I changed the substance of any of this, I erred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what staff is -- when they get time to study it, that's what they'll hopefully dwell on. Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So we'll start at the top with the off-site vegetation and purpose and intent; that looks fine. But I think -- let me grab the mike here. I think that this should stay as applicability there. And I think what you're doing here is you're saying preserve requirement one acre or less and then preserve requirement greater than one acre. I think there's, like, a little misunderstanding of, like, how this is written. This is actually applicability, and this is exception. So in this particular case with the exceptions, the preserve could be less than one acre. We're just July 20, 2017 Page 23 of 35 saying in the case where the preserve is greater than one acre, the essential services and affordable housing may actually be able to take that preserve requirement off site without getting a deviation even if it is more than one acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The reason I changed that or am proposing to do so is a rule of draftsmanship. You've got Subsection 2 calling it applicability, but the stated subject in the major part, the superior part of that section, is that it applies to one acres or less -- one acre or less and, therefore, the subsections also need only to apply to one acre or less just for the purpose of drafting logic. So I tried to preserve your intent which was that this -- the language that I struck, the preserve requirement shall be based on, is going to apply in both cases. But if you just put it up in 2, then it raised a logic question and creates an ambiguity whether it also then applies to the greater than one. MS. ARAQUE: Does anybody else have anything on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you dug your hole on this one. I'll let you argue it. MS. ARAQUE: No, because I think that this is applicability of when you can take something off site. These are exceptions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, except your first sentence says one acre or less. So you've defined the subject in the first sentence. You've got to keep limited to that in your subsections. MS. ARAQUE: You're talking about this right here? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm talking about the original No. 2, which you called applicability. It said the on-site preserve requirement may be met off site when the preserve requirement is one acre or less for only the following situations, then you list A, B, and C. You've defined the subject matter of 2 to one acre or less. And all I tried to do was accomplish what I thought was your objective which was to make that struck language apply whether it's one acre or less or more than one acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your added language that she's questioning, though, is redundant language to what she has in the sentence after yours. So if we were to provide her with her comfort level leaving applicability in and leaving out that first double i that you added prior to the first sentence, is that going to really make any -- cause any problem? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think the problem it causes is then the language, "the preserve requirement," is going to apply only to one acre or less because it is part of that same subsection, and it's not going to apply in the case of greater than one acre. The way -- I mean, it's just a matter of structure. I tell you what I'll do is I'll defer to the County Attorney, who's going to have to, you know, enforce these things or construe them for enforcement if it comes to that, your superior exposure and experience of this stuff. I'm just offering you guys what has been, you know, the essence of my training over 45 years of drafting documents. But if it's -- if the understanding is different down here, certainly, I mean, I defer to you guys. MR. FRANTZ: I would suggest that it sounds like whatever the recommendation is going to be today that we'll probably be coming back to you with some revised language. So we could take some more time to look at these sections and come back with language that's a little -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, originally, that's what we had suggested is what -- staff would need some time with this, because just dropping it on the agenda today would not probably give you time to cover it, and then -- but I think Summer indicated she wanted to talk about it. So, you want -- you can have further discussion, or you can wait, get together with Ned on the side after the meeting, and then try to understand better what he's suggesting, and then come back with better language. It's whatever you prefer, Summer. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. If we're able to work on this further, then I think that's the best option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think after we get done today, it's probably going to need to have further clarification at the next meeting that we have so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: When it comes down to it, Mr. Chairman, for my vote at least, I'm probably going to be voting against all of this. I was just trying to clarify it, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So just so everybody knows. MS. ARAQUE: I think, actually, I really only had two things. I think most all of your other recommendations were very good and very valid, including the beginning where we didn't even have a -- where we struck out the title of the section. So, no, I think the bulk of these are good suggestions. Thank July 20, 2017 Page 24 of 35 you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other comments from staff or you, Mike, do you have anything else you want to add? MR. BOSI: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we don't have any other public speakers. This is going to have to be -- we're going to have to provide direction to staff and let them come back with revised language at the next meeting, and hopefully we'll end it there. So we've had plenty of discussion. I know some of you have already indicated your preferences. I just need someone to articulate it so we can agree on the direction that we would give to staff. If you're in agreement with that we drop back and not propose this deviation section and leave it as prohibited to go off site with the exception of, I would strongly suggest, industrial areas, let that remain as it -- I think we can go up to two acres in industrial areas, is it, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: If there is a preserve requirement of two acres or less in industrial, then there's no -- or I guess there's no requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think industrial ought to be left alone. But as far as the rest of it goes, we can close this door and let it go forward that way. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I agree. And, again, just looking at the reactions and the feedback from the people here, I mean, to me I don't want people wasting their time going back making revisions if it sounds like the consensus of this -- of these commissioners is that -- not to do it at all and leave it prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the downside to that piece is if it goes to the Board without this language being, let's say, redone and then corrected to the best of our ability because we feel it shouldn't even be there in the first place, now, the Board still may, by policy, feel it should be, and then they're not going to have corrective language to deal with. I don't know what -- the issue on that. Mike, maybe you've got a better feel for that, or somebody, but -- MR. BOSI: Well, the Board's going to have -- the way that it would be brought is we would bring the recommendation of DSAC, we'd bring the recommendation of CCLAC, and we'd -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Speak up. MR. BOSI: We'd bring the recommendation of DSAC, the recommendation of CCLAC, and then we'd make the recommendation of Planning Commission. You have two recommendations for various components for the endowment related to the off-site preservation with the language that's being proposed, and then the alternative from the Planning Commission would be, I think what I'm hearing is, just to disallow the off-site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's where I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're looking at that with the exception of the industrial component that -- or there -- I mean, the industrial parks, nothing's going to survive there anyway, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only other exception that maybe was worth consideration is for affordable housing. If this is going to dampen the enthusiasm of developers to develop that kind of property, then maybe we ought to at least think or talk about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think anything that they find as an excuse will be used. This will just be another one. I'm not sure, though, that -- if affordable housing doesn't take on a better way to fit in with existing neighborhoods, it's just going to be harder and harder for neighbors to accept affordable housing, and every meeting will be attended by multitudes of people who are opposing it because it's not compatible. So I -- and this is a huge compatibility issue. Preservations are a natural buffer. They have all kinds of benefits for both the people living in the affordable homes as well as those around it. And I also think that if you live in an affordable house, you should have the same benefits if you're in this community. So I'd just as soon see that eliminated as well. July 20, 2017 Page 25 of 35 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the one -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm with you, but I'm not sure where the BCC is. But that's up to them to decide where they are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You know, I -- what you're saying is if they can take it off site because it's affordable housing, then they live on barren land, and that, to me, is much worse. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and the landscaping, generally, in the affordable projects that I've seen and driven through, is not up to standards of some of the gated communities, which I don't expect it to be. But this only further erodes it, so I'm not sure that's really helping anybody. So I think the only exception we ought to consider for where the CCME requires the ability for the Board to consider deviations, they may provide deviations, fine. Let that be met by the industrial park deviations being kept intact and eliminate the rest of it for preserve. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd go with that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else okay with that? Okay. Then that's the direction that we're giving to staff to come back at our next meeting, which will be the second meeting in August, to finalize this, hopefully. MR. FRANTZ: And just to clarify, that recommendation is to completely strike out Section F, the off-site vegetation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Just get the off-site and deviation section out of there. Then we won't have this constant turmoil with applicants. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, did this not originally come up because it was industrial? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I honestly don't know. I would have to go back and research to tell you. It's been a long time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because I remember Commissioner Henning having a problem with something commercial, and they needed it to do their building. So that's kind of what I'm referring to. MR. FRANTZ: For industrial projects, there just is no preserve requirement, so they don't use the off-site vegetation alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So for clarification, the Land Development Code, outside of this section of the code, allows that for industrial-zoned properties. If your preserve requirement is two acres or less, you're not required to have a preserve. You don't even have to use the off-site provision; however, there is a possibility that you could have an industrial property -- we don't see it too often, but -- that has, like, a three-acre requirement for preserve. Then they would have to have some preserve on site, so that's where you could consider possibly including deviations in the off-site preserve section for maybe only industrial, so I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just leave industrial the way it is. If they have a big enough piece of property where they need a three-acre preserve, let them leave it on site then. MS. ARAQUE: That sounds -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's just -- you're looking at a large piece of industrial tract, I mean, in business parks and stuff like that. So, okay, leave it there. MS. ARAQUE: But I just want to clarify that LDC requirement. But I'm still not understanding your direction. You're saying remove the deviations altogether? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prohibit deviations for off-site preserves -- for off-site application of preserves. It's done. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And include that in this section? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then from there going forward, it's not going to -- we're not going to have deviations coming in asking for it anymore. It's over with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that will take away the need to be concerned about land July 20, 2017 Page 26 of 35 donations -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- 4-1 and valuation and all that; gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, all that goes away. MS. ARAQUE: So are we getting rid of the off-site preserve altogether? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't think we need an F. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. The entire F -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There's not going to be in this section. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- would be deleted and replaced with PUD deviations, and we'll say PUD deviations are prohibited from the section. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's always one of the biggest complaints from the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every time. And every time it's a game being played because -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nobody likes it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's just -- this will stop all that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We can put this in File 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: File 13? Whatever you want. Okay. Staff got enough understanding of what to do at this point? MR. FRANTZ: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll move into the rest of the items on our agenda. ***That takes us to new business. The first item up today on 10A under new business will be Stan Chrzanowski's discussion on salt -- sea level rise, right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: About in March, I think, of last year, 2016, a couple of scientists named DeConto and Pollard published an article in Nature Magazine. The article said that their study of the Antarctic ice shelf indicated that there's a good probability that the shelf could melt enough by the year 2100 to raise sea levels around the world six foot. Now, that article caught a lot of people's attentions. I sent copies of the article to the Board of County Commissioners when it came out. I got a couple of responses from Commissioner Fiala. Not too many questions after that. But it kind of caught my attention, and I started going -- if you go into Google News and ask it to alert you any time there's an article on sea level rise, it will send you all the articles, and it's incredible the amount of articles coming out on sea level rise. Well, it turned out that the U.S. Navy was starting to take it seriously because, for some strange reason, they built all their naval bases at sea level. That was supposed to be funny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. It's kind of depressing, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Well, I think the Navy thought it was kind of depressing, too. I started seeing all these articles, and that was just Antarctica. Then they realized that Greenland is losing its ice cap and that that could contribute two feet to sea level rise. The islands that you see in Northern Canada up in the Arctic Circle, that's all ice above sea level now. There's a misconception. When you have floating ice, like in the Arctic, when it melts, it's like ice cubes in a glass; nothing happens. But when you have glaciers above sea level and they melt like Antarctica, Canada, or Greenland, then you start getting a rise in the sea level. The numbers started out -- now, the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their numbers are, like, three years old before any of this hit the fan, and they were talking eight inches. And the Corps of Engineers accepted that, and I think most people accepted that, and then they started looking at all the science that was coming out. July 20, 2017 Page 27 of 35 And the worst numbers, I think, came out of a guy name Hansen who said 15 feet by summing everybody's worst-case scenario together. Now they're starting to talk about it's going to be three feet, and the 6-foot number, when you total them all together, Antarctica, Greenland, Canada, and the thermal expansion of the ocean itself, you have two miles of ocean, and everything expands when it's heated. Water expands when it's heated. When you heat two miles of ocean, it might come up a foot per every degree centigrade maybe. So, you know, if you raise the entire temperature of the ocean one or two degrees it's going to come up. So when you sum all these together, I think the number that they've come up with as a median right now is pretty well accepted, is like maybe around 6-foot. But nobody can tell you exactly how fast it's going to rise by 2100, and that's what I was pushing to try to find out. There's a scientist named Ben Strauss with a website called climatecentral.org, and they publish a lot of climate data. And I contacted Rob DeConto, the guy that wrote the article, and he sent me to Ben Strauss. And the county appointed Amy Patterson as being in charge of this, and she's been in contact with Ben Strauss. You also had Harvard coming in trying to tell us how we should redo our architectural standards or the City of Naples how they should prepare for sea level rise. But the thing about sea level rise is, you know, you get storm surge, the surge comes in, causes its damage, and leaves. With sea level rise you get two high tides a day every day for the rest of your life, and if those high tides come in and flood your roads twice a day, you don't -- there's nothing you can do about that. You just leave. Well, that's about what we're looking at. In areas like Goodland and Chokoloskee you have to start wondering, if they're right, if it rises three feet by the year 2050 or 2060, you're going to be removing Chokoloskee. Well, how do you do that? You know, do you just abandon it and leave it out there as an artificial reef, or do you actually go out there and tell people, I'm going to pull up your house and charge you for it, or do you tell them you're going to have to pull up your house and pay for it yourself? And -- you know, there's a whole lot of things to consider that I don't think anybody's really looking at at the county. I mean, we have an emergency management department. If they're right, if it's six foot, we're going to lose the Everglades. Average elevation of the Everglades is six; mean high, high water around there is three. It will flood to Elevation 9 twice a day every day, and we're going to lose the Everglades. We're going to lose Rookery Bay. I'll be long dead, 50 years dead when it happens, but probably only a couple years dead when we lose Rookery Bay because it's right on the coast if the science is right. So what -- the first thing you have to find out is, who is right about how fast it's going to rise, then you have to look at what we have out there. I mean, everybody looks at the civilized areas, you know, Naples itself. The sea walls are maybe, like, Elevation 5.5, so you lose those within 20 years. But Collier Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay, 10,000 Islands, all that, that's totally gone by the time my grandchildren are adults if it's right. I think somebody should look at that. I think somebody should make a presentation to us. Maybe get Amy Patterson to get Ben Strauss in here to tell us what the best science is, what's going to happen right now. I think this is a serious issue. I mean, I don't care about climate change. I don't care about anthropogenic warming, anything like that. But the sea level is rising. There's no doubt in anybody's mind, and look it up. If there's any doubt in your mind, just go into Google and type in "sea level rise" and look. And that's why I wanted somebody to come up here and give us a presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the things this board can do is request those kinds of studies and planning considerations as part of our duties. So if the Board feels like we agree with you and we want that to happen, we can ask staff to put together, over a period of time, for a convenient time in the future, how -- say it will be in the next 60 or 90 days, whatever it would take, for you all to come back with your best-case status on where we're at today with considerations of sea level rise. Is that -- if we were to want that as a group, is that something you could do, Mike? MR. BOSI: You're discussing policy issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We just want to understand what you see as more planning aspects. July 20, 2017 Page 28 of 35 We don't -- we're not trying to set policy. That's the Board's job. We could recommend that they consider policies, but -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Because we spend money -- like, we're talking about Florida is spending a lot of money on Everglades restoration. Well, if the Everglades is going to be gone by the year 2100, what are we spending the money for? Things like that. You know, yeah, that's policy, but I think that's a planning issue, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we're asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, before you go take this too strong, is someone in the county looking at sea level rise? Isn't that -- we have -- that was brought up by the Board before. MR. BOSI: As Stan has mentioned, Amy Patterson's group -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: -- is currently working through the Board's direction in terms of addressing and providing a framework for that issue to be presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then why doesn't she just come to us and explain to us what her task is and how far along she is with it and just give us a status report? That's all I think we're looking for. MR. BOSI: Okay. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's keep it simple. We know that we're not scientists. We just need to get the simple here's -- we've realized some things. Stan's right, or wrong, whatever she wants to say. I don't think she's going to say you're -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How high and how fast, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. This is what we expect, and this is how we're looking at it. And we're preparing this for the Board, and that's just a status report to us. That would give us what we need. MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would that work? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else satisfied? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: One ice cap just broke off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***The next item up is 10B, which was a discussion based on a handout from Ned concerning NIMs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As every knows, I haven't been on this commission for very long, but one thing that struck me early on and repeatedly was the absence in the NIM transcripts of, at least in my judgment, adequate attribution to who was talking. Now, we want to, of course, preserve the right of private citizens and neighbors to speak without forcing them to identify themselves, and I think I've addressed that. But it's important for us as we assess the situation and decide how we're going to exercise the discretion, it helps to know what the grassroots, if you will, what the people at the very granular level on the ground are thinking and saying and feeling about these developments. And in addition, I think it's also very important for us and for staff to get a clear handle on representations, if you will, assurances that are made in the course of those NIMs by developers with regard to what they plan to do to remediate or address some of the concerns that are expressed. The material I handed out, at the back of it you will see just a couple of pages, and I printed on both sides here, just for illustrative purposes. And it's not the court reporter's fault, because the court reporter's not there. The court reporter does the best that he or she can with the tape recording that's provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If I'm not mistaken, the court reporter -- first of all, they're not required to court report it. They're simply required to record it and make notes. The few -- there's a couple engineering firms that have taken it upon themselves to have a court reporter here who actually types -- actually does verbatim notes of the meeting, minutes of the meeting. Now, the rules that they go by are theirs because they're not required to have a court reporter there. They're not required to provide any of this. You know, that's probably a -- July 20, 2017 Page 29 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm looking for a low-cost solution to what at least I perceive to be a real problem. And so I'm not suggesting that the developer should pay to have a court reporter present, but I am suggesting in an earlier iteration of this -- and I had some very helpful conversations -- electronic conversations with Heidi about how to deal with this and how to put it in front of this group. In an earlier iteration I made it clear that there would be a requirement on the part of the developer to have it transcribed after the fact and that the transcription would become part of the official record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, after the fact wouldn't help because the recordings don't identify the speakers either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- but that takes me to my suggestion, and my suggestion is that -- now, of course, in addition to the proponents, there's going to be a facilitator there from staff, and the facilitator and the proponent should, number one, assure that people don't talk over one another because I think that gets to be a free-for-all and makes it impossible for a court reporter to transcribe even after the fact, but also if we require the applicants, the advocates to identify themselves each time they speak, we'll know who is making the representations, that it comes from the developer, an agent or developer, and then people who are not required to identify themselves, we can assume that they are interested neighbors. Now, I've offered a solution just because I feel like I should if I'm going to express a problem, but the essence of what I'm wanting to do today is express a problem. And I'm not asking for an adoption of this -- either this exact language or the location or placement of a proposed solution, but what I am asking for is that we, as a Planning Commission, ask staff to give consideration to this problem, and that is to say if the members of this commission agree with me that there's a problem to begin with. If they don't, then I don't want to waste people's time. But if people think there's a problem, let's try to identify a solution, and that work should start with staff work. COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I respond, Ned? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you can. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ned, that is one of the biggest problems. I did speak with one of the agent's people that do this. And if you take, like, your cell phone, they just have that sitting up there where the room has a lot of people, and you don't hear anything. You don't even hear the questions. I said, can you get something where we can hear you, where you take it around, you know? Because we're missing everything, and these NIMs are very important. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have either of you ever asked for the recordings from the NIMs and listened to them? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Should we be required to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think if -- it's a great way to understand how the NIMs transpire. I listen to just about all of them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you able -- well, you probably know Mr. Arnold's voice, for instance, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't really care who the voices are. I put everybody -- everybody that speaks, they carry weight. So I listen to what their concerns are, whether they're pro or against, and out of that I decide, okay, this project had certain concerns over it expressed by individuals -- it doesn't matter what side they're on -- then I take those concerns, especially if I hear a commitment made by the developer, and those are -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But how do you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're summarized. Every one of the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: By the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the developer. That's why I listen to the -- that's why I listen to the tape, because if I hear something on the tape that isn't on the summary, then I have a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, anyway, it's just something to consider. July 20, 2017 Page 30 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you're -- you've got way more experience than I have and I'm sure are more facile at sorting this stuff out, but -- and maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I do not feel like I can gain a sufficient understanding of what happened from that NIM by the way that it is transcribed now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then this is probably going to take a code change, if I'm not mistaken. MR. BOSI: And, Mr. Fryer, this is -- this would be the beginning of a potential Land Development Code amendment process. And how that would work -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, Heidi guided me otherwise. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. All the details of the NIM is in the Code of Laws so, actually, an amendment could be done to Code of Laws for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Code of Laws? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Administrative Code can be amended by resolution. Yeah, the LDC only requires the NIM. The details of the NIM is in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the Admin Code? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Admin, procedures. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the admin -- our Administrative Code is in the Collier County Code of Laws, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I actually started with a draft ordinance -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So it's not an LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and Heidi guided me away from that, which made sense because why take it to a higher level than you need to? But I have proposed ordinance language, if that's the direction that people want to go in. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. He has distributed the correct section of the Administrative Code, and Mr. Fryer had spoken to me about getting a transcript. That's the last that I knew, that you were going to recommend that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you see this then working its way through processes to become language? Simply going to the Board, having them amend the Admin Code? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to going to the Board to have them amend the Admin Code, is there any other meetings that the Admin Code level would take it to? I mean, DSAC, stakeholders, anything like that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. Not -- it's not required. Now, whether they want that information, that's another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this would impact every single project in regards to NIMs, plus a lot of other NIMs that are held for projects that are not to the level of PUDs. MR. BOSI: And, just for fairness, the NIMs are not meetings that are run by staff. Those are the applicant's meeting. So I would think, in fairness, we would at least want to provide any potential modifications to the process for how a NIM is supposed to be with at least the DSAC. And, speaking with Jeremy, that would be our normal process for any Administrative Code changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that if -- I think that's the route to go, but absolutely to include the concerns that Ned has expressed that I think the rest of us probably are on the same page. I would love to see a transcript instead of having to listen to those obnoxious tapes. If there's a way to make this better, I'm all for it. So I think if DSAC were to understand the frustrations, maybe by what they've seen as examples here, and their support was added to the admin recommendation to change to the Board -- because those don't come to us; they go straight to the Board -- that would be helpful. Anybody else have any concerns over? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we move in that direction, then, Mike, as a request from this board to consider the added language. MR. FEE: Can I say something? July 20, 2017 Page 31 of 35 COMMISSIONER FRYER: And, certainly, if it needs to go through other groups, that's fine as well. The more input the better. I just -- from my perspective, I just don't feel like I can do my job properly with what's being supplied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have a disagreement with you. I just -- I don't have a problem with it as it is, but I understand your concern. Mike, did you want anything else to add? MR. BOSI: I think -- and it would be -- simply, would it be the requirement for a court reporter for transcripts to be provided at each individual NIM? That's what the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not necessarily the court reporter be present. But if the advocates, if the developers identify themselves, that's what I want to know, and then I can assume that the people who are listed as unidentified are neighbors. And what I'm going at here is wanting to know if a developer makes a commitment or a representation with respect to what they're proposing to do to ameliorate a problem raised by a neighbor. MR. BOSI: And that's the sole purpose of why staff attends the neighborhood information meetings, to record it -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MR. BOSI: -- to record any commitments that are provided for. So I'm still a little -- the clarification would be, simply, that each speaker has to -- the requirement that each speaker identify themselves before that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's the same thing that happens here. In fact, you're here all the time. Every time you speak, you say, "for the record, I'm Mike Bosi," so it's not -- it's not something that is going to, I think, create an unreasonable burden on the people. All I'm asking is when the proponents stand up they say, for the record, I'm Mr. Arnold for the developer, and then say what they're going to say; that's all. In fact, maybe to help clarify what I'm driving at, let me also circulate through staff the draft ordinance that I had prepared, which is more detailed than this. I took Heidi's good suggestion to boil it down and put it in an administrative procedure, but some of that was lost in my effort. And perhaps when you see that, you'll gain a better understanding of what I'm concerned about and what my proposed solution is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So if I'm hearing you correctly and to clarify, if I may, Mrs. Ebert. Mike's question, the speaker that's identifying themself is the applicant or the applicant's agents, not the public. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the second thing is, I'm hearing you say you want a trans -- you want the transcript of the tape of the meeting, recorded meeting or -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I understand -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- you want a court reporter there to transcribe? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I don't want a court reporter there because that adds cost, and I'm not trying to do that. I realize it's still going to be a cost to have a court reporter, but I'm assuming it's less expensive if they don't have to be on site. And it would be easier for them to transcribe if at least they have the benefit of the developer's -- or the proponent's agent saying, you know, I'm Mr. Smith representing the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, right now they're not required to transcribe it. So now we are requiring them to transcribe it, so that means you would need a court reporter. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is added cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's going to be an added cost in some cases, but in some cases, for instance, in Addie's Corner they did it anyway. In other cases I know they do a summary. I find the summary inadequate, and I'm not willing to rely on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which is why we have the audio. But if you don't want to use the audio -- so what we would be introducing is an audio transcribed by a court reporter to provide to us; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Essentially, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you had said you didn't want to increase the cost. That will July 20, 2017 Page 32 of 35 change the cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It will change the cost for those developers who have not transcribed it. But some do. For instance, in Addie's Corner, it was transcribed. So they won't notice a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- or they'll say it's getting too complicated; we're just going to stick to what the code requires. That's the -- it's nice that they were doing that, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the code doesn't -- the code doesn't prohibit the administrative procedures from extending the requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but it will -- if we put it in the administrative procedures, it will be a requirement, and that will increase the cost. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is true, for some, for those who aren't already doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What I have found going to some of these NIM meetings is their recording equipment is very poor. That's why you're not hearing this stuff. It's unidentified, unidentified. And I don't care who's speaking, whether it's the developer or whatever; when we get it, there's too much of this unidentified. So to me, it's poor equipment. If they had a microphone that you could hear, that would be easy to transcribe. It's just -- that's what I'm finding is they put these little things out there like a phone, and that's what captures whatever they can capture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mike, I think the best thing to do is take a look at how this could work into a better system, whether it be done by the staff, done by a court reporter afterwards, and just see what -- just take it to DSAC as a walk-on item or a discussion item for them, if you could, and get some feedback. I think that would be the first step, and then we can decide -- well, it's not our discussion. Then it goes -- it's an Admin Code issue, so that would go to the Board. We could certainly recommend to the Board something after we get some feedback. MR. BOSI: So I'm just trying to understand. What I'm going to ask the DSAC that there's -- the Planning Commission would like to explore further measures to more accurately capture the conversation such as transcribing the actual recordings at the NIM? Because that's not required now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That about sums it up. MR. BOSI: Just want to make sure -- I wanted to carry the same message. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're exploring the request. So I don't think we've got enough information to say absolutely we need to do it. I'd like to see what the industry thinks as far as practicability of it. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and that's all I can think of at this point. Anybody else? Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I think it also requires, beyond just the transcript, it's an identification of those that are there on behalf of the developer and then identifying when those folks speak. So, you know, I guess Ned's not asking to chase down the citizen who might stand up and, you know, say something and no one knows who that guy in the back with the green shirt was or whatever, but those who are running the meeting and required to do the meeting, they actually will have to be identified. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's exactly what I'm driving at. MR. BOSI: So every time a member of the development team speaks, they have to identify themselves as a representative. MR. EASTMAN: No, not necessarily -- they don't have to say it over and over again. They just -- when the transcript is finalized, it indicates when and where they speak. MR. BOSI: But there's no requirement for a transcript now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's so -- there would have to be a transcript is what -- the transcript, then, would have to reflect those people that spoke by them identifying themselves on the recording to if they're associated with the developer. MR. EASTMAN: Correct. And I don't want to speak for Ned, but I think Ned's moving toward making a transcription a requirement of the NIM saying that he doesn't want to rely upon the executive summary. And having sat on this board for years, I've seen you, Chairman Strain, utilize the NIM and the statements made at the NIM to keep people honest over and over and over again. July 20, 2017 Page 33 of 35 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I was going to continue doing that. MR. EASTMAN: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I suppose I would resort to that if needs be, but I'd rather not have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll just have to see. I'd like to get some input from at least DSAC at this point. Anybody else on the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doug, I'll see what you've got to say if you want to take a few minutes. MR. FEE: For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I wasn't sure that was on the agenda, or it was added before the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was added as an add-on, walk-on. MR. FEE: Got it. I appreciate that you've brought this up. Many years ago, I can remember when we did not have a neighborhood information meeting, and I think it is very valuable from both sides, from the development side as well as the neighborhood side, so -- support it. As far as reviewing it, I definitely feel that there should be -- I don't know how long it's been since there's been any Administrative Code or Land Development Code review of the neighborhood information meeting. I believe it needs to be reviewed. When it's in the Admin Code, I understand it only really goes to the Board. It always used to be with land use matters that there were several bites at the apple for the public to review these. And what I would say to you, while I understand the ability to do it quicker -- and, you know, I would say on land use matters with the Admin Code, it would be important that you, as planners, at least get to have that opportunity at one meeting. How you go about requiring that, that's up to the lawyers here. And so I think it would be difficult to bring it to the Board because they may rely on you to make some recommendations, review it, and bring it -- you know, they're just going to hear the public. They're not going to hear the planners. So I definitely feel that it's ripe for review, specifically. With notice requirements, does the NIM require that the landowner -- I think there's, like, a 500-foot radius. But my understanding is if you draw the circle and you have three buildings in a PUD, it's those three buildings of that PUD that get notified, but you may have affected parties that are outside of that but are still in the neighboring PUD. Are they required to give notice? If I live in a neighbor, and my neighborhood -- my neighbor says, oh, I received this card in the mail, and they're one building over but we live in the same neighborhood, he may go to the meeting and I may not. So I think there may be a reason to review that 500-foot. If it touches a PUD, then it should be all the homeowners in that PUD and not select buildings. The other thing that I will say is typically you'll get applications in CityView for PUD amendments or PIDI, whatever you call them, and then you'll have Site Development Plans. And with neighborhood information meetings, there's the requirement for them to hold the meeting but, typically, it's before staff has even reviewed the application, and things will change in what gets submitted, and then the neighborhood won't actually hear the negotiations or whatever comes about. So I think it's a timing issue, too, that it -- maybe not to be early on or, if it's early on and it goes a length of time, they definitely should have to come back and say what the changes are. So, anyways, if that helps. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike said that staff attends all NIMs, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So sometimes you attend the NIM before you get the application? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. BOSI: No. The NIM, as required, can only be held after the first review from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they've got to be held within one year of our meeting. Tom was next, by the way. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Fee suggested that if one member of a community gets a notice and then the July 20, 2017 Page 34 of 35 other person that's, say, 501 feet away, the whole remainder of the community should get the notice. Perhaps a better and more efficient way to do that was to keep it at the 500 feet, but when you involve a community, send it to that HOA or the chairman of that HOA or that group, because that could become onerous when you nip the tip of the iceberg on a huge community with the 500 feet, and then you have literally thousands of people that, in some cases, could be a mile away, and that could be particularly onerous if we follow that suggestion. MR. BOSI: And our code does require that. The HOAs are notified, and it's only the structures within the 500 feet. So that scenario is provided for by the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already in the code. MR. FEE: I recently went to a NIM within the last two months, and the planner, Eric Johnson, who's not here, sat in the audience. And I knew -- I know who Eric is, but 99 percent of the people would not know, and there was no -- there's no ability for them to know who to speak to on the county's part. It was a NIM by the developer, but the county staff more or less was in the audience. So I think it's important that they also be identifying themselves. And I would go for the transcript, because if there's $100 fee for an hour or two meeting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be more than that, but -- MR. FEE: -- staff puts a -- when it goes to the Board, staff puts a staff summary. So why not have the transcript, which is, in essence, what the developer's putting in as well. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And that takes us to the end of new business. And there's no old business. Any other public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:27 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN July 20, 2017 Page 35 of 35 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. August 17, 2017 Page 1 of 49 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 17, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Karen Homiak ABSENT: Ned Fryer Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Fred Reischl, Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative August 17, 2017 Page 2 of 49 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, good morning. Welcome to the Thursday, August 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer is absent. Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Fryer indicated they had other commitments they had to meet today, so they're excused -- their absences are excused. And, with that, we'll move into normally a simple item, addenda to the agenda, but it will not be so simple today. We have a little discussion to have. Most of you were notified either by email or phone concerning the Cirrus Pointe project. What happened is last Thursday, after the staff report was issued, it was noticed that the NIM meetings and minutes and standards were not in there. In reviewing the LDC, they're required to be -- that NIM is required to be heard 15 days before this public meeting. This was only seven days, so we couldn't hear it today under any circumstances because its inconsistent with our Code of Laws -- or our Land Development Code. As a result, we looked for another date in which this room was available, try -- in keeping in with the expedited permitting process that Cirrus Pointe was set up under. The soonest date that could have been possible was the 31st of August, but then earlier this week another discovery was made is that they had not gotten time in front of the CRA. The NIM that was held in that area provided the simple notice of 500 feet. A lot of the people in Bayshore involved in the CRA were all not aware of everything that was going on with the NIM and the other issues. So with the help of Commissioner Taylor and Leo Ochs we were able to -- we were able to be able now to continue this until the September 7th meeting, which is our regular meeting, and the CRA will have time to have had a presentation by the applicant for the Cirrus Pointe project to their board first so they can provide us with their recommendation and input on that particular project. That also -- what is particularly important is that provides the time for the Planning Commission report to get to the Board before the Board's 26th meeting. So everything stays on schedule. The whole issue probably occurred because of the expedited permitting. I think everybody rushed to get this accommodated and, as a result, some things didn't get correlated as they normally would. So, with that, I would like to get a motion from this panel to continue PUDA-PL20170001626, which is the Cirrus Pointe RPUD, to the September 7th meeting of this Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) August 17, 2017 Page 3 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. There is another point I'd like to stress to staff, and it was something that now shows up because of this particular case. It was odd that the CRA hadn't had time to review this, and there's various issues that went back and forth between the applicant and the CRA trying to find a time where it worked for everybody, but I also noticed that in the checklist that's provided for a rezone application, as well as checklists for conditional uses, variances, and other things, those checklists don't contain a reference to the CRA. Now, I know the CRA is not a required review, but I think it would be -- it would be beneficial if the applicants were noticed earlier on that they need to get with the -- that it be preferrable to talk with the CRA or present to the CRA if they're involved in one. And we have two CRAs. We have Bayshore and Immokalee. You could add a line to a checklist so everybody just knows it's there and can then respond to it. I think it may help avoid these kind of situations. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I definitely agree. We have on our checklist routing slips for special reviews such as City of Naples or Marco Island or Airport Authority. We definitely will add that for the CRA -- both CRAs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one was kind of like a double whammy as far as scheduling, because one reason was the NIM, and I think everybody's aware of that now. And the second now is the CRA issue wasn't even discovered until this week. So it's good that -- if we could do that. At least the applicants know early on they better address it, because when it gets here, that's one of the things we'd be asking for. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. And during the pre-application meetings for these types of petitions, it's always good to go through the checklists for those special reviews to make sure the applicant's aware that they need to coordinate with them, and staff needs to make sure the routing goes to those agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you, Ray. Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. And I just wanted to let the Planning Commission know -- and I appreciate your comments, Mark -- on the 22nd, next Tuesday, Deborah Forrester will be in. She's the executive director for the Immokalee CRA as well as the Bayshore CRA. She'll be in to the planning offices at three o'clock. And we're going to bring in not only the principal planners, but our redevelopment team, our LDC amendment team, introduce the team to Deborah and discuss some of these coordination issues that maybe we had lacked in the past without the designated executive director. So these issues are going to be put on the table, as you said, and articulated a little bit better to the planners in terms of how that coordination needs to be stressed at the very beginning of the process. But I appreciate those comments, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And the other thing, if anybody -- are any members of the public here specifically for the Cirrus Pointe project? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If those of you -- those that are watching, the CRA is going to meet on this matter. They have a regular meeting. It was initially scheduled for September 5th, I believe. By us going on the 7th, we'll have time to have a verbal analysis or a presentation done by the CRA director or a member of the CRA at our meeting on the 7th, so we'll have the benefit, then, of the CRA's input on this August 17, 2017 Page 4 of 49 matter. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I will not be here on the 7th. It's very frustrating because I spent a lot of time with that project. But my youngest granddaughter is getting married, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- I'm flying out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's an opportunity then. Can we add a few more things to the agenda? Thank you for letting us know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You don't look that old. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, thank you, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that does take us to the Planning Commission absences. Now, you all had been polled about the August 31st, and I've already let Troy know. The 31st is off. We no longer need it, so we will not be in this room on the 31st. So your attendance, then, obviously, is not needed. How many know if they cannot make it on the 7th? I already know Diane can't. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll still have a quorum. Plus we have two other members who most likely will be able to be here. The next meeting after that, and we do have items scheduled for it, is September 21st. So just keep that in mind. And on the 7th I'll poll everybody to make sure when have a quorum. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will be there on the 21st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Approval of minutes; anybody -- I don't believe there were any -- yeah, there weren't any minutes attached to it this time, so we're good. And that takes us to the BCC reports and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not hold a meeting in August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report; I don't have anything today. ***And we'll move directly into -- oh, and there's no consent items left over from last meeting, so we will move directly into our first advertised public hearing. It's 9A. It's PL20170000007. That's for the Briarwood PUD located on the east side of Livingston Road north of Radio Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll start with disclosures, way over on Tom. MR. EASTMAN: I received several letters and emails from the community that are incorporated in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, what he said, and then a conversation with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Quite a few emails that I received, and I also spoke with staff and Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from my part, I have received a lot of emails. I've sent them all to the planner. They're part of public record. I've also reviewed the audio for the NIM. And there was other meetings held. They weren't official NIMs, but they were presentations to some of the neighborhoods. I attended one of those early on to understand this project. When it was first presented to me by citizens in the area, it was presented as an affordable housing project. I soon learned that was not the case. And I'll ask the applicant to expand on that when we get into the meeting. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and emails. August 17, 2017 Page 5 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Lots of emails and letters; all public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. And I did have conversations with at least one of the Board of County Commissioners. I think it was Ms. Taylor. With that, Bob, as you make your presentation -- there's been a lot of information, and I was approached early on with some information. It turns out to be misinformation. It was concerning the nature of how this operation -- how your proposal was going to operate. And I looked at everything you've provided thoroughly. I didn't see any reference to affordable housing in there. So I would like, as part of your presentation, to discuss that aspect of the project. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can start right off the bat. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes. There is no proposal here -- this is a market-rated project. There's no proposal for any affordable housing. It hasn't been reviewed for that. It wasn't submitted. It's never had that as an element of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: With me this morning, my client Brett Boyd, sitting right there; Rich Yovanovich, he's the land use attorney; also have Terry Cole with Hole Montes, who's the civil engineer. Actually, he is not working on the design of this project, but he's up to speed, because that civil engineer is out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, for disclosure, I did meet with you and I think Richard and the applicant -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- earlier this week on these for a pre-meeting. MR. MULHERE: And also Norm Trebilcock, who is our traffic engineer and planner. You have -- I think Mike put the aerial up there; Mike Bosi. It sort of shows the general area. It doesn't show the entire PUD which actually runs a little bit further to the north. But the sub -- this is new. Every time -- I just figured out how to use the old one; we've got a new one here, so -- and, Rich, do you want to -- can someone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the orientation actually may work better, huh? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. That's good. It's pretty dark, but there we go. It's really not much different than what was on the screen, but -- is that on? Yes. So this is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might just want to slide that up a little bit. We can't -- the bottom's cut off. There you go. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: This is the subject property right here that's a 15.99-acre parcel within the Briarwood PUD, and this is the multifamily project within the PUD that's most close -- our closest neighbor, Dover Parc, and this is the recreational facility here. This is a little preserve right here. Just for getting it on the record, that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to pick that mike up closer to you there, Bob. MR. MULHERE: That's the zoning map. Briarwood is here, Maplewood is here, and they both extend a little -- excuse me. They both extend a little bit further to the north. The commercial tract -- as I know you're aware because you had another petition some time ago, the commercial tract allows -- it's 15.99 acres. It's undeveloped, and it allows for a whole list of commercial uses, including shopping center, retail, restaurant. And presently it's owned by Lowe's Corporation. It would allow that type of home improvement store as well. I believe there was actually an SDP approved years ago for a Lowe's home improvement store. The square footage that's allowed on that -- on those commercial tracts in the PUD is limited to 20 percent of the commercial area. If you do the math on that, that translates to a maximum square footage of 139,305 square feet. That PUD also allows for up to 600 dwelling units, most of which have been constructed. Nearly all of those have been constructed north of this property within the PUD. We had quite a bit of public outreach. I know in your packet there is the summary minutes from the August 17, 2017 Page 6 of 49 NIM that we held on May 16th. We had very good attendance at that. There were a lot of great questions asked. But even prior to that, my client held two, sort of, town hall meetings, and so we had a fair amount of public outreach for this. But in addition to those two -- three meetings, the informal town hall meetings and the formal NIM, we also have -- I personally have spoke to a number of the residents over the telephone after the advertisement went out and they were notified of the hearing. And even before that, after some of these meetings, residents reached out; particularly, they were residents in Dover Parc. They're the closest to it and the most affected. I know my client also spoke to a number of the residents. Let me put on the conceptual site plan. One of the issues -- one of the issues that I heard from folks that called me with concerns and also heard expressed numerous times was the question about having an interconnection between this project and the remainder of the Briarwood PUD. And we never proposed to have an interconnection. This PUD is already interconnected further to the north with some RSF3 zoned properties that function as part of the PUD, though they're not zoned PUD. I just wanted to point out there's two access points to this tract separate and apart from the access points to the remainder of the Briarwood PUD. One is here on Radio Road. These are already improved. They were paid for by the then owner of the property while the Radio Road and Livingston Roads were improved. So the turn lanes are in. The access points are in. One is here, and one is right here. There is an existing roadway right here called Skelly Road -- I think that says Shelly Road, but it's Skelly Road -- that sort of ends in a cul-de-sac right here. And we do not intend to actually make that interconnection. We would basically have landscaping and a wall here, so that roadway would stop right here short of our project. We do intend to have gates in this community here, here, and here so that there is some parking that's available here outside of the gates. But once you enter into the community, you would have to go through these gates. Part of the discussion about the interconnection -- about the interconnection and the recreational facilities -- because that was part of the discussion, too. At the neighborhood information meeting the issue was raised about whether or not -- if this was developed as residential, there was a legal ability for my client and the future residents of this project both to have vehicular access to the remainder of Briarwood and also to use their recreational facilities. And while we never intended to do that -- and I believe we clearly stated that several times at that meeting -- it was requested that we do the research. Mr. Yovanovich did that research. There was a legal ability to access their recreational facilities and their roads; however, we do not intend to do that, and we would be happy with the condition or stipulation that says that we will not do that. Moving beyond that, there is also recorded instruments that require my client to pay a fair share contribution for the costs of those recreational facilities. And although we will not use those -- well, one, I don't think we could actually change that requirement and, two, we've already agreed that we would make that fair share contribution. So hopefully that answers some of the questions that I know people have. Let's talk about stormwater. You can see on the conceptual site plan there is a lake there. This project, the Briarwood PUD, has an overall stormwater management plan that was approved. This project is included in that overall stormwater management plan, as you would expect. This lake will be connected to the other lakes in the overall stormwater management plan. It will provide for some additional water quality and storage capacity. And, obviously, with respect to the question of stormwater management and the costs of maintaining that moving forward in the future, we will have to also contribute our fair share cost for those improvements to this master stormwater management plan, and we assume that would be on a pro rata share based on acreage. We did request one deviation which staff has recommended approval for. I'll put that on the -- I want to just point out something about the site planning. As we had discussions with the folks that live in the condominium which is closest to us -- and if you look at the aerial, I want to point out that, basically, from this, sort of, Skelly Road here, moving towards Livingston, this is a preserve here. This is a recreational facility, and so there's quite a bit of -- there's no residential structures there and quite a bit of vegetation in this August 17, 2017 Page 7 of 49 area. But these residential structures do exist close to our property moving this way. Here is a lake. They don't -- obviously there's no residential structures there; but right in here. So in preparing the site plan and discussing the desires of the neighbors, we had several iterations of this site plan -- four or five -- and we moved these structures and these parking structures and this parking. We kind of condensed it and moved it so that we could have a substantial buffer area, particularly where we're adjacent to those residential condominium structures. As I said, when you get up into this area, it narrows down, but it's wider here, wider here, and wider here. And that was in order to provide for the -- at the request of those residents. They have a pretty tall hedge. And beyond the hedge they wanted to be able to access it for maintenance. So we've agreed to retain an 8- to 10-foot clear area there and put our landscape buffer on the other side of that. So this is anywhere from a minimum of 15, probably closer to 20 feet. And as a result -- I also wanted to point out that there are some easements along Livingston and also along Radio that are a right-of-way easement, provides for the turn lanes, and then there's a slope easement, a 10-foot slope easement. And as a result of squeezing this, we requested a deviation from the required Type D landscape buffer along the two arterial roadways so that we could provide more landscaping over here. And I'll put that on the visualizer. I have to go a little smaller. That's probably good enough. You won't be able to read the text. Maybe a little bigger. I'm sorry, Ray. Oh, Fred, sorry. Ray's over there. Got a long arm, Ray. Okay. So this width of the easement varies. Here's your 10-foot county road or slope easement, and this is this 10-foot enhanced Type D buffer. We did work with Mark Templeton to identify a palette of plants that are larger and more plants, and also we'd be putting in a decorative fence in there. And I have an exhibit in a few minutes I'll show you that depicts that or something similar to that. So staff did recommend approval for that deviation. That's 10-foot wide with all the -- actually far more than the required plantings at different levels; canopy trees, midstory, and then, of course, the hedges that are required. I wanted to talk just a minute about we do obviously have a finding from staff that we are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. So let's focus on density calculations for a minute, because we are requesting 320 units. This PUD is 209.17 acres in size. So this is Option 1 for calculating the density. If you -- the PUD is eligible for five dwelling units per acre and that's based on the Comprehensive Planning staff's evaluation; a base of four plus a bonus unit for the access to the two arterial roadways. If you do that math, that times 209.17 acres is 1,046 units. The PUD was approved for 600, and so that leaves available 446 dwelling units. We are requesting 320. The PUD was originally approved on the 209.17 acres. You subtract out the 15.99-acre commercial tract, and you base the PUD's per-acre density on the remaining 193.18 as is prescribed by our Land Development Code as a method for calculating density, you come up with a density of 3.12 dwelling units per acre. When you add in what we are requesting, that density increases to 4.4 dwelling units per acre on a gross. There is another way you could calculate density that we're eligible for. We don't need it. It's just informational. This 16-acre tract, 15.99 tract, is eligible for a bonus for conversion from commercial to residential because it's not within an activity center, and that 16 units per acre, you could actually realize 1,222 dwelling units. The rest of the math doesn't change. We really don't need that. It's just for informational purposes. The first option is the one that I think really matters. Now, I wanted to talk a little bit about the -- what this project would look like. And at the conclusion of my comments -- which I'm getting close to the end -- is my client will come up and talk a little bit about the actual operational and unit sizes and marketing that he's done. He's got a lot of good information. I'd rather have him make that brief presentation to you, because I think he's got that information really in his head more so than I do. So I think that the project that is the closest by comparison to this that probably you're all familiar with would be the Orchid Run project. You know, for me -- I don't know if everyone agrees, but I think it August 17, 2017 Page 8 of 49 was very well done. It's a very attractive project. It's on the intersection of two six-lane roadways, just as this project is. That project is about 22 acres in size, but about six acres of that -- about four and change are in the FP&L easement and another 1.8 acres are actually in the canal easement, the Golden Gate Canal easement. When you look at the net of what's developable, it's a little bit over 15 acres in size. Our project is 15.99 acres in size. So, again, they're very similar. They have two and four-story buildings in there. We're proposing three- and four-story buildings. Again, very similar. The net density on that project, if you look at that 15-and-change acres, is 19 units per acre. We're proposing 20 units per acre. So, yes, a little bit more, but not much more, and very similar. I wanted to show you some photographs of that project, because ours will be very similar to that. This also shows the landscape buffer, although ours is enhanced beyond what you see there from a planting perspective, as we agreed to with the deviation. That sort of decorative fence, although it may not be exactly that way, that gives you an idea of what we're proposing for sort of an aluminum or metal decorative fence. Also, with the canopy trees, there will be canopy trees, midstory trees, and then double hedge row. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, since you're showing that photograph, and before we pass it, just so the Planning Commission's clear, that's a -- looks like a wider buffer than what you're asking for. MR. MULHERE: It is, but you can also see that a portion of it is turf. And I think in here this is about 10 feet. I walked it. I couldn't attest to it, but it's about 10 feet in width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a portion on the backside, too. MR. MULHERE: Yes; a little bit, yes. By the way, what I didn't point out -- and I'm glad you asked that question -- is that that slope easement, that's 10 feet wide, you know, will remain as it is today. It won't be part of our landscape buffer but, you know, it functions the same way as the turf area here does. This is another example. And you can see the buildings in the back, parking in the front and, of course, the landscape buffer there. And here's, I think, another example right here. You see that four-story building. So, just in conclusion, obviously we have a team here that can answer any of your questions if I haven't answered them. And I'm going to ask Brett to come up here in one minute, but I just wanted to point out some summary kind of thoughts. I think you all know that the county has a significant shortage of rental housing, market rate rental housing -- it's in the thousands of units -- and that market rates are -- rental rates are very high. And I think there's two ways, potential ways that I know of, that you can address that, and maybe one is a combination, so maybe there's three ways. You can subsidize rental housing, or you can increase the supply. It's simple supply and demand. If you increase the supply, you will reduce the cost of those units. There are a significant amount of -- number of units that have been approved and maybe are either under construction or will be soon. I heard a number of approximately 2,000 including this project. That doesn't even meet the projected shortage. So when you think about economic development, when you think about trying to attract employees, what better location than a location that's in the heart at the urban area. Really, when you look at that aerial, this is almost an infill parcel. It's surrounded by development. Across the street is the Wawa store. Across the way the other way is Foxfire to the south, plus their golf maintenance shed. We've taken pains to create a relationship with our closest neighbors that addresses their concerns, and so this is a really good location. Staff has reviewed this project and recommended approval. We know that this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and we know that this will be an excellent project, very well done, very, very high-end and very similar to in sort of the quality of a project that you can look at that's already been developed that's very attractive. And we sort of looked at that when we began to design this and tried to model this in many ways similar. Not exactly the same. Not the same architecture, but very similar to that. So with that, I'm going to ask Brett to come up and talk a little bit about -- I know I heard some questions about sizes and rents and so forth, so I'm going to let him speak to those issue. August 17, 2017 Page 9 of 49 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Can I ask you a question first? MR. MULHERE: Yes; sure, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there any way at all to make sure that these apartments are rented by county staff or fire, police? Any way like that to make sure of that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think there's different demands. I want -- I think that's something that Brett's going to get into and then we'll come -- I think if you would give us a little leeway, we'll answer that question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But the reason I say that is there's also a -- there's also a demand, for example, for a certain segment of senior housing. And so -- you're talking about some; you're not talking about all. And I think we can address that question, but... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, I'm talking about all; not some. MR. MULHERE: Okay. All right. I guess that will teach me to put words in your mouth, huh? Yeah. MR. BOYD: Good morning. For the record, Brett Boyd, Boyd Land Development. I'm the applicant for this project. It's nice to be here this morning. Nice to have all the residents here as well, and I'm hoping to at least communicate some of their concerns and issues that have come up over this process. Communication was very important on -- as far as one of my goals early on, so that's why we had two town hall meetings before the NIM. Anything that came up with the neighbors subsequent to that, I have encouraged myself to come to meetings to address any specific letters, and I tried to be very responsive to that. Obviously, I can't present a project today that's going to address everybody's concerns, but I'm hoping to make modifications and try to be a good neighbor. One of the first things that we did, as you can see in the site plan, a lot of buildings are pushed up near the right-of-way. And what I did early on -- this is probably the 21st site plan iteration. Initially I had buildings closer to Dover Parc, and one of the first things we did, obviously, is try to address those concerns and push the buildings further away from the existing residents and to address their concerns about buffering and walls and landscaping, things like that. So that was a priority for me and our team as far as communicating with the neighbors. Obviously, I can't make everybody happy, but I'm hoping to at least present today a good quality project for Briarwood and Collier County. As far as what we've tried to design, we've got -- I don't know if we can show that, Bob; the elevation boards. The design style is called plan Spanish Colonial Revival, whatever that means. It's, I'm told, a Santa Barbara look, and it's an all concrete construction. So it's all concrete including the floors between the units. It's a plank construction and concrete block. And so -- and we have barrel tile roofs. We're trying to be somewhat of a green type of project. We're looking at incorporating some of that Solarcity tesla roofing systems. We're looking at adding some solar panels that could make us a little bit more green. We're putting electric vehicle charging stations in the garages and some other charging stations outside of the garages as well. So we're, again, trying to have something that's attractive and that would be an access for the neighbors. And we're not looking to diminish property values. We're looking to increase property values in the neighborhood. That's my goal. Some of the concerns that I heard a lot of is traffic. I understand it. I live in the same district as you all do. I deal with the same traffic. The positive here with multifamily is that we do have a reduced amount of traffic, and I'll let Norm talk to that a little bit, but we're less than half as much traffic as a shopping center. Primarily our access will be off of Livingston Road. And you can see the site plan there. That's the primary access. That's where the clubhouse is. We do have a secondary access for Radio Road as well. And to follow up on a comment that Bob made that I just want to make sure there's clarity, because August 17, 2017 Page 10 of 49 we still get questions about it; the recreational facilities, this is something that we want absolutely nothing to do -- we're willing to make it part of the record that we have no legal access to your -- or when I say "legal access," we have -- that we would make it a record that we would not have access to your recreational facilities, period. That still means that I do pay for it, though. I'm going to pay my pro rata share of your recreational facilities but I don't get to use it. What we have proposed here in our application is I've got a budget of about $2.6 million in our pool, the pool deck area, the fitness center, the clubhouse. So we're trying to make a premier type of project for our own tenants that they're going to use. And they have no rights to -- in our leases it will say that. They have no rights to access your recreational facilities. Also, we have -- right now we do have the right for access into Briarwood but, again, we're willing to make that a condition of our application that we will not have any access through Briarwood. We have a standalone project here, but we want to be good neighbors, and I think there's a way to make this work where we can make our financial contributions to Briarwood and your recreational facilities but we don't use them. Lastly, I want to talk a little bit about tenant mix. We've done a lot of studies to see who our tenants are going to be at this project. In up to age 29, it's about 15 to 20 percent, up to age 39 is another 20 to 22 percent, and a majority is 40 and over. So there will be some young professionals, but there's also folks that are my age, 55 and above, that are looking for a nice quality development with a lot of amenities that would like to live the Naples experience. Our average unit sizes, which are very important that I want to communicate today to the neighbors -- our average square footage is about a little over a thousand square feet; 1,047 square feet. Our rents range anywhere from $1,400 to $2,000 a month. Our leases are -- the only leases that -- when we lease up the project, we're looking for one-year leases or even longer. The reason for that -- and I think you can appreciate that for some of you who rent out units there in Briarwood -- it costs money to turn over your renters. So we're looking to try to make a good quality product for our development and for folks to keep leasing, the same tenants, because it costs money. So if you have shorter leases, you're going to have time where that unit -- it takes time to lease that unit out to market. And that's a cost of doing business. So we are -- our lease up is one year leases. You can do something shorter than that, but you pay a premium for it. And I think you can see, even on -- looking at the information on the website for Orchid Run up the street, you pay a 30, 40 percent premium if you do something less than a one-year lease. So there's a penalty to do something shorter. So, again, at our price point and our square footage, we're a different market than those of you who have investments in Briarwood. And I know there's a number of people in Briarwood that are renting their units, and that's an important issue for them. But, overall, we're trying to do a nice, quality development. We're trying to be responsive to your suggestions and your comments, and we hope to be an asset and improve the immediate market area. Thank you very much. Oh, let me -- Rich would like me to give you a little bit more detail on the square footage sizes. The smallest units are 756 square feet. There's 54 of them. And I can, again, send an email out to anchor to send them on to all of you. First of all, let me just give you a broad scope. One-bedrooms is 44 percent of the total, two-bedrooms are 48 percent, and three-bedrooms are 8 percent. The square footages, the one-bedrooms range from 756 square feet up to 790 square feet; the two-bedrooms range from 1,122 square feet up to -- there's a few large ones at 1,600 square feet. There's just a few of those; and then three-bedrooms are about 1,400 square feet. So that gives you a little bit of a feel of the breakdown. So I'd be happy to address any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- and I'm assuming you're -- do you have more presentation, or do you want questions now? Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to address just a couple of comments. When Bob spoke about the water management system, it's a master water management system for Briarwood. The way the documents are currently written, this parcel would not be required to pay any proportionate share towards what maintenance of the water management system. August 17, 2017 Page 11 of 49 My client has said they're willing to pay their proportionate share, which is currently a financial obligation it doesn't have under the documents. So I just wanted to make that clear that they are agreeing to incur some additional expenses that they're not currently required to do. And regarding kind of the history of where my letter came from is we were at a neighborhood information meeting, and a lot of people were questioning my client when he said he had the right to use the recreational facilities under their documents but he did not intend to use those facilities. Since I have real estate partners, I had not read the documents myself. I said, let me go back. Let me read all the documents. I'll send you a letter explaining all of the rights that currently exist under those documents. So that's where that letter came from. It was no way intended -- and some people said in their meetings that we're trying to bully them into using their facilities or using their roads. It was purely an informational: This is what the documents currently provide. We're giving up the right to use the recreational facilities. We're not going to interconnect our project with your roadways. So that was just letting you know what's out there that what we're -- and what we're willing to make sure we're not impacting your community. That was the purpose of that letter; explaining what the legal documents say. I know Ms. Kraus, who wrote their declaration. Whatever she wants us to record on the property to assure everything we're saying to you right now regarding not using the recreational facilities, et cetera, she can draft it, we'll review it to make sure it makes everybody in Briarwood comfortable, that we're codifying what we're saying. And I just wanted to briefly talk about kind of where my letter came from, the history of that letter, and it was just simply explaining what's in the recorded documents right now. And with that, I think we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding anything to do with the project. Oh, one other thing. This is -- I wanted to -- Mr. Boyd intends to spend approximately $60 million to build this project; 60, six zero. When you divide that by 320 units, that's $188,000 per-unit investment. This is not going to be anything that in any way negatively impacts that community. That's a significant investment in just the infrastructure as well as the building cost. So this is no way, in any way, going to harm the property values in that community and, frankly, we believe it's going to enhance the property values in that area. With that, I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, and then Diane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Back to where I was before. I keep seeing articles on the news and the newspapers about how the local police and fire and everybody lives up in Fort Myers because they can't afford to live down here, and I keep seeing the excuse that we need to build more apartments down here so that these people don't have to go to Fort Myers. But is there legally any way to make sure that a certain -- I said "all." You know, I was half joking, but maybe not. Is there any way to make sure that a goodly percentage of these units that you're going to build actually do get rented by local first responders, or however you want to word it, people that work at the hospital, you know, like that? Is there any legal way to do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: What we have done on other similar market-rate projects is we committed with the initial advertising, and as units become available, that we would let the school system know, Mr. Eastman know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I forgot about them; yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: School system. We would let the Sheriff's Office -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Teachers. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- everybody know that, you know, we're getting ready to come online, so they would obviously know about it and have the opportunity to come in. And assuming they qualify, you know, have good credit, they could obviously use it. And we've also agreed in other instances when a unit comes up -- because usually there's about a 60-day notice period, you know, when you're not going to renew your lease. Again, we would provide information to the county, the Sheriff's Office, the school system. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's not the point. These people are lower paid than -- August 17, 2017 Page 12 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, let me tell you something that maybe this board, collectively, has not been aware of. In the last year, year and a half, the following projects have been in process or approved for apartments: We have Santa Barbara and Davis, 320; we have Ave Maria for 264; we have Lely on the Rattlesnake for 304; we have Milano Lakes that's under construction for 296; we have Manatee and 951 for 483 units; we have Isles of Collier for 340; and now we're adding, potentially, Briarwood at 320. That brings 2,326 units just in seven larger projects already hitting the books, more or less, for the past year. Now, I think that's a wide variety of projects to pick from for anybody of any caliber that would want to live in those, and I'm just telling you that, as a part, maybe in response to your question about why aren't we singling out different categories of people to be in certain apartments. That's -- I mean, that's social engineering, but that's your call. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can these people afford to rent in any of those projects? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I would suggest that the Lely one, possibly -- Milano Lakes for sure, maybe Ave Maria, the Manatee Road and 951. These are all apartment complexes that are in areas I would think with -- and with features that appear generally on the applications that don't have the features this particular project has in regards to comparison up the street to Orchid Run. I'm just telling you there's a lot of apartments coming on the last year that have been in process in Collier County that most of the public is not aware of. They're just -- because they're in the backroom. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So all this stuff I'm hearing about people have to live up in Fort Myers and commute down here from Naples (sic) -- people that work this Naples and all that's just not true? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not one of the projects I just told you about that's built. They're all either in process or either under construction. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I can't tell you what's going to happen when these open up. And I know there's different ranges. For example, down in the Manatee Road and 951, they're looking at a sizable project down there, and if that goes -- it's in for -- they either had a pre-app or maybe a preliminary SDP. If a project like that goes, it's substantial in size, and it's an area that would probably look at less expensive units if that's what your goal is. So I'm just providing that information as an offset to what we're talking about today, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I appreciate that. That is what I was asking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any other questions at this time? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, just one little comment. That cul-de-sac that you're not going to use that comes out of their project, you're going to have to get onto their land because they're not going to be able to leave just a dead-end road there, so you're going to need their permission to get on their land and change that, unless they won't give you the permission and leave a dead-end, something like that. You know that, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes; thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And we have had those conversations. There's even been preliminary design of a hammerhead or a small circle. Obviously, it's not our property. They'll have to give us permission, but we could -- you know, we could certainly construct that or fix that as part of the process. And that's the discussions we've had with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I just had one quick thing for Rich. On your July 26th letter, Rich, I did go through that, so I can understand where the people had a problem, and I just figured you were going to write strong letter to follow. So I'm glad you clarified that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant's presentation? Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I do. And for those that don't know, I'm a realtor here in Naples, Florida; 15-year resident. My question kind of stems from some things that have already been brought up. When I -- I don't do August 17, 2017 Page 13 of 49 rentals in my business, but when I put my ear to the ground in the market, and I just go on my phone and just Google "apartments for rent in Naples," and I'm talking about just in the surrounding area, not out there like Ave Maria -- a lot of friends are Collier County sheriffs, they're teachers, et cetera, that are struggling. I see -- I just typed in on my phone while you were talking, and 1,200 apartments came up for rent in this area, including communities that we've mentioned, like Orchid Run, et cetera, all in the same kind of price range, rental range of that 1,400 to over 2,000 per month deal. I guess I'm struggling with is there really a need when I know a ton of -- lots of homeowners that are here seasonally, the only way they can afford to have their place here in paradise is by being able to rent that out potentially throughout the year. When we add more apartments, my personal opinion is, I don't see that being super affordable at $24,000 a year just in rent for an apartment when, potentially, a $350,000 house I could buy and pay HOA and taxes and pay less than that per month. So I think the challenge is not we need more rental apartments. I think the challenge is why people are driving from Lee County is because up there they can rent a lot of things for under $1,000 a month, or at least more than from what I've been told and what I see Collier County can offer. The issue's not the number of apartments. I think, based on what I'm hearing, these upcoming apartment complexes, the issue is who can afford -- what teacher, what cop, a starting salary, especially with a family, potentially, can afford to live in a two-bedroom apartment and pay $2,000 a month, 24 grand a year? And I'm not really speaking, per se, to this project; just, in general, an observation that I think we're going to run into some problems. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a couple things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: One, the market demand is clearly there. I know you Googled and you came up with 1,200 apartments. I don't know if they're all vacant right now or not vacant right now, but I could tell you I get a fair number of calls about land development and land development opportunities, and I get more calls in the last couple years about where are there apartment sites that are properly zoned and ready to go because everybody else is at a 96 or above percent rental; a lot of demand. When we did Mr. Torres' project out on Collier Boulevard, Vicki Tracy came here and said she's got a big CCRC that she's doing in Lely Resort. And she says, you know, I've got no place for my people. You guys need to be building these apartments as quick as you can because we don't have a stock of apartments for people that want to come and work here and live here. So are we going to meet every need through this project? No project can meet every need through this (sic) project. And I'm not saying there isn't a need for some apartments at a much lower rate. I will tell you that people like me, people like Bob, when we try to bring those types of projects forward, we're not well received in trying to do that. So although we recognize a need in that area, and maybe we could find other locations to make that need, it's not always a popular thing to get through and bring forward. This project, I guarantee you Mr. Boyd wouldn't be putting at risk $60 million if there wasn't a demand for this project. And I guarantee you there are still unmet demand even after all 2,300 of those units, if they all get built, come online. We have worked closely with the county and the school district and others to make sure that people know about these units. A lot of sheriff's deputies and firefighters, they're two-income families, and they can easily -- you know, they're both working. They can easily afford the rent. And, you know, frankly, a lot of people don't want to own a home anymore. There's a lot of people who just -- although maybe I can -- the home ownership deal is not of interest to them. They would rather rent for a while and figure out where they want to live or maybe never buy a place. So we're not -- there's a demand, and we're going to -- we're going to meet that -- help meet that demand. And I agree, Mr. Dearborn, with everything you said about maybe finding other locations to bring the rents down or other options, but I can't solve all those problems with this one. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So just for clarification -- and I thank you, Richard. August 17, 2017 Page 14 of 49 I wasn't -- I wasn't getting up here to make a statement in affordable apartments. What I was saying is when I Google apartments for rent in Naples and 1,200 came up just now all in that same kind of price range, those are available units right now available for rent. I'm not going to challenge the fact that, you know, November, December through March, April, May there's a higher demand for people wanting to be down here. But you're talking about doing annual rentals. I just question, is there a need for that many apartments at that price point. I understand it is what it is. If you pay $60 million, you're going to have to charge rent to get that money back. I'm not challenging that. I'm just challenging the issue that was brought up earlier. I think no matter what you do when you build this project, people are still going to have to drive from Lee County if they're a waiter, if they're a busboy, they work the valet at a hotel; they're going to squeeze in two or three people to help afford those rents, and they're most likely going to continue to be driving down from Lee County. I don't see those kind of people that are -- really there's a need for being able to be your clients in this type project. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's not our market. Our market is the young professional that's coming to Collier County, young professionals that live in Collier County, younger families that want to stay in Collier County. Our market is not the -- you know, the busboys, the waiters. This project's not geared to serve that group of people. It's geared to serve a totally different marketplace. And that's, you know, I don't know -- MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. If I could just add, you know, the county is engaged right now into a substantial housing analysis, and I actually was at a Chamber public policy meeting last week, and Cormac Giblin was there, and he gave a little presentation. One of the things I thought was interesting that I think is, in part, a response to your question, and Stan's as well, is that the county is actually looking at all of their -- the staff at this point. I don't know that it's gotten up to the Board level. The direction to look at it came from the Board. They're looking at surplus properties that they have, and I think they've narrowed down to four or five sites that might make sense for housing opportunities. The other thing that Rich said that I just wanted to add to is I have a bunch of clients that call me, and they're looking for apartment sites. I just had one who that's all they do in Florida is build rental apartments, and they seriously looked at a site they had a little due diligence contract for. They decided not to take it down. But the first thing that I did as part of that due diligence -- the first thing that I looked at was, you know, what is around this project? Because what is the reality if you're going to invest, you know, several hundred thousand dollars in going through this process of you being successful? And this particular site, I thought, had a pretty good chance. But that's part of the process. You have to look at what's surrounding the property. You have to look at what makes sense and -- in terms of density, in terms of the neighbors. But we do need more; we need more. And I think these, 2,000, 2,300 units that are coming on board, these market-rate rental units will effectively reduce that rental price. It's going to take a year or year and a half to get them on. But I don't know that that meets all the demand, but I do think that will effectively reduce that rent because it's supply and demand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what is the starting point of your rental? I forgot what you had earlier said. You talked a couple times about it. What is your starting point? MR. BOYD: The starting point is $1,340 a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's just let that -- leave that there for a minute and let me talk to this panel about something. The Housing Department's currently working on a more, let's say, accurate way of determining affordable housing in Collier County both as definition and as count. In that regard, currently like we have today, there are five or so levels of affordable housing. There's extremely low income, very low income, low income, moderate/workforce housing, and gap income. August 17, 2017 Page 15 of 49 Now, the top two is what we generally hear talked about when we want to talk about nurses and firefighters and people like that; workforce income and gap income. Now, if you take those under the new demand model that's being put together by the Housing Department, you will find that the low level, which is below the workforce, that's based on the AMI, average median income, and a multiplier, is $1,256 a month. That's for low. So if he's at 13 something right now, he's definitely in that modern -- that moderate income level that you started talking about when you were aiming for the firefighters and police officers and things like that. So I just wanted to make that -- put that on the record, because our new analysis that hopefully will be coming out from the Housing Department soon reflects the accuracy in determining these by the AMI and the number of units we currently have in the county both in the market rate as well as the approved section of the county. And you'll see all new numbers, and I'm hoping we'll have a -- when that's approved by the Board or as it goes through its process, I hope this panel gets to participate in that, because it will be a big factor in how we look at some of these projects. But I just wanted you to know that for the record. MR. BOYD: You covered what I was going to say, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know that, but thank you. That was coincidental. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: One thing, too. And I understand everything you're saying. When we offer -- we talk about starting prices. I've run down to car dealerships because I saw an ad on TV where a brand new car is starting at 19,995, and every time I get there, that car costs me $26,000 because the one car that was 19,995 that I can afford or the 199 a month, for some reason I walk out of there I'm at 307. So I mean, that's just -- I understand there's a starting price, and I'm not challenging you or comparing you to a car dealership at all, sir. I'm just saying that the starting price means the average, based on what you told me, of 1,400 to 2,000, I bet you that average on the ones I'm seeing online in the area tend to run around 1,600 to 2,000 a month, and I'm curious where that number falls on your scale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have -- I can tell you that the low is as far as it's shown on the demand table at this time, and it shows 1,265, I believe; that's for low. So each gap, if you start at very low, medium low, and then that, there's about a 3 to $500 differential between each one of gaps. So even if you take the lower differential of 300, you're over 1,500 a month. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and, by the way, if anybody heard what he said, when he goes in to buy a car, he always goes out spending more money than he wants to; he's not a good negotiator, so you may want to buy a house from him. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Next time take me with you. I'll get you your car. MR. BOYD: One followup. Very good point as far as the analogy with the cars. But 44 percent of the project is one-bedroom, and all of them are under $1,400 a month; all of them. So that's what it is. And up the street we -- right now, let's see, just up the street, there, just to give you all a feel for when you are in the business I'm in, you look at the rent per square foot, and maybe some of you all do that when you rent your houses out in Briarwood. But, overall, nationwide, $1.40 a square foot is a good, healthy development across the country. My project is $1.60 a square foot. Right now if you tried to rent anything at Orchid Run, it's $1.78 a foot. Now, we're trying to be comparable with amenities, but we know when there's more supply the rent's going to fall a little bit, so we're anticipating that. But I just wanted to let you know all of our one-bedrooms are under 1,400 a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel of the presenter and any of their people? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the longest part of this questioning will probably be what I'm going to go into next. So just so you know, for the members of the public, at 10:30 we will be taking a August 17, 2017 Page 16 of 49 15-minute break for the court reporter; at 12 o'clock we will be taking a one-hour break for lunch. We have other cases today, so we'll be coming back, or other issues today, after lunch, most likely. But I wanted you to know that as we get close to those times, we'll be stopping and then recontinuing when we get back. So, with that, when I met with you yesterday or day before, whatever day it was, Bob, I had walked through some suggested concerns I had over the Development Standards Table, over some languages, and also the request that -- and I would like to ask staff to consider this from now on. When we get a PUD that has sections of it, a good number of the sections -- and I think this is the majority -- rewritten, it doesn't makes sense to leave the first three unattached or un-rewritten. It makes it actually very confusing for staff in the future. So I'd rather see a complete strikethrough version of the PUD provided when they're this encompassing. There was a lot of changes to this. Now, I understand it didn't start that way, but as they got into more and more things came out of it. And Bob has agreed that, by consent, he'll provide a full and complete package that will have a complete rewrite and strikethrough. MR. MULHERE: The entire PUD with all the strikethroughs and underlines so you can see it from the beginning to the end, which we would have been happy to do. Ray and I talked, and we're going to look at that process, too, so that we address your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your buffering, in your master plan you call out for a 10-foot Type A buffer along the inside buffer, the ones that do not front the roadway system. I was surprised to see that because Type A doesn't require a wall. The NIM did say you're going to have a 6-foot wall. Some information I've seen this morning, I think I saw the reference for an 8-foot wall. So what is the Type A buffer actually going to be? I understand it's going to be enhanced because that's part of the reason you need the reduction along the two road fronts. What are the enhancements? And I need to understand for the record what that involves. MR. MULHERE: Our intent was service for a 6-foot wall. There probably will be some -- there may be some elevation at the property line for that wall to sit on, but I don't know that we intended to achieve 8-foot. Certainly a 6-foot wall. But that, you know -- let me just show you this cross-section here. So this is a hedge on the Dover Parc property. This is the property line right here. This is -- I made reference to this, but a picture's worth a thousand words. So this is an 8- to 10-foot-wide clear area between our property line and the proposed wall, which would have landscaping on both sides, vines, and then our required landscape buffer would be on our side of the wall. And this is at the request of the Dover Parc residents that we've met with because they wanted to be able to access and take care of their -- you know, their landscaping that's here. And so we're pushing the wall further away, which also has the effect of reducing the visibility, from their perspective, into our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go, this -- was this included in our packet? MR. MULHERE: No. We just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's why it's not familiar. MR. MULHERE: We actually just, in the last maybe week or two, came up with some sort of final designs on this. It certainly could be. As you can see, when we prepared this, I labeled it Exhibit A3 in case that was something that the Planning Commission wished to have as a exhibit. And I recognize staff will have to look at this, and we could do that between now and consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking. I vaguely remember some of our buffers -- and because this wasn't in a packet, I didn't check this out ahead of time. Some of our buffers require plantings on both sides of the wall. This one shows it on one. Are you asking -- that needs to be verified by our staff, because if it is supposed to be on both sides of the wall, you will either need a deviation or you'll need to show the landscaping. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and with eight to 10 feet there, if we need to put some landscaping on that side of the wall, I think we could do it and still have plenty of room for clear areas. So we will get with staff to finalize this. August 17, 2017 Page 17 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any time you use the word "enhanced," you need to draw a parallel to what is existing versus what's enhanced in a table format so we can say, okay, you should have had calipers and heights of this nature. Now you're putting in ones of this nature; that's why it's enhanced. And I think you -- MR. MULHERE: I'll -- I can provide you -- with respect to the buffer along the right-of-way, it's enhanced. I'll provide you with a list of those enhancements. This one, I would call it a different buffer. I don't know that I'd call it enhanced. It's wider, but, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, if you're using this because of your need to offset the buffers along the two road fronts, we need to make sure this is adequate. That's what I'm suggesting. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I got it, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at -- well -- and it's your blowup of just your master plan for Tracts B and C where it does call out the buffers. So that Type A buffer notation, that 10-foot Type A buffer, somehow we need to put a cross-section note on there and include the reference to this new exhibit you're going to provide. That's it. Over on the right side, see the last sentence of that list of deviations? That is a strange sentence. How are you going to get trees to grow in straight lines? I just thought you've got to -- you're going from 20 feet, and canopy trees are usually wider than 10 feet, so now you're going to be planting these on one side of a 10-foot area, yet they're not allowed to grow past the slope easements. Do you -- can you enlighten me how you plan to handle that? MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing that I can add in terms of enlightenment would be that they would have be to trimmed. You know, the whole idea of a canopy tree is to provide for shade. I think that's why it's there; you know, along the sidewalk, along the right-of-way. And I drove up and down Collier County roads and, boy, there's a lot of large canopy trees providing shade that, you know, do extend a little bit into the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at the aerial that you provided today, the trees that are already there today go past the easement line, and they are overhanging that easement. I would rather -- I'm not sure that's the right way to phrase what we're trying to do here. When this started, the overhangs into utility easements, it was private utility easements, PUEs within PUDs where they were trying to put trees in the front yard, and they were putting them at the edge of those PUEs, and they were actually causing a lot of problems. So we asked the buildings and the trees to be more restricted. I'm not sure it's necessary on a slope easement. It certainly doesn't seem to be appearing in the roadway. It's way inside of the travel lane. So maybe instead of referencing the road easements and slope easements you reference any step back from the travel lane; the tree's overhang will be back from the travel -- will not impact the travel. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and that should be very achievable, because that slope easement's 10-foot wide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. MULHERE: And the buffer is 10-foot wide, so if you plant your trees in the middle of buffer, you're -- you know, you're 15 feet from the edge of what is a right-of-way easement that provides for only a turn lane. You're still another 10 feet. So you'll be more than 20 feet away from the travel lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you rewrite that a little bit so it's not -- MR. MULHERE: I'll get with Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's going to be difficult to keep a tree growing at the width you're suggesting. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think we can come up with something that addresses -- you and I, we put that together, so I'm sure we can figure out something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're blaming it on Heidi; I understand. MR. MULHERE: Oh, no, no. I wrote the language. I put the language in there, but in response to a request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Exhibit A2, which is another buffer exhibit -- but I think it's intended to be the one -- it is intended to be the one along the county roads. August 17, 2017 Page 18 of 49 MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is considered an enhanced buffer because of the way you've reduced the size and then added the palette of trees that you said you and Mark Templeton worked out. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That palette needs to be part of the record. So you'll need to enter that as an exhibit -- as part of this exhibit in the consent agreement, or the consent hearing. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Excuse me. That's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you -- see the word "enhanced" on the bottom? Be sure to tablize the difference between the standard buffer and what you've got that's enhanced in this one, because in the end what happens is people say they're enhanced but they really are doing nothing more than the code calls for. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I may -- I'll figure out the best way to do it, but I'll enumerate the enhancements on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The little reference, the second -- on the left side, the second notation, decorative fence with climbing vines planted eight feet on center, a lot of people look at a slatted wood fence as a decorative fence. We just had a debate about one on the Walmart on the East Trail. I'd rather not get into that on this project. I don't think you intend to put that. Can you be more definitive in how you're -- what this fence is going to be made of? MR. MULHERE: I think we'll add the word "metal" in there. I think it's going to be aluminum, but just to keep some flexibility, we'll say a decorative metal fence with climbing vines, if that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we get into the text of Section 7 that you've rewritten as a new section of the PUD, you have under accessory uses your recreational uses. And I understand they're accessory to the multifamily. They are restricted to the location shown on the master plan, so that covers that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because normally we don't like those mixed up. We like separate reference -- separate sections for them, but I understand why this one's like that. But under 2, your customary accessory uses, you're not putting car washes in, and think I don't -- and I think that's an inappropriate word as far as what it could mean. Drive-through car washes with blowers and things, I'm sure that's not what's intended, but I would suggest we modify that to be more indicating. I think you said you wanted to do, like, hoses or wands or something like that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I actually drove past -- and I think it's actually in one of the pictures I put up there. I parked my car; I got out and looked at the Orchid Run. I don't know if I got a picture of it. I guess I didn't. There is a little car washing area within that. It has hoses and I think a vacuum, but it doesn't -- there's no -- you don't drive through. It's not any big thing. There's no structure. It's just a little area where you pull your car in and wash it. That's what we want. So my thought would be, maybe if we use the term "hand car wash area." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. But I just don't want anybody ever thinking that we've suggested car washes could be on this corner. Nobody would be happy with that. The last part of the sentence I think you need to drop. Solid waste and recycling facilities. I know Dan Rodriguez would love to have another recycling facility in Collier County, but I don't think you want to put that there, so -- and we do require dumpster enclosures anyway, so I'd just prefer that you not do that. Speaking of which, on your master plan, where are your dumpster enclosures going -- where are they going to be located? And that's -- you don't -- you didn't provide that in the packet, but you do have a site plan. MR. MULHERE: I don't know that we have an exact area yet, likely -- excuse me -- likely close to the entrances so that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not on mike. MR. MULHERE: Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you. Likely close to the entrances. By the way, these -- as part of the service, people will put out their trash. It will be picked up and then put into the recycling and -- trash and recycling will be picked up and put into a container. August 17, 2017 Page 19 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to have dumpsters or you intend to have dumpsters and those kind of enclosures, please add them to the master plan for their locations or a minimum setback from the residential community to the sides. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we could do that. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 7 point -- we might as well leave this up for a minute. While you've got this up, I've got a question. Your garages, are they enclosed, or are they carports? MR. MULHERE: They're enclosed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking these things, if this -- if there's a motion for approval, everything that I'm saying, as you know, will probably be stipulated, so... Under 7.3, your first sentence, table sets forth the development standards for multifamily residential. It also sets forth for the recreational tract, too, the recreational area. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So we should add -- for multifamily -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it says clubhouse recreation building. MR. MULHERE: The recreation tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into your Table 7.3 on the top, the third column, you say "accessory." I think you need to add "accessory to the multifamily units." MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also use SPS a lot. Actually, that's as much writing as it would take to put in the actual number so there's no confusion. So I ask that you replace those with the actual numbers so we don't have a debate over what standard principal structure you're referring to. Same as -- SPS, same as principal structure. MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The minimum yards under your internal to Tracts B and C, your minimum to the water body, I think you just need to say it's -- you're going to make that a lake tract, aren't you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you just say "minimum to lake tract," and then we don't have a discussion on what the water body is. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some transportation issues, but before we get into somebody else, let me make sure I've got all the issues I need on you. You're going to be gating the access -- all the access points. And I -- a question for you. On the master plan that's shown here -- well, this isn't a master -- your site plan. MR. MULHERE: Rich just asked me a question. I want to -- this will come in as an SDP. That lake won't be a separate tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're right. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then I need, though -- the lake has a reference on the separate tract. It won't be called a water body. It will be probably called a lake. MR. MULHERE: Minimum -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the same language in the standards table so nobody's confused over what it means. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your -- why do you have your gates on the north end inside the facilities? So that the public gets to use the clubhouse; is that how it's designed? Because that would not be helpful. MR. BOYD: There's an area there that's assessable to the public who want to initially come and see if they want to lease; they want to look at the complex. So we have a public area there that the public can come in and that don't necessarily need gate access. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So your sales center will be in the clubhouse that we're seeing right here? August 17, 2017 Page 20 of 49 MR. BOYD: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, just one other thing -- and I was trying to find it in here. But one of the things we discussed was an existing section of the PUD, 8.13, I think. I don't know if you were going to get to that yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- is that the one on transportation? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm waiting on that for a minute. That's going to involve Mike and -- MR. MULHERE: Actually, no. That's accessory structures. It says, "Accessory structures must be constructed simultaneous with or following the construction of principal structures and shall conform with the setbacks of principal structures" which, obviously, we have a -- I'm not even sure the existing PUD conforms with that statement. But as far as we're concerned, we're going to add an exemption from that because we have different setbacks for some accessories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's the -- MR. MULHERE: Parking structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I haven't got to the old PUD yet, so I'll be getting there. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You talked about the cost sharing of lakes. Somehow we're going to have to structure that into a requirement. The minimum principal setback from Dover Parc; I'm glad to hear your garages are enclosed. They actually are then a buffer to the Dover Parc project, so that works out beneficially, but your principal structure setback, you went to a lot of trouble to push them back as far as possible. I would like to show a property line setback to those -- that residential line, if there isn't already one that applies, specifically to Dover Parc. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, the table identifies from Tract D1, from Tract B1, and from Tract L1. Tract B1, I believe, is the multifamily development, and there is a 30-foot minimum setback from that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, why is it 30 feet when your principal structures on this particular map are shown -- I mean, look at your parking spaces, the width of your drive lane, and then the buffers to the north and the building itself. The nearest one, which would be Building 8, is farther than 30 feet. Why don't we use what's on this plan since that's what we're talking about? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a conceptual plan. We don't have a detailed plan yet. We are trying to maximum that separation but, you know, typically in zoning, you put a minimum standard in. We don't have a final set plan yet. So if we have to shift anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to have a drive on the north side of Building 8? I mean, there's one shown here. You see the drive lane between the garage and the building? MR. MULHERE: Right here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Building 8. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm trying to look. Oh, yes. Sorry. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to have parking spaces on both sides of that drive lane? MR. MULHERE: It's intended, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to have an 8- to 10-foot offset from the property line before you get to your wall? MR. MULHERE: Well, you can see it's a little less right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no. I'm talking about from the wall to the property line. MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about from the wall to the park -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got eight to 10 feet; let's say eight. You've got -- each parking space is what, 9 by 18 or something like that; so there's 36. You've got a 20-foot drive lane at the worst. So you've got 50 feet right there. So the setback from Dover is going to be at least 50 feet, so why August 17, 2017 Page 21 of 49 don't we use that? MR. MULHERE: I'll check -- I'll check those distances, and we'll revise it to put the maximum setback in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Fifty feet's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue with modifying the existing connections, I'm not sure how that works, and I'm probably going to, during break, talk with the County Attorney's Office to see how that gets to fit, because you are going to have to cut off that current cul-de-sac at Skelly Road, which is your turnaround area for -- especially for emergency vehicles and things like that. I know that if there's disagreement in the community over the outcome of this meeting and you need their cooperation to modify Skelly Road, I think that needs to be ironed out before we get that far so you don't run into a roadblock down the road. And I don't know how that works with staff, I don't know how it works for the County Attorney's Office, but it's a question that is sitting there, and I'm not sure how to fix it. I didn't really think about it until you made some statements today and the question came earlier by one of the other members. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, you make a good point. If we have to design around that cul-de-sac as it currently exists, we're going to need some flexibility, because if the community decides the way they'll kill this project is to refuse to let us move the cul-de-sac, we need to have some flexibility to modified that cul-de-sac on our property. It doesn't mean we're going to interconnect, but we need some flexibility maybe with walls and all that other stuff, if -- so we're going to need to address that, and I think that's an excellent point you brought up. Our desire and what we've heard from the community is no interconnection, but we have to have the ability to design around that issue if we can't get cooperation. I think it's the common area for the association; I'm not 100 percent sure. So we would need to make sure we have the flexibility to design around that if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need to provide an alternate idea conceptually when you come back in consent. One item that you wouldn't need necessarily to do is provide a cul-de-sac. You could do a hammerhead turnaround which usually suffices. And those are narrower, so it wouldn't take up much additional property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yeah. I'm just saying that we'll have to -- we may have to -- you're right. That's an excellent point, and let us look at how that would work if we can't prevent the interconnection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REISCHL: Don't forget, Mr. Chairman, too -- Fred Reischl, Planning and Zoning. Don't forget that that would be off site from this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. If they -- no, no, no. You're missing the point. What he's saying is he may not be able to go off site to modify anything, so that means they may have to modify the hammerhead on his site to accommodate whatever requirements there are. Now -- and this is for Bob. Bob, during your discussion, you said that this project is already approved by South Florida Water Management District, the -- for the drainage. MR. MULHERE: The overall project, not this -- not this portion of it. There will be some modifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Sorry. There'll be some modifications for this project, but the overall -- this tract is included in the overall stormwater management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The tract is, but the specifics of the impervious areas of this project are not. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to clarify. We mentioned the palette of plants from -- you're going to provide for Mark Templeton if -- whatever you stated you worked out with him. MR. MULHERE: Yes. August 17, 2017 Page 22 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did mention you're going to use masonry construction, tile roofs. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have electric vehicle parking chargers in the garages. Those are all -- been put on record. Okay. Those are all elements of value to the community, and I just want to make sure, if we stipulate, some of those things have to be done, they get done to keep the project to be what it is proposed to be. You're looking at a minimum size unit of 750 feet. You have agreed to pay your proportionate share of water management system. Again, I'm not sure how that's going to work, but we have to figure that one out, along with the last one we talked about. Also, the PUD allows fill to be taken off site. And rather than get to those paragraphs, I'll bring it up now. You don't intend to take any fill off site, or what's your situation there? MR. MULHERE: No, we do not intend to. We believe that we'll need that fill to have a balance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for the size of the lake you've got, the amount of fetch formula that's going to allow you to go to a certain depth, you're not going to get that much fill out of that lake. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, I think I'm right -- but you'll correct me if I'm wrong -- the LDC, I think, has a certain minimum you can take off -- or maximum you can take off without -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up to 20,000 acres. The problem I have is the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You're right, 20,000 cubic yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 20,000 cubic yards. This particular PUD allows it be to taken off without a restriction. That's what I'm concerned about. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we'll ever exceed -- I don't think we're going to take any. But, you know, the minute I say nothing's leaving the site, I get bitten. So I would like to -- can we agree that nothing above the maximum prescribed in the LDC will be removed from this site so it's not unlimited? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want it to be as the PUD states it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not in the LDC. It's in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's code of -- it's the excavation section of Code of Laws, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I knew it existed somewhere in the regulations. So we're not asking you for any type of exemption or deviation for that on this parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'd like to ask Mike Sawyer a couple things before -- about your -- go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, he's probably a good person to ask the question to, but I'll ask it through you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding for apartments that go through a Site Development Plan process -- and can you put our Site Development Plan up, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I can't put anything up; I broke the visualizer. Troy, where are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. So I just want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to take a break in a couple minutes. Hopefully we can find someone to come in and fix it then. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding is that the internal pavement that you drive on is considered a driveway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not a road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure that -- Bob. I just want to make sure we're clear on the record that under the Collier County regulations that's considered a driveway and not a road right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It always has been. And I've been doing this for decades. So maybe Mike can enlighten us if he thinks it's different when he comes up. And he's probably going to come up after break, August 17, 2017 Page 23 of 49 because now that Bob broke the visual, we're going to have to get that fixed before we go too far. Bob, what I'll do is after break I will bring -- I will move into the transportation discussion on a couple issues. I have some more back-and-forth on the other issues as well, but I want to take them in order. This was a 204-page document, and I, unfortunately, had to lay it out in order, so we'll just have to move through it that way. Okay. With that, let's take a break, and we'll come back at -- 10:40 would be enough time, I think, for the court reporter. So 10:40 we'll resume the meeting. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats, we'll resume the meeting. Hey, Mike, did you see what Ray just did? He missed the time. That's not like him. Now, Ray, Mike has never done that, so... Okay. We'll resume where we kind of left off. Bob, you're standing there. Is there something that you wanted to say before I picked up again? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, I'd like to ask Norm some questions so that when I ask Mike to come up he can also verify or respond. MR. MULHERE: Perfect. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Norm Trebilcock. I'm a professional engineer and certified planner, and I've been a past expert for you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a lot of questions about the way you did your report, because it's typical but, more or less, why you did it certain ways. Page 4, bottom, you say the following, "The Collier County approved PUD Ordinance 95-33 currently allows the site to be developed with an unspecified square footage of commercial area." That's not true. It's very specific. In fact, that specificity has caused some people problems in the past. It's 139,000 and some change. It's a computation of the acreage, which leads me to a couple other questions. You use the shopping center category. This has an SDP for a Lowe's for 138,371 or some change like that. Why didn't you use the hardware store or the Lowe's category? Because Lowe's by itself is not a shopping center. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. Well, what I did is I did look at the original TIS in 1975 when they did the zoning for the property, and it was identified as commercial, and it had 100,000 square feet of commercial for it then. And so what I did, just moving forward, is used that as the number for a shopping center that can be developed. I mean, to your point, yes, we could also show, I guess, 139,000 square feet of shopping center potentially. But as a -- I guess I did it this way as a matter of zoning, you know, what I would call, like, a highest and best use for the property potentially could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're not an appraiser, though, are you? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're making -- MR. TREBILCOCK: -- more from a traffic -- a traffic engineering. Typically what I'll do is I'll try and look at, like, you know, the highest amount that can potentially be done there, reasonably so. So, you're right, I'm not an appraiser, but I do look at traffic, and I try and model what the traffic impacts could be for a property. So, you know, to your point, yes, the superstore home improvement center would be a different use. That could be used there, too; yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just back up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You use the shopping center 100,000 square feet. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you use a hardware store or a superstore shopping center, which isn't -- I mean, a superstore center at 139,000 square feet, which we have an SDP in the system for, which is Lowe's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. August 17, 2017 Page 24 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what outcome would we have from that? Have you done that scenario? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So if you had that, that would still be higher than what we're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And what is the best way to portray the changes in this project, from what was already on the books as an SDP for a supercenter big box versus what your client's asking for? So, in essence, doing what I just suggested would have shown a better outcome for the traffic, which probably would have helped people understand the differences between what they could have versus what this does. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd suggest maybe you refine some of that TIS for the next hearing you go to from here, just so you have the number, unless you have a reason -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, I have that number, but the only thing is, is really, from a land use perspective, you can put in a shopping center. Again, just strictly from a zoning standpoint of what you can do on the property, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't think the Lowe's that the staff had for an SDP has been something you can do on the property? MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, you definitely can, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that's the high -- that is the more greater use at a higher intensity than the use you used, isn't it? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm getting at. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. No, no, exactly. Basically, if you did the Lowe's and used the pass-by numbers, it would be 241 peak-hour trips in the p.m. So it would be -- it would still be more than what we're proposing, but it wouldn't be as high as, like, 100-square-foot shopping center that was originally proposed in the PUD to begin with. So that was the only reasoning, so, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was looking at the latest documents. If this project was not approved, then the fallback could easily be the Lowe's that already is on the record -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- per their SDP? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That, to me, would be a more logical fallback than something else, because Lowe's still owns the property. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sure. That makes sense, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in reviewing the TISs that you -- where you said you used the 75 or 77, did you look at the TIS for the Lowe's SDP? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. I didn't use that, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only questions I have from your TIS at this time. Thank you, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Norm? Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious. I saw Google Earth on there before. Can you go to Google Earth and zoom in around that cul-de-sac. MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't know if the visualizer helps. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Yeah, there you go. MR. TREBILCOCK: Wait. We had it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That is Google Earth I'm looking at, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can you zoom into that cul-de-sac. MR. TREBILCOCK: Bob, don't touch that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm dealing with Luddites or what? It's Google Earth. Everybody knows Google Earth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's the machine. August 17, 2017 Page 25 of 49 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just pan down. Yeah, there you go. Little closer. Whoa, there you go. Zoom in a little. Okay. Now, we're talking about taking out that circular portion at the end, which is kind of really a weird-looking cul-de-sac. What is that little road going off to the upper left there? Is that just into the woods? From the cul-de-sac itself. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. It doesn't serve anything directly, Stan. So to the good point that's made is you can see from -- really, from an emergency -- if you sever this connection, there really isn't need, necessarily, for a cul-de-sac there at all because, really, for emergency vehicles and turnaround, you know, you've got -- you can loop through in this area. You've got a through-type roadway that you can -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And then you've got a cul-de-sac up at the end of that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. This doesn't serve -- as you see, there's no driveways or anything like that loaded on it. We were just offering, as a -- you know, because there was some kind of, you know -- and you can see that cul-de-sac doesn't meet any current standards at all. It's an overall. But we were just offering that, you know, to the folks as an ability to turn around, that we could put it on their property. But, you know, to your point, it really isn't necessary at all, you know. The county would -- typically would require a properly improved cul-de-sac for them to develop themselves. It was just, I think, set up as a future interconnect. But that not being the case or desire, it can be severed here and not really create an issue for -- to develop the property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And, in fact, what you have is a hammerhead. You'd pull in, you'd back into that thing and back out. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. And we can get with the Development Services staff just to confirm that as well to make sure they would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before consent, for your own benefit, you need to do one or the other -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and figure out a solution. So, yeah, that would be a great idea. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can get Developmental Services to respond timely and get back to you in time for the consent, that would be great. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Uh-huh. Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. Mike, I'd like to ask just a couple short questions of you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Quick question. I think earlier Bob -- maybe I -- it was pointed out to me during the break, I think we had mentioned before, for those that are here, Livingston Road is three lanes. I think it was mentioned, maybe I misheard it. You had mentioned Radio Road was three lanes. It was brought to my attention that Radio Road is only two lanes, correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes, correct. It's two lanes. Two lanes. If I said six lanes, I misspoke. It's two lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Patrick. MR. MULHERE: Well, four lanes total; two lanes each direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, good morning. MR. SAWYER: Good morning. Mike -- for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a couple things. First of all, are you familiar with this throat length for the cul-de-sac if it's cut off? Is that something you can offer now, or is that -- you'd rather leave that to -- MR. SAWYER: Honestly, I would not -- I would rather research that for you to get the exact figures for you. I would rather not do that just off the cuff. August 17, 2017 Page 26 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the ability or the assurance that the system that's within the -- a multifamily project such as this and the way they've shown, it would not be roads. They would be driveways. MR. SAWYER: Most of the time when these projects come in, they all come in as driveways. That's not to say that you couldn't, for whatever reason, if you wanted to plat them as right-of-ways, you would have that option, but you would have to plat them as such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the county doesn't care if they're driveways at this point? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the proposed PUD changes, they've renumbered the transportation sections. Instead of 7.11, it's 8.11. 8.11B says the developer shall provide a fair share contribution to the traffic signal on Radio Road. And that's old language. Have you looked at that to see if it's still valid or not? Because I don't believe we're doing that now. MR. SAWYER: I can tell you right now we have no plans to do even a study to look into putting additional signals in that road corridor. That's not to say that we couldn't if there was something in the future that drove a need to do a study to see if there were warrants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- MR. SAWYER: You never say never, I guess, at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is for the main entrance. So it isn't for this project. But my concern is it refers to the developer. And since this is one PUD, how are the contributions for the developer going to be determined when there's multiple developers of this PUD? MR. SAWYER: What we would do, if that were to come up, we would find out who the entity is that has responsibility for the overall PUD, and we would basically look at having our engineer that would be doing the design for the signal and all of the work associated with it, we would wind up having them prepare something that showed what the background traffic is as well as the fair share portion that would be responsible for the PUD itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The payment would have to be made by the entity assuming the responsibilities of the developer or the developer, if he's still intact. MR. SAWYER: Or whoever's been assigned, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I understand that piece of it. C says, "The developer shall provide left and right turn lanes on Radio Road at the main entrance to the project. This construction shall be coordinated with the four-laning of Radio Road." All that's been done, right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should that paragraph be dropped? MR. SAWYER: It certainly could be, or it could simply be stated as "complete." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One or the other. The applicant today, we can -- since we're changing the PUD, I wanted to update as much as we could, so... MR. SAWYER: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, that's all I had. I appreciate your time. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: No problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that takes me to the end of my questioning at this time. So anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, we'll go to a staff report. Fred? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. First of all, this was a team effort. I'd like to thank Eric Johnson and Nancy Gundlach for doing the majority of this work. I wrote the staff report, but they did most of the work prior to that. And as detailed in the staff report, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and it's compatible with the neighborhood, and we recommend approval including the Deviation No. 1, the only deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- we've talked about a series of changes here today, or August 17, 2017 Page 27 of 49 clarifications. Anything you heard would staff be objectionable to? MR. REISCHL: No issues. The only thing I wanted to remind you is that we don't deal with ownership; therefore, anything that you're thinking of as an apartment would also apply to multifamily single ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it could be condominium versus -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Fred. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we're going to go to public speakers. Now, we start with those that are registered and put in -- those that have slips submitted to Fred or Ray, and then at the end I'll ask anybody else who has not spoken to please -- if you want to address us, we certainly are here to listen to you. And we ask that everybody -- we asked early on to please rise if you wanted to be sworn in by the court reporter so you could testify. If you were not sworn in, please let us know so we get you sworn in so your testimony then goes on record that way. With that, we'll call the speakers. You can use either podium, and the limitation is five minutes, and we'll go from there. MR. REISCHL: First speaker is Janice Kiernan, to be followed by Kim Bennett. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Who's timing the five minutes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Myself, watching the clock. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's informal. So, ma'am, if you need 10 seconds over, it's okay. MS. KIERNAN: Good morning, everyone. My name is Janice Kiernan. I live in Briarwood. I own a home. I live there year-round. I would like to mention a few words about the density issues. The PUD was originally designed to allow the stores to be -- to enhance the Briarwood community and provide balance between residential and commercial zoning in that specific area according to the FLUE or the Future Land Use Element. If the zoning is to change to allow for the 320 apartments, then the density -- I don't understand why Briarwood themselves would be included, because you're changing the whole thing around. The original PUD did not -- was to allow for just the Briarwood and a quality of life to allow for certain -- the lakes and everything else. So now, in -- according to the new PUDA document that I saw 3/23/2017 supplied by the developer, the density changed, according to them, 2.85 to 4.4 per -- density per unit, but the Briarwood community is, itself, 193 acres. I don't understand. They have 15 acres on the corner and they're allowing to -- the 320 apartments in that unit -- on that development. This calculation comes to me to say that it's over 20 units per acre which is above the FLUE density ratings in the growth management process. So I can't understand in one case, oh, we don't want anything to do with them; in the next case it's like we include them for our density. On Page 11 of the PUDA, Table 7.3, which you mentioned in the past, the maximum building height they have zoned was 55 feet, yet the actual building heights on these is 62 feet. I don't understand that either. The original PUD suggested that the height of the buildings should be, at max, 30 feet, according to what I read. So 62 feet of building in that little 15.99 acres is going to look quite massive, I think, in that small space. The 320 unit apartments impacted -- will impact schools which right now have a maximum capacity, according to the sheets, and you're saying that there's more and more buildings being added as far as apartments. Now, these apartments, according to them, were mostly young professionals, which probably will have kids. Now, I see East Naples, the middle school, does not have any available capacity as of 2016. So that's something that should be taken into account. Water resource, especially in the winter months, is also something that -- August 17, 2017 Page 28 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit, because she's got to type as fast as you and I talk, and you're starting to talk real fast. So I do that when I have a lot of coffee in the morning, and she gets mad at me. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How many minutes does she have left? MS. KIERNAN: Yeah. I'm trying to fit it all in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MS. KIERNAN: I'll give her this, if she likes, so... Also, the water resources, especially in the winter months, the waste management treatment plants haven't been in consideration because even though you have 320 apartments there, you mentioned all these other apartments, and 320 apartments probably will mean more like a thousand-plus people. Roadways, it's not only the traffic, but you're forgetting the bike lanes that you guys were going to put in at one point, and the police and fire department, which includes the East Naples Fire Department. Now, also, what I was looking at was the evaluation that -- what they were supposed to fill in. And these PUDA's modifications do not meet the Collier County Growth Management Evaluation Criteria Option C, which states that the conformity of the original PUD with goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management should conform to the original PUD. So I'm not quite sure what's going on. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, just a couple responses. The 320 units, if you divide that by the 15.99 acres, you come out to 20 units per acre. That's how that calculation -- MS. KIERNAN: Over 20 units per acre, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually -- okay. It's rounded to 20, so that's how it works. MS. KIERNAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The height -- the height you're referring to is what's called actual height. That's architectural height. That isn't zoned height. Zoned height is the same as Dover Parc in regards to stories; four stories. So they could put 12-foot -- MS. KIERNAN: Dover Parc -- everything in the area is only two stories high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But their zoning allows four. They're asking for the same zoning of that neighboring area. As far as the school goes, we just happen to have Tom Eastman here, who's been dying for you to ask that question. Tom, would you mind responding to her. MR. EASTMAN: Historically, the school district has not stood in the way of development, be it for any residential or apartment complex. And over the years we've tried to make seats available and have met that goal. There's also in place concurrency, school concurrency which governs that. And in the event that we were unable to provide seats, we could exercise and slow down the process of development through the concurrency program. But that's really not the case here. We actually have some excess capacity. It would require rezonings. But we always try to meet the demand, and that's been our history. We monitor the developments very closely and don't want to stand in the way of progress or the development in the community. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And maybe I misunderstood something you were aiming toward or misunderstood what Mark said. But, Fred, correct me if I'm wrong. A PUD has an overall allowable maximum number of units, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And if you don't use them in one part, you can use them in another, right? MR. REISCHL: Correct. We look at gross density -- net density is certainly something that you can take a look at, but the way we measure it is gross density for the entire PUD limits. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is that what you were asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, on this -- August 17, 2017 Page 29 of 49 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- or did I misunderstand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular case, Stan, they cannot use the excess density that exists in Briarwood on this parcel because that -- the ownership of that is contested as far as who really owns it. So that's why they're asking for an additional on top of it even though all of the existing density has not been used. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the departments you referenced, solid waste and all that, they've reviewed this project. This project gets reviewed and gone through all departments in Collier County before it comes to us. So that part, as far as their addressing it, they have addressed it. And as far as the comprehensive planning, in essence, this comes under a rezoning reevaluation issue in which this was not consistent with the Growth Management Plan when it came into effect. The commercial actually is -- was an exception to that plan. That's why we encouraged the commercial to be redeveloped into a residential use by giving them additional density for doing that, because that makes it more consistent with the GMP. We have a comprehensive planning review that was provided that acknowledges that this was and is consistent with that particular plan. So all that stuff's been looked at, ma'am. And you may not have all the records because it's -- not all of it was quickly available. So I just wanted to make those points a little bit clearer. So thank you. MS. KIERNAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Kim Bennett followed by Liz Opalka. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Bennett? MS. BENNETT: I thank you for having me. I'm Kim Bennett. I live in Briarwood. I've been there for about 14 years, so I've seen a lot of change and a lot of growth in the area since I've been just in Briarwood. I was going to get up and speak a little bit about the number of units that are currently available in the Naples area, not even knowing about the 2,300 units that are under construction, so that concerns me even greater. But, currently, just on the MLS, which doesn't include apartments that are run by companies such as this that do their own apartment rental on site, there are 776 units open in Naples looking for renters. Right now there are 2,053 units for holiday rentals. So we're talking separating completely your vacationers that come here part time in the winter and annual renters that are full-time residents. In addition to that, there are many vacancies in those apartment buildings. Unfortunately, I didn't get to call everybody to get their vacancy ratios from them, but I did call quite a few of the local apartment managers to get those statistics. And Orchid Run, which is closest to Briarwood and the newest one, not only has 38 less units than what they're proposing building on a much larger parcel of land, but they're sitting with 20 units vacant, unoccupied at this moment looking for people to come and stay there. With that said, you speak to wanting to have housing available to our schoolteachers, our firefighters, our police officers. Most of those people have wives and children. Wives and children will not fit in a one-bedroom apartment, which is where their $1,400 starting rate is. So you have to jump up considerably to have a room for your kids to even go to our schools. That's just Orchid Run. LaCosta has 44 vacant units. Malibu Lakes has 36. Bermuda Palms has 33. That's a total of 133 more unfurnished, vacant, annual rentals in that same unaffordable price point that we have in Naples right now. Actual statistics; phone call made last night. So this is current as of yesterday. I didn't get to call places like River Reach or Granada or some of the other locations nearby that are still in Naples to get their statistics from them. But with over 900 units sitting unoccupied right now, if we add another 320 to them, the cause is going to be, yes, lower rents in our older rental communities because their prices are going to be driven down and maybe possibly made more effective for people to be able to go there because some people will move to the newer, fancier places to live, the people who could afford it, the young professionals who can afford it. August 17, 2017 Page 30 of 49 But how does that affect Collier County on the whole if we start forcing prices down in other properties that have been here for years? Is it going to make it so they can't maintain them effectively? Is it going to cause blight on the community because they go down and it affects other neighborhoods outside of Briarwood? In addition to that, as a Briarwood resident, we were promised something that benefited Briarwood residents. We went through this already on this. I don't know why we keep trying to change our PUD, but our PUD was intended to benefit us. Our density in Briarwood was made that way because we didn't want to pack in as many people as we could pack into that section of land. We wanted the space between the homes. We wanted the quality of life. We wanted the lakes to give beauty to our environment. And to think that everything we fought for to surround ourselves with a little bit more land is all going to be used to put tons of people on the point that doesn't benefit us at all -- in fact, it hurts us. And they talk about a shopping center being more traffic, but yet a shopping center would be utilized by the traffic that already exists there. We're not going to bring new traffic in to go to the shopping center. They're not going to come from Immokalee Road to use my strip mall. They're gong to come from Foxfire, they're going to come from Berkshire, they're going to come from the neighborhoods that are already going past our homes that are on their way home, on their way out. It's going to maybe alleviate traffic if a shopping center's there in other communities because we won't have to drive by them because we'll have it right outside our door. But bringing in these apartments brings in 500 more cars, and that's on the low side, of people that aren't here now. That impacts our traffic. That impacts our quality of life quite tremendously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MS. BENNETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Liz Opalka, followed by Robert MacKenzie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. OPALKA: Hello. My name is Liz Opalka. I live and own a condominium unit in Building 354 on Dover Place in Briarwood. I've been there for 12 years. And I'm a working professional. I work nine to five in North Naples. I generally leave home at 7:30 in the morning to get to my office at eight o'clock. And because of the traffic currently on Radio Road at that time of day, I generally cannot exit through the Radio Road entrance during the morning rush hour. And so I have to use the Livingston Road exit in order to get to work. It's not too much trouble for me, but I know it is trouble for other homeowners who are trying to exit during the morning rush hour. My primary concern with the development of this parcel of land into apartments that would be trying to attract working professionals like me is that there will be even more traffic on Radio Road in the morning. Currently, because of the traffic light at the intersection of Livingston Road and Radio Road, there is a backup of traffic right to our entrance on Radio Road. With another driveway and more people exiting this apartment development, there will be more traffic at that point. More people will be wanting to use Livingston Road because of that, and it's going to be more usage during the morning rush hour. I'm not aware of problems in the evening rush hour. Maybe someone else can talk about that. Another concern that I have is whether this community -- proposed community would be perceived as a part of Briarwood. It appears that the working title for the development is Briarwood Apartments. My preference is if this project does go through, it would have a different name so it would be clear to the general public that there -- that this is two separate communities. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Robert MacKenzie, followed by Diane Parillo. MR. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. August 17, 2017 Page 31 of 49 MR. MacKENZIE: Still is morning. My name is Robert MacKenzie. I'm a Briarwood owner living at 425 Dundee Court. Over 23 years ago I did a lot of research before buying my present home in Briarwood. Briarwood is a Planned Unit Development. Yes, planned. It's seen some changes, but its character has not been changed, nor should it be. It's a good plan that serves its intended purpose. I like the balance; the combination of single-family homes, condominiums or single-family homes. Reasonably sized multifamily area; I always assumed that was for apartments. We called it Cedarwood. I think that's been since separated but, essentially, it's part of the PUD. That's along Radio Road. And then the commercial block that we're talking about, that's also along Radio Road. Livingston Road had not been constructed at that time, but it was included in the plan. I like the character of Naples. I like the zoning factors. I like the PUD. I like the elevations and so forth. That means how much above sea level we were. I'm an engineer; a nerd. We look at those things. So everything looked good, so I went ahead and purchased my new home, but the proposed zoning change would drastically change key issues that I based my purchase decision on. And I say, why have zoning bylaws at all if we're willing to change them without compelling reasons that give significant advantage to the community at large? There are no substantial reasons why this property cannot be used as zoned. The staff answers Point 13 as to whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning saying basically nothing that I really could understand. My understanding is that you need to find substantial reasons why the property cannot be used as currently zoned. Will the site be used as currently zoned? Of course it will; that's the way I feel. There's been a significant increase in apartments and other dwellings in the area with more currently approved along -- coming along the way. This gives greater demand for a commercial purpose -- for a commercial property to service the needs of the community. When Wawa wanted to build across the street, which was zoned industrial, it needed a zoning change from industrial to commercial. They were granted the change because, as I understand, it was said there was enough commercial property available in the area. Why, then, do we want to decrease the amount of commercial property now when it's already found that we need more? It makes no sense to me. Did we let Wawa build on the wrong side of the street? I don't know. Point 15 in the staff report addresses whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The answer is an admission that there are followed by some unresponsive thing that I can't find any facts for. The facts I came up with that I have on a quick search found 12 sites that are currently listed as available and zoned multifamily. There are ample property zone sites for the apartment project. We should not lose our PUD's commercially zoned parcel to a proposed project that is not consistent with the needs and the character of the PUD's plan. Please do not support this change, then maybe I can get my hope for a Sunshine Ace Hardware store, a liquor store, a barbershop, a pharmacy, or maybe even a nice little Italian restaurant that I can walk to without driving all over town adding to our traffic problems. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: Is Diane Parillo, followed by Elizabeth Davison. MS. PARILLO: Hi. I'm Diane Parillo. I live at 942 Tivoli Court. I've been here for seven years. And most of what I was going to say has already been covered by the people who have talked already. I guess my main question right now is you keep referring to Orchid Run. Anybody who's drove down Golden Gate to Livingston, you have already seen that Golden Gate has already been widened to accommodate the traffic that has occurred because of Orchid Run's apartments that are going up. There is no room for that kind of expansion on Radio Road or Livingston where this project is going to occur. August 17, 2017 Page 32 of 49 And I would like to know how you are going to deal with that traffic like the traffic that occurred because of the Orchid Run apartments going up at that -- and you're making a face. If you go there, if you see Golden Gate, they have widened that down towards -- I guess going west on the right-hand side, and that's already occurred. And there's no way that you're going to be able to accommodate more apartments -- more cars from those apartments that are going up at that point. And I guess my other question, which I don't know if we got an answer for, why do we have to keep coming up and defending a change to the PUD? The PUD was established, and with the carport that was going up, we had to come here and defend the change to that. Now you want to change it again, and we're here trying to defend the change to that. You people should be here defending us and standing for what we want, and they should have to prove that what they're going to do is a benefit to us and to our community, not the other way around. And I don't -- I don't see that happening. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Fred? MR. REISCHL: It's Elizabeth Davison followed by John Alcott. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's gone. MR. REISCHL: John Alcott's gone. It will be Scott Lepore. MS. DAVISON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. DAVISON: My name is Elizabeth Davison. I live in Briarwood. I've been here for 14 years. I've been a homeowner in Naples almost 35 years starting out at Naples Bath and Tennis Club, so I have seen the changes in Naples and the increased -- people decry the increased traffic and crowded restaurants and parking lots. And I understand the progress and desirability of Naples and why so many people want to move here, and I'm willing to share paradise with all the newcomers. What I'm not willing to do is to decrease the quality of life for those of us fortunate enough to live in a little hamlet called Briarwood. I'm, quite frankly, flabbergasted at the staff report from the zoning division, and no disrespect. On Page 5, under Section 1, it's stated that the staff has reviewed the proposed PUD amendment and believes that the addition of certain multifamily uses are compatible within the PUD. The addition will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. I don't know if any of your staff has actually visited the site or are relying on the traffic impact analysis which was provided, but I invite each of the planning board members to visit Briarwood between the hours of seven and nine a.m. and try to exit our community onto Radio Road. I know this topic has come up before. This morning I overheard one of our members saying he actually had to make a U-turn at Radio Road and go back through the complex to get out on Livingston Road. And that there will be exits onto Livingston Road from the parcel is also alarming. We currently experience traffic backup by those attempting to enter Briarwood through the guardhouse on Livingston. Am I talking too fast? Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's nodding her head yes. MS. DAVISON: Okay. There are times when cars are lined up, and the increase from this housing unit will also add to what is already an accident waiting to happen. The addition of 320 multifamily units on that corner is estimated to bring an extra 544 cars. That's using a supposition of 1.7 cars. But if we're talking, as discussed, mostly two family -- two people, working professionals, in a family, that's going to be at least two cars per family. And nowhere in this report -- or we discussed this morning that there's a 72 townhome unit going up just to the east of Briarwood on Radio Road between us and Maplewood. That's already approved and ready to go. The other traffic issue which has been discussed is the Wawa on the corner of Radio Road and Livingston. I'm from New Jersey; I don't know if you can tell. I've kind of gotten rid of most of that accent. August 17, 2017 Page 33 of 49 But if you know about Wawa, they have almost a cultlike following. There's great anticipation of their opening, and we are expecting a lot of traffic there. And I don't disparage that. I'm kind of looking forward to Wawa opening up. So even with these two new items, it's estimated by the traffic analysis that the net traffic external increase will be 2,063 cars on a weekday with this new development. Radio Road just can't handle that increase. And my understanding, and this was discussed, that the two lanes are at capacity, and there's no increased lanes to be added. They also estimate that the increase in traffic is less if the land is maintained for -- then if the land is maintained for commercial use. We disagree, and I respectfully request the planning board to consider the tremendous traffic that will be added to our complex on a 24-hour basis by making the change from commercial to residential. We believe that with the commercial use, which is currently approved, traffic would at least not be around the clock. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Does anybody know how many parking spaces are on that plan we were shown? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure the developer knows. After we get done with public speakers, do you want me -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, I was just curious, because they keep talking, you know, and I'm wondering, you can't put more cars in there than the number of parking spaces, and I'm -- you know, I'm just wondering what that number was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, do you have somebody that can answer that question? MR. REISCHL: I can tell you the minimum -- the minimum for a one-bedroom would be one and a half spaces per unit, and for everything greater than that would be two per unit. That's the minimum. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But they had a drawing, and the drawing looked packed -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: -- with parking. And I'm wondering what that number came to, if anybody -- MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- did a total. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think there is a total on there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you can't find it real quick, we can go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you look for it, and when we get done with public speakers, there's going to be some questions of our transportation department as far as capacity goes, too, so... Mr. Lepore? MR. REISCHL: Scott Lepore followed by Ross (sic) Berghuis. MR. LEPORE: Good morning, Commissioners. And I want to thank you for being here. I know most of you are volunteers. Mark, even though you're paid by Collier County, I'm going to thank you, too. But I've served on a lot of boards -- I've served on a lot of boards, and I know that it's a lot of work. And we appreciate you hearing our concerns today. I'm here today to express my objection to any changes regarding the Briarwood PUD and, specifically, the 15.97-acre parcel at Radio Road and Livingston that is zoned for a shopping center. I am vehemently opposed to any changes to that PUD that would allow a nonconforming apartment complex with 320 units and 21 units an acre of density on that 15.97-acre parcel. In reviewing the Briarwood PUD, P-U-D, which I was given when I purchased in '96, I see nothing in there that would allow this apartment complex to be built. Given the number of apartment complexes August 17, 2017 Page 34 of 49 located within three miles of this area, all that have residences available to lease at this given time, this is a clear attempt by the developer to use the property for a use that is noncompliant and nonconcurrent. We are taking a step closer to becoming Fort Lauderdale, ladies and gentlemen. As an almost 30-year resident of Collier County, I will be fighting this project head on. Radio Road is ill-equipped to handle another major project of this density at this point, especially west of Santa Barbara. I want to go over some bullet points, because I was very surprised when Bob said that Radio Road was a three-lane road, and he compared Orchid Run at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston to this project, which would be at Livingston and Radio Road. Now, I realize that people make mistakes, but I think that was very telling, because Livingston Road meets Radio Road. It's the only section of Livingston Road in all of Collier County where you don't have three lanes meeting three lanes. In other words, if you go to Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. If you go to Pine Ridge and Livingston Road, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. If you go to Immokalee Road or Vanderbilt, you have three lanes meeting three lanes. But on this parcel right here you have three lanes meeting two lanes. Again, the only major intersection in Collier County where Livingston Road intersects with a main feeder road that is only two lanes. And there is no way to expand Radio Road to three lanes. I think that's the most important point. Increasing Radio Road to three lanes is impossible, especially between Santa Barbara and Livingston. The property is not zoned for apartment complexes. We seem to be getting in a situation now where we have a quest to fill in everything between Livingston Road and the beach in that four-mile radius. And I know there's a lot of requests to change zoning, but this property is not zoned for apartment complexes. Two hundred seventy-five residential units were just constructed at Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. If you call them, they have availability. Many people have mentioned the ample apartment complexes that are located within two miles of this project that all have availability. So there is no pressing need for this. It's not an affordable housing project. It's basically another luxury apartment complex where rents are going to be 1,400 to $2,000 a month. The PUD was designed in 1976 with a specific purpose for a shopping center or a big box store to complement the single-family homes and condominiums, not to be able to take the total density and divide that out to say that this project would be concurrent and compatible. That's not what the commissioners were doing in 1976, ladies and gentlemen. What the commissioners were doing was trying to make sure that we have harmony in our neighborhoods. We have five residences, single-family home, per acre. There's X amount of residences for multifamily condominium. This completely changes the PUD, and it will change the character of the neighborhood that I love and I've lived in for 21 years. This will create a traffic nightmare for the residents of Briarwood in addition to Wawa, which has a cult following similar to the Grateful Dead in music. If you're aware of places that have cult followings, I've never seen anything like -- the people that go to Wawa will drive five, 10 miles to go to Wawa. They have the best sandwiches you could imagine for $5. They're going to be lined up, then you're going to have people from this apartment complex trying to cross Livingston Road to get to Wawa. It wasn't three years ago that we had somebody who was a resident of Maplewood trying to cross Radio Road to go to Circle K, and she was hit and killed by a car. You're going to create a public safety issue if this passes. Today I tried to exit my neighborhood on Radio Road. I work in Parkshore, so usually I'll take Livingston Road to Golden Gate Parkway. I tried to exit Radio Road. Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen, I could not get out of the neighborhood. When I was able to get out on Livingston Road and I was able to go west on Radio Road, traffic was backed completely up. I was not aware that there is a charter school now at the intersection of Airport and Radio Road. So you have Wawa, Dunkin Donuts, a charter school. How much more traffic are we going to try to put on a two-lane road? Shopping centers, they operate specific hours, maybe eight a.m. to eight p.m. You're talking about a August 17, 2017 Page 35 of 49 project 365 days a year, 24/7. You don't have the traffic capacity. I don't care what the staff report says. Why don't you join me tomorrow at 7:45 a.m., and let's see if we can get out on that road. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please don't applaud. We've got to continue the meeting with other speakers as well, so... Go ahead. MR. REISCHL: Next speaker is Ross (sic) Berghuis followed by Cheryl Dampier. MR. BERGHUIS: Good morning. Last October I met with the developer of this apartment complex, Brett Boyd, with two other members of the association, property management association. At that time the number was 280 apartments, no swimming pool, affordable, no lake, just apartments. Now it's up to 320. Subsequently, I have met with Chairman Strain and Commissioner Taylor about this project in opposition of it. I represent 585 families of Briarwood, and I think it's a mistake that you vote to let this through. Let me tell you why. Twenty to 25 percent of our annual operating income comes from rental income. Twenty-five units of 135 of the condos are rental -- annual rental units. Now, if they build this, those people are liable to go next door to the new apartment complex, which leaves a great financial strain on Briarwood which would lead to devaluating property values, investors who will probably bail out and sell for less to make the property values less, there's going to be more traffic and, financially, it's not a good idea for us, and it's going to increase our annual assessments. So, to me, I did some studying, and there's probably, within a half a mile radius of Briarwood -- and nobody's mentioning the fact that right outside of Briarwood gate -- well, one lady did. Bill Spinelli has already been approved for 72 multi-level condo units. That's going to create more traffic. Now, if the traffic from the Radio Road side goes over to the Livingston side on the exit route, there's only one lane out. That's going to back up traffic like you would not believe. Now, with the Wawa, with all -- like everybody else has said, there's probably, within that half-mile radius, 5-, 6,000 cars at least, which is going to cause a major traffic backup. Same thing with Berkshire Lakes. Berkshire Lakes PUD originally, where the shopping plaza was -- is right now, is the same what Briarwood was. That was part of the PUD to be a commercial plaza. Same thing what Briarwood's PUD is. Why can't we have that instead of the apartments, which it was intended to be? It worked for Berkshire Lakes. It started off slow, but look at it today. It's a growing concern. It makes a lot of money. And recently I did receive the letter from Mr. Yovanovich, and it was a stronghold type of letter. One day later I received a letter from Mr. Boyd detracting his statement, so why did he even send it in the first place? I mean, Briarwood's not going to be strongarmed by any developer or attorney. This is not the first time this has happened. Mr. Yovanovich's office sent me a letter way back when when Commissioner Taylor -- and Mark Strain was there at the same time -- asked me to do a survey of how many people wanted these apartments. So, you know, I don't appreciate that strongarm tactic by anybody. I mean, in closing, put yourself in our shoes. You know, if you lived there, would you want this apartment complex next to you devaluating your property values, increasing your yearly assessments and whatnot? I don't think so. And with the traffic -- and just take Foxfire right across the road. There's 600 apartments over there right close on the Radio Road side. Now you've got Maplewood, you've got Meadow Lakes, you've got all these other -- you know, you've got Orchid Run. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. And I just want you to feel our plate in this process of not accepting this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Fred. MR. REISCHL: The final registered speaker is Cheryl Dampier. MS. DAMPIER: Hello. My name is Cheryl Kraus Dampier. I've lived in Briarwood on Dundee Court for -- since December of 1993. I bought one of the first models on model row. I've been there, I love it, and can you blame me? Look at my neighbors. Look at the research they August 17, 2017 Page 36 of 49 did, how prepared they are and how they've really come in and said almost everything that I'm going to say. So I'm going to keep this really short. I -- you know, the density, the traffic, I agree with their comments on that. One of the things -- and I'm just -- the script is totally gone. One of the things that was said, even by Bob Muller (sic), he says, we want to do something that makes sense. And as Russ just finished, to us this doesn't make sense. We purchased into a community with a PUD. We knew that that parcel was going to be commercial, and we embraced it and we liked it, and we want to keep it that way. There's not a lot of commercial in that area. And as was stated by one of my neighbors, this -- presumably this same committee decided in the last few years that the industrial parcel where Wawa's going should be commercial. I'm assuming that the reason was that we needed more commercial. So now we want to take away the commercial that those of us in Briarwood have been sold and expecting and have wanted. Everyone has always said that they want to be able to walk up to the corner store, and we're still hoping that that is a possibility, and we're hoping that you'll see that this proposal that's being brought to you today just really doesn't makes sense, especially for those of us in Briarwood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who have not already spoken that would like to speak today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, Mr. Boyd, you'll have a chance for rebuttal when we finish with all of the other information we need. I would like to have the traffic department, Transportation Department, come forward for a couple questions. Then, Mr. Bosi, I'd like to ask you a GMP question after that. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, I'd like some clarification on Radio Road. First of all, is there capacity available on Radio Road in this segment of it for this? MR. SAWYER: Actually, there is. Right now I can tell you that our current AUIR, annual inventory, is indicating that we've got a level of service of C on Radio Road basically from Livingston to Santa Barbara as well as Airport to Livingston. Basically, the peak capacity that we've got on both of those road segments are 1,800. Their p.m. peak direction is east. The capacity that we currently have, the remaining capacity on Livingston to Santa Barbara, is 690 trips, and from Airport to Livingston we're at 677 trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- is Radio Road constrained? MR. SAWYER: It still has an -- it's still at a level of service that we deem adequate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I mean constrained in the sense of improvements from an expansion. So can, for example -- the example was that for -- one gentleman said Radio Road can't be expanded. Is that a true statement or not? MR. SAWYER: I can tell you right now it's not on any of our long-range plans to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what I asked. MR. SAWYER: As far as doing improvements, there are methods that we can do to improve all road segments, basically, even down to making intersection improvements such as we're currently looking at for Pine Ridge which we already know has failed. What we're looking at there are more different types of ways of managing intersections, which is where we have the most conflict points. As far as being able to actually improve Radio, in a traditional manner of adding lanes, it's going to be very, very difficult. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, please. We've got to finish asking the questions we need to before we go into further discussion. The traffic that is proposed for this development, the applicant has done an analysis. It says it's less intense than a commercial shopping center. Now, they use different numbers. They used less numbers than the actual size that could be built. August 17, 2017 Page 37 of 49 Those less intensities, do you recall if it's peak times or generally throughout the day? MR. SAWYER: We actually look at both but principally for concurrency, which is what we're looking at for zoning, so that we're concurrent with the GMP, we look at p.m. peak. That's what the rules say we look at; that's what we use. In this particular case, we looked at the numbers that were prepared in the TIS and looked at it as being very conservative. They could easily put into the TIS a larger number of square footage than they did. They use 100,000 square feet. They could have actually gone, I believe, already, 139,000 square feet. So that in and of itself brought the number down. But we're already -- the multifamily that's being proposed has a much less -- a much lower trip count than you do for commercial, especially in the p.m. peak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that part -- now, I know the GMP and the zoning reevaluation that applies to this particular project, it's been zoned commercial for 41 years, so it precedes our GMP. MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that reason, when the GMP was created, they made exceptions for these odd pieces of commercial where we don't -- at that time the GMP said we don't want these like this. We want them concentrated on activity centers. This is not an activity center? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Fred, I know the answer, but let Mike answer it. I wanted to make sure everybody understands what we're dealing with. Okay. So because it's not an activity center and the GMP comes into play and says we're trying to discourage commercial in non-activity centers, but those that exist, we have to give them an exception to continue operating. But we do encourage them to convert to residential. Is that generally what's happening here as to how the residential came about in regards to its density and its allowance -- are you aware of? MR. SAWYER: I would believe that that would be correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the same question I want Mr. Bosi, as the head of Comp Planning, to acknowledge or discuss, at least, in a minute. MR. SAWYER: He would be a far better source than me for the Comp Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but I'm looking at it from traffic through you. MR. SAWYER: Certainly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from your eyes the residential will have a less impact on the traffic if either residential or commercial was built on this property. Inevitably, one will be. Regardless, the residential, as proposed today, is less than the commercial that could be built there at its maximum value of 139,000? MR. SAWYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's what I needed to know. And, with that, I'd like Mike to come up and address the comp planning issues. MR. BOSI: Good morning, again. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, you know, this project was originally zoned in the '70s, and it's been around for over 40 years. That commercial corner's been there for quite some time. There's been various attempts to have it utilized. The commercial component preceded the GMP, as you heard me say. As a result, it's there because of an exception. And I remember reading the Comprehensive Planning memo or one of the discussions that the exception provides incentivization to convert from commercial, which we don't generally encourage at a location like this in the current GMP, to something else, and I think in this case it encourages the residential. Is that all true? Can you shed some light on how all that came about? MR. BOSI: Yes. And when we adopted the current GMP was in 1989, and the current GMP concept for the location of commercial locations were our mixed-use activity centers, the location of the confluence of the intersections of our collector and arterial roads. But we did recognize that there was a lot of strip commercial zoning that was outside of the prescribed location, and we couldn't take those rights away. So they were allowed to stay, and they're deemed consistent by policy. Within the Growth Management Plan and the Future Land Use Element we have a density rating August 17, 2017 Page 38 of 49 system for how you gain the number of units that are available for any one portion of land. We recognized that those commercial -- strip commercial zoning, those outliers outside of those activity centers weren't consistent, but we couldn't take those rights away. But what we wanted to do was we wanted to encourage the transition of those non-consistent commercial locations to residential development. So we allocated the conversion of commercial density to residential density eligibility for 16 units per acre. That's the maximum number of units that our Future Land Use Element and our density rating system would allow for. So what we're saying is, the desire to locate the commercial at the activity centers were strong enough that we want to discourage those noncompliant, and we want to provide an incentivization to convert those commercial to residential, and we're utilizing that incentivization, meaning you're eligible to ask up to 16 units per acre for that conversion specifically to try to eliminate some of those non-consistent commercial locations, and that's the scheme that was adopted by our Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can tell Patrick's going to ask you the question, and I can tell he's been turning his head, so he's probably thinking, well, you're saying 16 units per acre, but this project is being recommended for approval at 20. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. BOSI: Well, the way that we would look at this project is we look at the entire PUD. We look at the entire PUD, and there were two different methodologies towards how you can get to a total number of units that would be eligible for this -- for the amendment. One is looking at just the straight total acreages for the entire PUD, which I believe is about 209 acres. Because it has access to two arterial roadways, you could be -- you're eligible for five units per acre, and that five units per acre would put you over the above (sic) number of units that would be requested, or you could go with the existing -- the existing residentially designated area, which I believe is 189 units per acre, utilize that at five units per acre, but then the 16 units or the 15.99 is eligible for conversion of commercial as I had suggested at 16 units per acre, and that would get you even a higher number of units for eligibility. So we always look at the PUD as a whole, but the density allocations could be on a parcel or project-by-project basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, thank you. I always appreciate your in-depth knowledge. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions of staff or the presenter or anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, with that, we'll go to rebuttal. Richard, I don't know who on your team wants to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to just address a couple points, and then Mr. Boyd wants to get back up here and address some of the market conditions points. And I don't normally -- I don't normally address comments from the public, but in this particular case I think we need to talk a little bit about the history. Two things were pointed out already by Mr. Bosi that I think are important. One, under the Comprehensive Plan today we're supposed to be residential, and there was -- Mike explained how we're supposed to convert that at 16 units per acre to entice us not to build commercial where commercial's not intended to go under our Comprehensive Plan. So we're consistent 100 percent with the Comprehensive Plan that is before you today. Regarding -- and I'll be honest with you, I forgot about the provision that you get an extra unit per acre by having access on two, basically, major roads. So the Comprehensive Plan even says that this specific piece of property is supposed to be -- instead of the four base, we can go to five. So from a density standpoint, it's intended to have a higher density on this property than other properties in Collier County. So your staff would not have found us consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if we weren't consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. August 17, 2017 Page 39 of 49 Now, there was a comment about a letter I wrote to Mr. Berghuis early on, and I feel like I need to tell you why I wrote the letter. He went out to survey the residents of Briarwood with two options. Do you want the man cave back, which is the project that ultimately was killed by the residents of Briarwood, or do you want an affordable housing with no amenities to be built on this site? And what I simply said to him is, you are not telling your residents the accurate truth about the proposed project. The proposed project has always been a market-rate project with resort-style amenities to serve this community. And I said, you need to tell them the truth when you go out and do this survey. That's the letter I wrote. I'm happy to provide copies of that letter to him saying you need to do it. You need to do it right if you're going to ask your residents about a survey. I don't know what ultimately happened with the survey; never seen the results. Don't know if he ever went out and surveyed what we really are trying to do with the residents. That's what happened when I wrote him that previous letter. And I just wanted that to be clear on the record. We have always been willing to meet with the community. We did two voluntary open houses and a third NIM that was the official NIM to get input and have continually revised the project. We're 100 percent consistent with the Comp Plan. Mr. Boyd's going to explain to you about vacancies and how apartment complexes work. He's the person who knows the real data on the rental markets. I don't think anybody here has represented that they're an expert in rental communities and how apartment complexes run. Mr. Boyd is. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Boyd, and we can answer any other questions you may have. MR. BOYD: For the record, Brett Boyd. I understand the frustrations; I empathize. I just want to be able to tell the Board that there was some additional capacity there. We thought this site functioned -- or would function successfully at 320 units. There was more capacity out there for density. I'm not trying to -- I'm not trying to put 500 units there or 400 units there because it's available. We're trying to make it a nice balance of what can work successfully at this location. There's 560 parking stalls. I just wanted to convey that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was a question earlier. MR. BOSI: Just a couple global things. Operationally, for apartments, the number of vacancies that you all called about, which are good phone calls to make -- I make those phone calls, too; my feasibility people do; my project managers make those phone calls. But the county just spent a lot of money with the Urban Land Institute, and their vacancy rate in Collier County is less than 2 percent. It's less than 2 percent. A lot of these vacancies you hear about or that you called about, those are typically the turnover. You're just going to get people that have a one-year lease, and you have a turnover, and there's a time period before you get it leased up. That's, operationally, what -- the numbers you're hearing. But overall, there's a reason why Mr. Strain had talked about a number of multifamily units here, because there's a big demand. There's just not enough supply in Collier County. There's not enough places for people to live here. So, globally -- I know it may not be of interest to you all to have multifamily right here, but for the community at large it is a benefit. There is a demand. There's a -- with vacancy less than 2 percent -- typically across the country we use a 6 percent vacancy factor. That's normal. Here it's less than 2 percent. The other issue is commercial development. Just -- it's just the factor of what's happening in today's time. They're saying -- you probably read recently that 20 or 30 percent of all the malls in the next five or 10 years are going to close. You know, you're seeing there's another shopping center in Naples right now, in Collier County, that's looking at a conversion. They're going to tear down the shopping center possibly and build apartments. I think those are for-sale product. But these are things that are happening. And this is what the Urban Land Institute study said. These are experts from around the country that you have to look to some of these tired shopping centers and, unfortunately, that's the way things are today. And I'm used to, like you are, going to a store and buying August 17, 2017 Page 40 of 49 things. And, you know, my college kids, they're ordering things on Amazon. It's just the way things work today. And we make our adjustments in this business. They've got these 24/7 receiving rooms where the FedEx and UPS trucks -- and they actually have a place where the residents can have storage for their packages that come in, and it's available to them in a climate-controlled room, and we even have air-conditioned rooms for perishable items that they order. And I don't understand that at all. But I -- you know, you go to the grocery store, you bring it back to the refrigerator, but that's the new generation. That's what they're doing. So, anyway, I just wanted to parlay a couple of things there at least with the vacancy factor in the county. This is a -- the Urban -- don't trust me. You can look at this, you know, expert report that was done by these people from around the country that did an analysis, and there's a need. That's kind of a global thing that is needed in this county, and as far as the commercial development. But thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if that wraps up the presenter's rebuttal -- I can see heads nodding yes -- I have one now additional question of Mr. Sawyer, if you don't mind coming up, Mike. It's a follow-up on one of the questions about the parking. MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The site plan that was previously shown to us was about the -- I think he said 560. It actually was 573. I just found it. In that 573, there are 98 spaces that are in garages, so that brings it -- so if you take 100 off that, you're around 575, something like that -- or 475 for actual parking spaces outside a garage. The open parking space is shown on the plan for -- that was approved for Lowe's was 480 parking spaces. Does transportation -- and maybe Norm looked at it this way or not. Does transportation consider the duration of a need for a parking space in how it looks at the traffic flow? For example, a Lowe's will operate about 15, 16 hours a day. Traffic will come in during their peak hours, modulate during the day. And when I'm there, I go in and I stay in for a really long time. So mine will be like a residence. But residences would then certainly occupy their parking spaces for a different time frame. They wouldn't be coming and going as much, I would assume. Do you take that into consideration in your traffic studies and what you predict for peak times and other times for traffic for each one of these types of uses? MR. SAWYER: We do. The ITE basically gives different rates for different types of uses, and those uses are going to fluctuate depending on what that actual use is. In other words, you're correct, a Lowe's is going to have a lower a.m. peak but a higher p.m. peak; whereas, residential, you're going to be having possibly a more even distribution because people are generally going to work and then coming back again. Now, generally speaking, you're going to have a longer peak, if you will, in the morning because we tend to have people starting earlier and later when they're going to work; however, most people are more concentrated in the evening. That's why we look at the p.m. peak as being more critical when we're looking -- and that's -- and that's why, when we're looking for consistency with the GMP, that's what we look at is principally only p.m. peak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally, the people that live in homes will work -- they work in -- some work in shifts. Not all shifts are daytime. So the idea that some of these units will have cars coming and going in off hours because of odd shifts would actually help distribute the parking -- the traffic more evenly on the road system as well? MR. SAWYER: Definitely, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I've got. I -- thank you. MR. SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anybody they want to ask before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At this point we'll close the public hearing, and we'll go in for discussion before entertaining a motion from the Planning Commission. So with that in mind, any of you got anything you want to talk about as far as what you've heard here August 17, 2017 Page 41 of 49 today before a motion is made? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would like to say something. Last year, you're right, you did have a choice of the man cave, which you would have never known was there. You keep saying you want commercial; you want restaurants. We have strip malls that are absolutely vacant. And this is not a good corner for that, I mean, especially now with Wawa. You've got Peppers. I don't know what else -- no matter what seems to be going on in this property, there are certain people that do not want anything here except their restaurants and their little hardware store. It isn't going to happen. So I -- we don't know what to do to satisfy you, but this is -- I thought the man cave was perfect for your corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what motion will be made, so it can either be a motion for denial or a motion for recommendation for approval. If the approval is, I would suggest some stipulations, and I made notes as this discussion occurred today. We did ask for some textual changes to the PUD which normally comes back to us and we review it on consent. In addition, some of the bigger items we talked about was that there be no interconnection to the existing community; that there be at least an 8 -- there be an 8-foot masonry wall along the common PUD boundary between the lake tract to the east and Skelly Road. There will be a new exhibit added to the PUD that will show the cross-section. And, Richard, you're getting up for a reason? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had said six feet. I don't know if you were changing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you said six feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure you had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I said eight. So if the motion's made, I'm suggesting, if it's motion for approval, it would be eight, not six, just in that piece that borders the residential. Okay. They're going to add a new PUD exhibit for, I think it was, A3 or something, show the cross-section of the other buffer to the residential. Both buffers will include, now, tables showing us what the enhancements are, because it's been a statement but not defined. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, before you get too far along, can I ask, on the wall you said adjacent to residential. Did you mean all the residential boundaries or just where residential currently exists? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said between the lake tract to the east, which is over there by -- to the east of the lower south side, and up to Skelly Road. MR. REISCHL: Up to Skelly. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's, like, Tract B1. We'll look at the plat, but that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to show -- if this comes back -- if the recommendation is for approval, this will come back on consent, and we'll verify it then. MR. MULHERE: We'll show it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Access points will be gated. A complete PUD would be provided by the time of consent. The minimum principal setback to the Dover Parc parcel to the east and northeast would be 50 feet. There will be some language to indicate cost sharing of the lakes. The existing conditions that deal with Skelly Road and its cutoff will be confirmed as to whether you need some flexibility to deal with it or staff says it doesn't need to be deal (sic) with. There will be no access for this project to residents to the community facilities, in particular the recreational facility that you've said you're not going to be part of. The palette of plants that Mark Templeton has worked out with Bob Mulhere will be provided as part of the PUD. There will be -- the buildings themselves will be a masonry construction with tile roofs, and they'll have electric vehicle charging stations in the garages. The minimum size unit will be 750 square feet. The development will pay its proportional share of water management system. August 17, 2017 Page 42 of 49 There will be -- the fill taken off site will not exceed that allowed by the LDC. The garages that are shown on the plan will be enclosed. There's a paragraph in the PUD that needs to be modified concerning accessories particular to this site, and you will show the location of the dumpsters' enclosures at the time of consent. And I would suggest those be as far away from existing residential as they possibly can be. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may. I didn't hear you, and you may have said it. The 50-foot setback was for principal structures, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I did -- thought I said it. I read it, and it says -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't hear it, but I just wanted to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is principal structures. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then I think the offsite fill is no longer in the LDC. It's in the Code of Laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Good point. Yeah. We did have it, and we moved it just so we can be confusing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that's the stipulations in case there's a motion of approval. So I'll turn now to the rest of this panel for any comments, and then -- MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, another one that I may have missed by writing down previous ones, you said garages enclosed. Does that mean garage doors also, or can three sides -- is that considered enclosed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about the sides facing the outside of the property. But, garage doors, are you intending garage doors? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Reischl, these are real garages, so they'll be garage doors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, is there a motion from this panel? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I move we approved the project with the stipulations that you put forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Stan, seconded by Karen. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-1. Thank you, all. We're going to take a recess for lunch and come back and deal with our LDC amendment, and we'll come -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're clearly coming back for consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're clearly coming back for consent, yes. Is there a motion made for the consent? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to come back on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. August 17, 2017 Page 43 of 49 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that reminder. Everybody, we'll be back at one o'clock. Fifty-five minutes for lunch, and we'll talk about LDC. (A lunch recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Chair. You have a live mike. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present; here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're missing -- well, wait a minute. Here comes the County Attorney's representative. So as long as he's here, we're good to go. But we're also missing Stan and Tom Eastman, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. And we're missing Nicole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to have to hold off. Let's just wait five minutes. Because we left at 12:05. Maybe they think it's one hour. So we'll wait till 1:05 to resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, now that Stan's here, we can resume our meeting. We had a quorum, but it's not the same without you, Stan. So the next item up, and the only remaining item on today's agenda, is 9C, which is a continuation of the discussion of the Land Development Code standard for preservation and offsite preserves. And we will -- Jeremy had supplied a new version to us with our packet based on our direction from last meeting. And in reading that, something came to light that maybe we need to discuss a little further, and I'm hoping -- I asked Jeremy to be prepared to discuss it, and that's the fact that we have a GMP that says we will provide some means for off site, and by eliminating it at all, we're inconsistent, then, with the GMP and, as a result, we would have to modify the GMP. So in order to avoid that, maybe some minimal off site in cases where there's conditions or criteria that are met, we can accommodate it both as an administrative possibility and as a -- maybe a deviation or variance, depending on the need. And with that in mind, Jeremy, why don't we move ahead with what you've got in front of us today. MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz, for the record, LDC Manager. I don't have a huge presentation, but -- and you kind of covered some of the things I was going to talk about. So, really, I think if you want to add to this amendment or maybe modify some of the things that we're removing, we can walk through that section by section. The version that we gave to you today is just removing that offsite vegetation. So I think what I'll do is use the packet from the July 20th meeting just so it's a little easier to see what we currently have, and we can modify it. We can talk about what kind of changes we need using that. I think for today -- you know, we won't be able to all write this amendment together and finish it today. So if we get some direction, some concepts that you want to add into this amendment, we can come back to your next meeting with a completed draft and hopefully finish up this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and my discussion or comments were just as a result of reading your analysis, and I want to tell you thank you. Your analysis was greatly appreciated. I'm also just opening it up for discussion in this panel because getting into the GMP on this matter probably isn't a good thing to do, especially if there are conditions that are justifiable. And we can limit it to 21,780 square feet; that might work, and I said that because that's half an acre. But I'd rather have it stated as 21,780 square feet. And the reason for that is it makes people realize just how big that is. That's five times the size of a normal house in Collier County or more. And if we provide criteria for that to happen both as an administrative deviation and then when the criteria's not met but there's still a request to do that, it could be a deviation or variance more formally, and then the monetary payment could be tied to purely a square-foot basis based on a per-acre basis of the AUIR, August 17, 2017 Page 44 of 49 and don't mess with all the endowment stuff just because it's too small to mess with. I think that would get us to a point where we're no further in conflict with the GMP, and we could then get this done without having to disrupt the GMP. And I'm throwing it out to all of you to consider and Jeremy to comment on to see if that seems like a viable option to go forward with. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. You know, I mentioned in our discussion earlier that as long as we meet those three elements that I outlined in the memo that are in the GMP, whatever the shape of this amendment, it works for us. So as long as we're meeting those requirements to have the native vegetation offsite program to allow for a deviation through a public process and an administrative deviation, that covers our bases from the GMP perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's probably -- I mean, other than that, that was the only thing I thought was problematic after that point was brought out. Does anybody else have any issues that -- or any disagreement with that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So no land donation; just monetary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just monetary. So if you have a -- say you've got a quarter of an acre, or let's say a half acre, 21,780 square feet, and we have a -- we know the per-acre basis. It's going to be in the AUIR. So we can back out the square-foot cost. So even if they come in with 10,000 square feet, we know what the cost would be. They make that donation to the Conservation Collier, or whatever program we differentiate, which will probably be Conservation Collier, then it's done. And we can look at it administratively for certain things that are almost, I should call them, non-problematic. And then if they don't meet those criteria but they still want it off site, they have to justify it through a deviation or a variance. Does that -- that sounds -- at least we're trying to -- we're keeping away from the GMP change and making it more consistent with what previously was done as far as the GMP requested. I mean -- that's what I'm suggesting. I don't know if -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So we always have the ability to say not off site? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it's administrative and they meet the criteria. For example, essential services. Essential services would be able to come in, say, this is an essential service, here's why it's essential service; therefore, we're waiving the half acre, or 21,000, whatever percentage of what they need. And that's how I -- that's the suggestion to get around the GMP issue, because I don't think that's one we want to broach. And I appreciate you for pointing that out, Jeremy. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So I can put the provisions up on the overhead so we can just kind of quickly walk through that and make sure everyone's on the same page and then go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Okay. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So what we're looking at here -- this is the draft that you all received for this week, so we had removed this section and included a prohibition just to -- you know, it kind of starts off on the same page. So what we'll do is add to this, not in terms of the applicability and some of the other sections that we had before, but more in terms of deviations and administrative deviations, and we'll add those provisions in separately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, can you still leave the word "prohibition" in in excess of a half acre? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. In order to -- in order to eliminate the ability to ask for a deviation above that, we would have to prohibit above that point. So that -- there will still be some form of a prohibition in that kind of a draft. So this is going back to our July 20th amendment. And just to kind of quickly scroll through this. You know, we had purpose and intent, the applicability, we laid out a couple of situations where the offsite preserves are allowed. This section would be modified not to think so much as applicability as when a deviation is allowed, and I think -- if I understand correctly, deviations would be allowed up to half an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21,780 square feet. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. That sounds better. So that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is half an acre, but when we write it down that way, I think it's more recognizable as a large -- it's not a small piece of land; 21,000 square feet's big. MR. FRANTZ: And so that would become more of a deviation section. August 17, 2017 Page 45 of 49 The next section that currently exists is this exceptions section. And thinking of administrative deviations, this might be a good section to apply -- to allow for administrative deviations rather than thinking of it as exceptions. So as you said, if you have an essential service facility or maybe affordable housing project, those are the types of projects that we would allow for off site administratively. So we could use this as kind of a model for that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd prefer not to do administrative deviations, though. I'd rather have it be exemptions or exceptions, because if you're going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- doesn't the GMP require three standards? That's why I was thinking -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, then, if there's administrative deviations, then there just has to be criteria -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- so that it's black and white. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the direction. MR. FRANTZ: What I had in mind was we also have -- for Immokalee we have an interim deviations sections, and it calls them interim deviations but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're permanent now. MR. FRANTZ: They're permanent, and they achieve those deviations just through the SDP. And so it's kind of a form of administrative deviations. And I think we'd kind of model -- model it off of that process, if that works for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. I think it does. MR. FRANTZ: Next we had the PUD deviations section. Again, we're looking at the July 20th packet. This would be modified to, as we said, prohibit deviations above the half acre; 21,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: After that we have prohibitions. I think these can stay. This was identifying, specifically, habitats that we want to remain on site. So, I mean, that would be my suggestion but, of course, it's up to you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think we're on the right track. MR. FRANTZ: Beyond that, it gets to the -- excuse me, the off-site alternatives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you wouldn't need any of that. You'd simply have on a square-foot basis based on the last AUIR between urban and rural. MR. FRANTZ: Right. It would be kind of a modification of the first of the monetary payment alternative, so we'll just take out the additional elements of that payment. It would just be based on the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did notice the current AUIR doesn't break it down for urban and rural. It breaks it down for community and regional. MR. FRANTZ: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a better way to look at a cost basis, then maybe you can suggest that. I was -- I forgot that we had -- in the past I believe we had two values, but sometime along the road it seems to have changed to community and regional and not gotten into different sectors of the area, so... MR. FRANTZ: Well, the way that we had it for this draft was we had looked at the costs of purchases for the Conservation Collier program and then used the same ratio of rural to urban lands but if that -- if we want to go a different direction, then we can discuss that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the AUIR's asterisk defining where they used -- or got their numbers from for those values came from the impact fee study. I would rather use a study like that -- MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's more or less a consultant's analysis than an internal process that just uses added-up and divided numbers. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I'm not super familiar with that study off the top of my head, so I don't know exactly what kind of guidance that would give us, but we can look to that and -- August 17, 2017 Page 46 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know for sure either, but I'm suggesting that would have a better evaluation, at least probably a better way to go than internally. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We can go that route. The next part of that section was the land donation alternative. I think you've talked about, today, removing that section. And the last part of this section is just kind of a note for how this section is processed for PUDs. And just off the top of my head, I think that that section can stay, but we'll analyze that as we get through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: So if everyone's on the same page about those kinds of changes, I think, you know, probably staff should take some time to draft that up and circulate it amongst ourselves and make sure that we're covering all our bases, and we can bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something you feel comfortable with on the 7th of September, or do you want to do a different meeting? MR. FRANTZ: I think that we can do September 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it changes, just let us know; we can move it to the 21st. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah, I believe we'll have to readvertise just because of the length of time we're taking for this amendment. So probably try and, sooner rather than later, make sure that we can meet that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we may have someone who wants to speak on the matter. If we do, if you're here, please come on up. COMMISSIONER EBERT: She's been here since nine. MS. JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know there's not much happening in the environmental world if they can sit here all morning long waiting for this. MS. JOHNSON: I know. I know. Just wasting the time away. Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I -- you know, I really appreciated the suggestion at your last meeting to go ahead and just remove the ability to go off site but, you know, in talking about Jeremy, I think that getting into a Comp Plan change could be more difficult than worthwhile. So, like the direction that you're going. I think identifying the square footage and maybe identifying how many houses that would allow you to build in that -- what was it, 21,000 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 21,780 square feet. MS. JOHNSON: Yeah -- so that you have an idea of just what that allows you, I think that would be very important because, you're right, a half acre sounds really tiny, but when you look at the actual area, it's pretty expansive. So, like where you're going with the half acre and very much support making sure that deviations above that are prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think she's suggesting, though, that when you compare it to the size of a standard house, how many times, like, five standard homes or whatever, you do that in the staff report, not the LDC. MS. JOHNSON: Right, right. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah. I wanted to just clarify that typically the offsite process doesn't allow for, like, additional density or anything like that, so we can kind of describe that as a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: -- I guess, depiction of, like, the size of the area that we're allowing. MS. JOHNSON: Right. Just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or even this room. It would be good for people reading it to say, how big is 21 -- half acre. Well, it's 21,000 square -- how big is that? Well, I don't know how big this room is, but it's probably 20 times the size of this room or something like that. So all that helps put it in a context that you can understand it. You can see it better in your mind. And it's not as small as it sounds. It's a pretty good-sized piece of property, so... August 17, 2017 Page 47 of 49 MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's a suggestion. Anything else, Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: No. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a lot happening in the environmental world. It's just that it happens so slowly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by the time it happens, we're all gone and the next people have got to deal with it, like climate change and sea level rise, right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going on a tangent here. Okay. Well, Jeremy, is that enough direction for you to finish up? MR. FRANTZ: I think so. And we'll come back on the 7th with those elements enumerated a little bit more and make sure that we've got all your concerns covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that date needs to be pushed a little bit, we're fine. We've got a meeting on the 21st anyway. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the -- that's the last advertised public hearing we have. We do have no new business. Old business; I just want to remind everybody, I haven't forgotten that we have to have an update. And, Mike, as a reminder for you, at some point we need to schedule a sea level rise report, as discussed last time, and we also have to get a report on feedback on the requested NIM change for Ned's request there. MR. BOSI: And we were waiting for the -- we knew that Mr. Fryer was not going to be at this, but we are most certainly prepared at the -- we can address it on the 7th, our discussion about -- with DSAC related to the NIM proposal and the suggestions that they provided. We can give an update to the Planning Commission. It was the discussion of whether we were going to -- first it was a proposal by -- Mr. Fryer had indicated that he had some trouble following the transcripts, and he wanted to propose an LDC amendment that was going to require the speakers to identify which party they were with when they're representing the developer to be able to clarify where commitments were made and to follow along the dialogue a little bit better. That conversation evolved into whether transcripts would be -- should or would be required of the meeting. And Jeremy and I spoke with DSAC at their August meeting on the idea; we got some feedback, and we'll be ready to discuss it with the Planning Commission on -- we can add it -- I can coordinate with Judy to add it to the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when Mr. Fryer's here. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And whenever you guys are ready. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I won't be here. MR. BOSI: We'll get you a full transcript of the meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us past the old business. Anybody have anything else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we can't discuss this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not without Ned here. Which -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. What you just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can discuss anything at this point. We're still not -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Being this is old, I have been to these NIM meetings, a lot of August 17, 2017 Page 48 of 49 them. It's the equipment that they bring with them. On a lot of these it's nothing more than, like, a little phone. And when you have a room this big, there is no way. And I did ask Mr. Yovanovich, I believe, because he has a lot of them, if they could bring some good equipment along, you know, and I think that can -- that can save a lot of the problems that we're having with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think at the same time, Ned's position was that unless the speakers got up and identified, even with the audio, there would be no way of knowing who they were compared to being the developer's team or the private team. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't necessarily disagree with him on that point, but I don't know how we make that happen unless we formalize the meeting more. And if we formalize the meeting more, we may be defeating the purpose of a NIM, which is supposed to be informal so they can have conversations with the neighborhood about what their project's about. But that's something we all need to consider when Ned gets back, and I'm sure that Mike's going over that with the DSAC folks and we'll get -- MR. BOSI: That was sort of -- that was part of the discussion point, that very point that you raised, Mark. So, yes, I'll be prepared -- we'll be prepared, and -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll talk to you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think you're making too many rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. We do tend to overregulate. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Most likely these people probably won't talk at all when they want to if you're going to, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of the concern. MR. BOSI: Another point that was raised by DSAC. So we're going to -- we'll be prepared to address all the different issues were that raised. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But rather than have a free-for-all, maybe if you made them just get up to a podium where there's a camera pointed at them and a speaker. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Geez. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, seriously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's just the opposite of where -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOSWKI: What does it take to -- you know, a GoPro or something like that. I'm not talking about -- I'm talking about, you know, a little camera where you record the meeting, you record who talks, and that way you don't have people yelling things from the audience -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- because that's really where everything gets screwed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Stan, I understand. I just got to make sure we put it in the context of what the intension was of a NIM as a reach-out to the neighborhood and an informal basis so they can all talk around a roundtable format and get their ideas on the floor. We have people that come into these meetings, when you have to go up before a speaker and they know you're on camera who have a hard time addressing everybody. I think that's the opposite -- the opposite of what a NIM was supposed to be. It was supposed to be informal. So it's just a discussion we will have at our next meeting then, and we can kind of see where everybody's thoughts are on it, so... MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, in talking with Mr. Fryer, my understanding is that he wanted the agents to identify themselves for the developer and not necessarily the public. He wasn't saying the public needed to identify themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In my conversations with him, anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't realize there was a differentiation there between the two. So anybody that wouldn't identify themselves is then considered -- assumed to be the public? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. He wanted the agents for the applicant, the experts, to say who was speaking before they spoke. August 17, 2017 Page 49 of 49 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because don't -- in reading the NIMs, you also bring up the fact a lot of times that this is what you committed to at the NIM. So that's important to have the agent's name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. We'll talk about it on the 7th then, if that's okay with everybody. And with that, any other public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here; 5-0. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:24 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co�er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ-PL20160001985, CLEARY RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) APPLICANT/OWNER: Raymond J. Cleary, Jr. and Thomas J. Cleary Family Trust 3120 60th Street SW Naples, FL 34116 AGENTS: Mr. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REOUESTED ACTION: Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Cleary RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 63 residential dwelling units or 200 group housing units for seniors. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 1 of 15 PROJECT LOCATION Immokalee RD 00 d 7 03 Z Vanderbilt Beach RD - - - -- Location Map TRACT Lz irl iC! rI ® I ft ® IQEU U Petition Number: PL -2016-1985 Zoning Map 0 TR Li TRACT P SITE LOCATION JO!�\IAI L IN IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR846) 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY 20 WID20 WIDDSCAPE BUFFER SCALE. 1"=100' _ _ �` ri r r iifiT� r POTENTIAL TRACT"OS15" INTERCONNECTION f/ ff fr rf /f rr rf (OPENSPACE, i D.E AND A. E) i WATER MANAGEMENT r - �!r f fif frr rfr ri f ffl ; r ATURNIA LAKES I I- f f f f fr f f fr rl - 15' L.B.E. (PB36 PG56) F ^l CONCEPTUAL RESIDENTIAL I SITE DATA I I UILDINQ TOTAL SITE AREA: 8.99± AC Ill II RESIDENTIAL 5.36± AC PRESERVE1.07±AC WATER MANAGEMENT 1.0±AC BUFFERS/OPEN SPACE 1.56± AC t5WIDE 4-1 PUD BOUNDARY.LANDSCAPE li D BUFFER I A y ZONE D:A I ^✓. RIGAS PUD UNDEVELOPED _ j/ I Iii > w a RESIDENTIAL m 10' WIDE TVPE'A' ' ONGEP7{JA.L I m C) LANDSCAPE BUFFER I RESIDENTIAL li O m BUILDING z � I I { II l MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 63 ` MAXIMUM GROUP HOUSING UNITS: 200 MAXIMUM DENSITY: 7 DU/AC PRESERVE: REQUIRED- 1.07± ACRES (7.13± ACRES NATIVE I. CONCEPTUAL III VEGETATION X 15%) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING I III PROVIDED -1.07±ACRES I I 1 I 1 I PUD BOUNDARY OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED _PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL: 5.4±AC(60%) 5.4±AC(60/) I I\ GROUP HOUSING: 2.71AC(30%) 2.7±AC(30/) I SATURNIA LAKES NOTES I „� 15' L.B.E. (PB36 PG57) 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS _ SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO . . . AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. . ., . 2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE, ARE . . . . W - APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN PRESERVE ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. w 15' WIDE 3. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE W TYPE'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER- w LANDSCAPE EXOTIC REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC . . . , BUFFER SECTION 4.06.02 AND LDC SECTION 4.06.05.E.1. �J A SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT \ MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC RIGAS PUO \\\` PPROX. DISCHARGE SECTION 3.05.07, A MINIMUM 6-FOOT WIDE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER MUST BE RESERVED FOR SATURNIA LAKES PLATONE LOCATION ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WHICH (PB 36, PG 56-65) 15 WIDE TYPE 'B' SHALL BE ADDED OUTSIDE OF THE PRESERVE TRACT "OSIS" LANDSCAPE BUFFER I ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE TO ACHIEVE THE (OPEN SPACE, D.E. AND A.E.) II 80% OPACITY REQUIREMENT WITHIN 6 MONTHS i OF THEISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. LEGEND CLEARY RPUD ®iiCBf]yM1IlOP "'p.ni o REVISED EXHIBIT C 0312312017 enNl, e. �,.an�unwWms Plonnus n�nlNole MASTER PWN GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 8.99± acre subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately one quarter mile east of Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. (See the Location Map on page 2.) The subject 8.99± acre property is currently zoned Rural Agriculture (A). The petitioner proposes to develop a maximum of 63 single-family, townhouse, or multi -family residences, or a maximum of 200 units of senior group housing within a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed maximum density is 7 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) for the senior group housing is 0.60. The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed building, parking, vehicular circulation, water management area, and preserve. The Master Plan also shows that 5.36 acres shall be residential, 1.07 acres shall be preserve, 1.0 acre shall be water management, and 1.56 acres shall be buffers/open space. Depending upon the type of development, a minimum of 30% open space is provided for group housing and a minimum of 60% open space has been provided for residential development. The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned building height of 30 feet and an actual building height of 40 feet for the single-family residences; a zoned building height of 40 feet and an actual building height of 50 feet for the multi -family residences, and a zoned building height of 45 feet, and an actual building height of 50 feet for the group housing. There is a proposed 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer along Immokalee Road. In addition to the existing 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer at Saturnia Lakes along the east property line, is another proposed 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer. Along approximately half of the south property line is a proposed 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer and then a proposed preserve area adjacent to Saturnia Lakes. Along the west property line a 10 -foot wide Type A landscape buffer is proposed. There is one proposed deviation related to FAR. For further information please see the Deviation Section of this Staff Report located on page 13. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Immokalee Road, a 6 -lane road, and then a residential development with a zoning designation of H.D. Development Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a density of 2.42 units per acre and a maximum zoned height of 42 feet East: Entrance Road, and then single-family residences in Saturnia Lakes, with a zoning designation of Rigas PUD with a density of 3.13 units per acre and a maximum height of 50 feet Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 4 of 15 South: Natural vegetation, and then single-family residences in Saturnia Lakes, with a zoning designation of Rigas PUD with a density of 3.13 units per acre and a maximum height of 50 feet West: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A (Agriculture) AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. See attached Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review dated August 24, 2017. 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 Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001986 September 21, 2017 Page 5 of 15 Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating 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 RPUD 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 a maximum of approximately 85 PM peak hour, two-way trips, on the adjacent roadway segments. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour Peak 2016 Remaining Existing LOS Direction Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Immokalee Roac Logan Boulevard to D 3,200/East 637 Collier Boulevard Immokalee Roac Logan Boulevard to I- D 3,500/East 616 75 Logan Boulevarc Immokalee Road to C 1,000/North 380 Vanderbilt Beach Roa 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. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 6 of 15 Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning Staff found this project to be consistent with the COME. The project site consists of 7.13 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.07 (15%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Utility Review: Public Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. The PUD Master Plan provides 1.07 acres of Preserve, which meets the minimum requirement of fifteen (15%) in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07.B. There were no listed species observed on the site. However, bear nuisance calls have been documented within the vicinity of the subject property. Therefore, a commitment requiring a Bear Management Plan with the SDP and/or Plat has been included. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff finds this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Staff believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 7 of 15 The land across Immokalee Road and to the north of the proposed 8.99± acre senior group care housing or residential units is developed with single-family dwelling units at a density of 2.42 units per acre and a maximum height of 42 feet. The land to the east is Saturnia Lakes, developed with a 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer, an entrance road, a lake and then single-family homes. A 150 -foot wide preserve area on the subject site and 50 feet of natural vegetation separates the single- family dwelling units to the south at Saturnia Lakes from the proposed development. The permissible maximum height of 50 feet at Saturnia Lakes is similar to the proposed maximum height of 45 feet at Cleary PUD. While the proposed Cleary RPUD density is higher than the adjacent PUD's, it is similar to the more recently approved PUD's along the Immokalee Road corridor: - Addie's Comer PUD - 11.45 units per acre - Tree Farm PUD — 7.22 units per acre - Abaco Club PUD — 6.54 units per acre The combination of existing and proposed landscape buffers along with the preserve area and natural vegetation mitigates for the proposed higher density of the Cleary RPUD. Therefore, the proposed development is compatible with the existing development in the area. Zoning staff recommends that this petition be found compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, pursuant to the requirement of FLUE Policy 5.4. 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 the proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non -bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning section has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as single- family residential and agricultural. Staff is on the opinion that the land uses proposed in this PUD petition will not create incompatibility issues. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 8 of 15 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing Agricultural zoning district would allow. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies upon adoption that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 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 development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion that this PUD rezone will not adversely impact property values. Zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since market demand drives value determination. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 9 of 15 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The property surrounding the subject site is partially developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development (SDP) standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed PUD rezone does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. The petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the county that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; staff does not 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 site alteration, and the proposed development site will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 10 of 15 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The nearby area is developed with, or is approved for, development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. In addition, the commitments included in PUD Exhibit F adequately address the impacts from the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office (CAO), demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or SDP approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 11 of 15 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 Staff Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at 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, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project. Furthermore, adequate public facilities requirements will 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 criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking one deviation to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the deviation proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 13.5.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." Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 12 of 15 Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviation. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 which establishes a maximum FAR of 0.45 for group housing to instead permit a maximum FAR of 0.60. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Modern senior housing projects provide a significant array of recreational amenities, which when provided within the building increases the total square footage of the structure; therefore, increasing the FAR. Newer senior housing projects also provide more spacious interior living space, necessitating a larger FAR. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, 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 pumoses to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on April 26, 2017. For further information, please see Exhibit C: "Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting. " Over 200 residents from the neighboring Saturnia Lakes community have signed petitions objecting to the proposed Cleary PUD. Please see Exhibit D: Saturnia Lakes - Petitions. " COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-PL20160001985, Cleary RPUD revised on September 18, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20160001985, Cleary PUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 13 of 15 Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Exhibit B: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review Exhibit C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting Exhibit D: Saturnia Lakes — Petitions (Note: Only the cover letter, map and one example of a signed petition has been attached. The petitions are all the same, but they are signed by 200 individual residents. Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21, 2017 Page 14 of 15 PREPARED BY: AMA I Alla NANCY H, AICP, PLA PRINCIP L ER ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI, AIC?, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: 4- GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Cleary RPUD, PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 6, 2017 Page 15 of 15 q 7 1-7 ATE R -Y-n DATE e-?ai//7 DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: August 24, 2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Proposed Cleary Residential Planned Unit Development (4th memo) PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20160001985 [REV: 41 PETITION NAME: Cleary Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) REQUEST: This petition requests a PUD rezone affecting a ±9.0 -acre property from the A, Agricultural zoning district to the Cleary Residential Planned Unit Development to allow residential development (up to 63 dwelling units) or a senior housing facility (up to 200 units), with associated amenities (recreational uses) and open spaces. LOCATION: The property is located approximately one-quarter mile east of Logan Boulevard, on the south side of Immokalee Road, and west of the Saturnia Lakes residential PUD, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relative to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). Also, as explained below, this site is potentially eligible for a 3 DU/A density bonus if qualifying as "infill" development, thereby potentially yielding a total eligible density of 7 DU/A. FLUE provisions for the Density Rating System state, "Residential In -fill: To encourage residential in -fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met [staff analysis follows in bracketed text]: [The subject site is not in the Coastal High Hazard Area] (a) The project is 20 acres or less in size, [the site comprises ±9 acres] (b) At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; [County water and wastewater services are available to serve this area] (c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; [this determination is made by Zoning Services staff in their review of the petition in its entirety] -1- Exhibit B (d) The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; [The subject property has no common site development plan with adjacent property] (e) There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; [The subject property is not in common ownership with adjacent properties] (f) The parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in -fill residential density bonus and was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; [The subject property consists of two parcels which have been separate properties from approximately 1976 to present] (g) Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands; and, [this commitment is included in Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, specifying that the first DU/A (9 units) over the base density of 4 DU/A (36 units) will be derived from TDR credits] (h) Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands'. [the County's regulations provide for this density increase via a rezone of the property] This PUD proposes 63 dwelling units yielding a density of 7.01 DU/A (8.99 acres x 7 DU/A eligible density = 62.93 4 63 DUs), recreational uses and open space, and up to 200 senior housing units. FLUE Policy 5.10 -allows group housing uses in the Urban designated area subject to provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code. To promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold italicized text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: 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. [This site fronts Immokalee Road, a major arterial roadway. Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts a single, direct access to Immokalee Road.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts a private hammer -head cul-de-sac street inside the project. All vehicular traffic accesses Immokalee Road directly at a single access point.] 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. (The site abuts a road on one side - Immokalee Road on the north. dM Property located to the east and south is fully developed [Saturnia Lakes], with no interconnection points proposed. An interconnection point with the abutting property to the west is proposed, where there is potential for residential development. Further west, on the far side of the large residential lot, an interconnection point is proposed by the adjacent commercial development that is now under consideration (proposed Logan/Immokalee Commercial Planned Unit Development).] 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. (As to walkable communities, the PUD requests two Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) - for an increased floor area ratio (FAR) for senior housing uses, and reduced usable open space, if developed with a senior housing facility - which do not remove or alter the provision of sidewalks. The project will be subject to LDC requirements for provision of sidewalks. One non -vehicular interconnection shares the "potential" vehicular interconnection point with the abutting property to the west. Pedestrianlbike connections are provided to Immokalee Road. As to a blend of densities and a range of housing prices and types, the PUD provides for single- family detached, attached and zero lot line, two-family & duplex residences, townhouses and multi -family residences. Common open spaces are provided by more than 3.6 acres of open space including water management lakes, recreational amenity areas and other open spaces. The PUD requests a Deviation from the Land Development Code (LDC) - for reducing the required usable open space from 60% to 30% of the site - if the project is developed with group housing for seniors only. No civic facilities are provided for.] Based upon the above analysis, the PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division G: Comp�Consistency Reviews\2077 llboc.coiliergov.netldatalGMD-LDSICDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120171PUDZIPUDZ-PL2016-1985 Cleary R4 Con Rev_FNL.dm -3- I TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING CLEARY RPUD APRIL 26, 2017 Appearances: RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. WAYNE ARNOLD JIM BANKS RAY BELLOWS SHARON UMPENHOUR Exhibit C z MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you all for coming. What we're doing tonight is a neighborhood information meeting for a project, and I'm assuming most of you people are from Saturnia Lakes. Am I close in my guess? Okay. So it's near your project or where you live. This is your project right here. This is the nine acres we're going to be talking about tonight. And what we do is, one of the county processes, whenever we do a land -use petition, we're required to have a neighborhood information meeting to allow the neighbors and the community around us to know what we're doing. So you can ask any questions you want. We'll do our best to answer any questions you have. If you've got concerns, we'll listen to your concerns, obviously, and try to incorporate as many of them as we can, if we can incorporate them into the project. But what the county does as part of the process is we have a neighborhood information meeting right after we get our first round of county comments on our petition. The next step after this would be to resubmit 3 the response to the county comments. We would then have a hearing in front of the Collier County Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Then, ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners will make the decision on whether or not to approve this process. So there are a team of people here to discuss the petition and answer any questions. My name is Richard Yovanovich, and I am the land -use attorney representing the property owner. Wayne Arnold and Sharon Umpenhour with Grady Minor are the planning team, engineering team for the project, and they can answer any questions I can't answer. And Jim Banks is our transportation consultant to the project and can answer any questions regarding transportation concerns you may have if I can't answer them. So, we'll explain the project to you as to what we're doing, and then we will open it up to you to answer any questions you may have, but the project is this nine -acre piece right here. It's owned by the Clearys. It's basically two pieces, which they've owned for a few years now. It's a total of approximately nine acres. rd We're in what the county calls the urban area. So it's where development is supposed to be occurring in Collier County. Based upon the current comprehensive plan, it's supposed to be developed for residential or senior housing. Those are the types of uses that are, under the comprehensive plan, to go here. It's not supposed to be any type of commercial development that's supposed to go on this type of property. So our request is for either residential, with a maximum number of 65 units, or senior housing, independent assisted living type of facilities on the property, at a floor area ratio of .6, not to exceed 200 units for senior -related housing. Under the county's comprehensive plan, the base density for most projects is four units an acre. However, for projects less than 20 acres in size, because they're smaller and they're infill pieces, you can ask for up to three additional units per acre as long as you agree to buy what they call transfer development rights, which is basically out a little bit further east here, the county has set up a program where they have sending lands and receiving lands. Sending lands, basically, have to be 5 preserved. In (indiscernible) the county gave those people who want sending lands (indiscernible) transfer development rights. So certain lands, you can transfer those development lands to, and it's the smaller parcels of the urban area that you can do that. So if we want to go above four units per acre, we would have to buy additional density to get up to a maximum of 65 units that we're asking for on the site. We run the gamut of residential. We can do single family, we can do duplexes, we can do multifamily as far as the options that we have on this piece of property. And then, again, they consider senior housing to be an institutional type of use. It doesn't really fit the typical residential. If you've gone down Vanderbilt Beach Road, you'll see Sandalwood and Bradford Square, right. We did both -- Wayne and I did both of those. Those are independent living facilities. The typical -- the typical ratio for senior housing versus regular housing is a 4 to I ratio. Obviously, we're not asking for 260 units, but that's the typical ratio because most people that 0 move in there, the average age is at least 78 or older. Even though it says you have to be 55, minimum, it's usually a little older. They usually start with a car, but they never really drive the car because transportation is provided in those types of facilities. So the reason (indiscernible) is because the traffic really equates to about 4 to 1 when we're talking about going to a regular senior -- senior housing versus regular residential. The way -- here's our proposed master plan, and at this point we really don't know whether it's going to be either multifamily, single family or the senior housing, but what we've done -- obviously, this is Saturnia Lakes here and here. We're required to maintain 15 percent of our native vegetation in the preserve area. We have put the preserve area on the south side. I'm directionally challenged, so sometimes I get my north and south backwards, but the south side of the property, so it will serve as, basically, a buffer to the residences that are on this cul-de-sac right here in Saturnia Lakes. Our development standards for single family, which most of you, I think -- I don't know if you have any multifamily in Saturnia Lakes or not. I know the zoning allowed for it, but I don't think it was built, but the single-family development standards in our project are 30 feet zone type, which is if you have a pitched roof, basically, it's to the midpoint of the roof, 40 feet actual, which is tippy top of the roof, and then if it's multifamily, it's 45 -- it's 40 feet zoned, 50 feet tippy top. And then if we do the senior housing, it would be 45 feet zoned, 50 feet tippy top. So the peak of the roof, the tallest thing on the building would be 50 feet for the group housing, senior housing, 45 feet -- I'm sorry. 50 feet for multifamily and then 40 feet for single family. Obviously, our accesses are going to be off of Immokalee Road. We are proposing our access to be on the west side of the property. The county is going to require us to share access with the property owner to the west. So as you can see on our master plan, we've prepared for that. So we'll have an access off of Immokalee Road. I don't think we'll get a left in. We'll probably just get a right in, right out off of Immokalee Road. We'll share access with this piece right here. M And our water management would be up front with our preserve on the back, and then we'll have buffers around the entirety of the site, landscape buffers that essentially are a six-foot tall hedge which serves -- basically, you won't be able to see through the hedge. I think we're required (indiscernible) opaque within a year, I believe it is, to six feet (indiscernible). It's really a pretty vanilla project for what we're doing. It's a smaller scale. There's basically only infill parcels left in the urban area. You're not going to see too many big projects coming through anymore within the urban area. There may be further east, the bigger projects, but you're going to have these -- you'll probably see a bunch of smaller, 10 acre, 15 acre, 20 -acre parcels going through, not by you, but just throughout Collier County at this point. That's an overview of what we're proposing to do. I can answer any questions you may have, and I know this gentleman is sort of ready. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. Who are you sharing the entryway with, the GL Homes project? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. This is -- I believe this, Cullen Walker (phonetic) runs this piece 0 right here and GL is a little bit further to the west. The corner piece is Livingston -- no, it's not. It's Logan. Logan and Immokalee is what GL Homes (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is that where that driveway is now, kind of? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. If you look, it's hard to see on this aerial, but there's a little driveway right here right now that's kind of between the two pieces. That's technically on our piece of property. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, yeah, this is the Falling Waters piece right here, and I believe this is GL right here. Yes, ma'am. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What's the dimensions between Saturnia Boulevard that goes into our project and (indiscernible)? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, here's what I know. We've got a bunch of dimensions here. The house -- there are -- we measured from several houses, because I know I can't tell you (indiscernible), but I can tell you from this house, which is the closest house, it's 297 feet 10 from the -- I think that's the pool cage to our property. So it's, basically, 300 feet before you get to our property. And then it's a little bit further back. This house right here is 316 feet. This house right here is 323 feet. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But I'm more concerned about our drive in. We're going to be (indiscernible) your houses -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Over here? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. When we're driving in our boulevard, we'll be seeing all this (indiscernible). MR. YOVANOVICH: When you're driving in, can you see anybody (indiscernible)? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: We're right there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have that distance. Sharon, do you know that distance? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It looks like it's only 5, 10 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, it's more than that. I can promise you it's more than that. And that's where, if you look on this here (indiscernible) we have the vegetation (indiscernible) boulevard. So (indiscernible). 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The distance from the house you just pointed out to the closest part of your development will be close to 300 feet. What about elevation? In other words, if you build something that's max 50 feet tall, will the homes on that street see that? Is that part of their view? Because right now, their view includes a lake and a beautifully landscaped hillside. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. To be honest with you, I'm sure you will see part of that building. There's no way you're not going to see part of that building, but you're not going to have a big building just staring at you, because we're required to have a landscape buffer. You guys (indiscernible) here on your side, too, but I can't imagine that, at some point, when you're driving on that or looking out some part of your yard, that you're not going to get a glimpse of this building. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But you need to understand that the people that live along that street, they paid a premium price to be on the lake with a landscaped view. Now you're going to destroy that. 12 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and I appreciate that, but at the same time, and don't -- don't -- I don't know how to be anything but direct -- this piece of property is asking for what it's allowed to do under the county's plan. And I'm sorry if someone represented to you, and I wouldn't be surprised, that maybe you'll never see anything next door to you, but the reality is you're going to see something here. This property has rights, through the existing comprehensive plan, to develop. We will provide buffers, but I will not -- I can't represent to you you're not going to see another building on this piece of property. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So will the homeowners along that street have an opportunity to express their objections to the county? MR. YOVANOVICH: You will have an opportunity, of course. You can go to the Planning Commission meeting and also the Board of County Commissioners meeting. Yes, ma'am. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What is the maximum elevation that they can build at? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: 50 feet. for. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: 50? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. What we're asking UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. 13 MR. YOVANOVICH: Tippy top, and I coined that phrase because I didn't know any other way to describe it, tippy top of the senior housing will be 55 feet. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. Do you know how high it is for Sandalwood? MR. YOVANOVICH: For Sandalwood, what did we do? I think Sandalwood's taller. I think that's over there. Ray Bellows, by the way, he's with Collier County. He is the planner responsible for this project now as we go through the process. So if you've got comments you want to make to the county, Ray Bellows is your contact person to address county comments. If you want to talk to us, it's me and Wayne. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What is the elevation of Sandalwood? MR. ARNOLD: Sandalwood, I don't remember the exact height, but that's a three-story building over parking. So you've got three living levels. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But what are we talking about, what is the elevation? Are we talking about we're going to get something that height? MR. ARNOLD: It's probably very similar to the height we're asking for. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's going to be three stories, you're talking about? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we've asked for -- we don't -- the county doesn't typically want you to identify numbers of stories. They ask for the height. But just to point out, I mean, I know they didn't build multifamily, but I worked on the Regus (phonetic) PUD, which that's what Saturnia Lakes was originally zoned as, and it made provisions for 50 feet zoned height in your community. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So if I'm sitting here, I can see the top of that building. Is that about what we would see? MR. YOVANOVICH: Wait. I know exactly what you're saying. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're asking me if you're the same (indiscernible) see that much of the 15 building? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Right. If I'm in my backyard, and here's the landscaping and everything, is it going to be that high or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know how tall your landscaping is in your backyard, so I don't -- I don't want to (indiscernible) your backyard, so I don't know. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we can do -- what we can do is we can put together -- MR. ARNOLD: A buffer exhibit. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- a buffer exhibit that will show you sightlines as if you were in your backyard looking, because it all depends. You know, if you're right close to your trees, you're going to see nothing. You move a little bit further back, you may see some of the roof. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Knowing that the community that we live in now and all the surrounding communities are basically single-family dwellings and Sandalwood on Vanderbilt Beach Road is the senior citizens, would you take into consideration that our area is mainly single 16 family, so maybe that would fit in better with the community surrounding, the houses that are across on Logan? MR. YOVANOVICH: What happens, from a development standpoint, is, obviously, your community -- I don't remember how many acres it started out as, but it's obviously a master planned community (indiscernible) on a much bigger scale with the ability to put in all the necessary infrastructure and water management, streets and all of that. MR. ARNOLD: 241 acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can get -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What was it (indiscernible)? MR. ARNOLD: 240 units -- 240 acres. MR. YOVANOVICH: 240 acres. So you had a much -- you had a bigger -- you had a bigger pallet, if you will, to work from. When you get into these smaller infill projects, just by their size, they're going to result in multifamily -type projects or senior housing -type projects, just because of the size of the land, to make all of the infrastructure work. It just can't -- it can't work as a single family. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Well, considering that the dwellings where we are and the ones across from Logan that -- I think it's some kind of woods over there, people have single family -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oakside. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oakside, yeah. They have single-family homes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Would it be -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's why we'll address it through our required landscape buffers, our distances from your homes, being 300 feet away from the nearest home. We'll take care of that through -- through those -- the buffer requirements that we're putting in place and the like is how we'll address those issues. Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: How close to the -- your property borderline faces Saturnia, closest houses, are you allowed, by zoning, to place the house -- your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What's our setback? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, what's your setback? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that what you're saying? M Okay Do you know (indiscernible) Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Give me two seconds. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: What have you got? Okay. You don't have (indiscernible)? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's probably (indiscernible), right? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Probably. (Indiscernible) has 20 feet on that. MR. YOVANOVTCH: The closest we'd be to our property line would be 20 foot (indiscernible) I think (indiscernible) rear yard. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It could be 20 feet from our property line. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And there's a requirement (indiscernible) alone (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Would you (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Where is Immokalee Road on there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Immokalee Road is up here. Road? 19 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's Immokalee MR. YOVANOVICH: This is Immokalee Road here. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And that would be the entrance? MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be our entrance right here. This would be our entrance. And your entrance is over here. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible). (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) didn't have enough buffer (indiscernible). Maybe put some tall trees or something like that to help, you know, cut the view down. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Would you be willing to help Saturnia Lakes rebuild our buffer area within our side? Would you do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not an unusual request that you're asking. So I will obviously take that to my client to talk about that. We'll have to coordinate it with your homeowners association, obviously, to get the ability to come on that property, plant it, and I'm assuming you all would, if we planted, you would be willing to take over PM and make sure (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I can't speak for the community, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But, you know, those are the types of things that are not usual for us to look at. Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can you tell me the distance from the bottom house on the south end to the proposed -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Here? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, that house. And also what's the -- I see that the preserve is 1.72 acres. Can you give me that in feet from south to north with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, I can. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: All right. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: The width of the buffer? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: This is 165 feet. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay, 165 feet. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then this house, which I think is -- this house is 60 feet from the property 21 edge, and that would be a total of 225. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: All right. Great. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: My in-laws, yes. They are that house right there. MR. YOVANOVICH: When you said stop, I figured I (indiscernible). Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Just two questions. I'm sorry if -- I didn't see the first (indiscernible). The buffer will be at the southern end of that piece of property? MR. YOVANOVICH: The preserve -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is going to be here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And how wide -- how deep is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's 165 feet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. And the other thing is, is there a time limit on when your client is going to decide whether he'll go with individual housing or multifamily housing? And maybe it's a question for the gentleman from Collier County. When would they have to tell you, make a decision on what kind of housing it would be? 22 And then I have another question. What can we do to influence it one way or another? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: If anything. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I am the zoning manager for Collier County. I've been with the county about 29 years, and when PUD zoning projects come in like this, there's generally a multitude of dwelling types that the developer typically requests. And that allows for them to address the changing market conditions without having to come back through a public hearing every time. So, generally speaking, the market -- the applicant's trying to respond to the market conditions, and the request they're proposing is multifamily? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Well, we also asked for single family. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. So they allow for a mix of single and multifamily. And what will happen is staff will review those development standards, the building heights, setbacks, the landscape buffers, water management, the traffic impacts, and make sure that they meet all county codes and regulations. 23 We don't -- the county has no rules or regulations that dictate what type of dwelling units can be constructed in the area. That's a market condition. We typically listen and want encouragement of the public, the surrounding communities, to get their input, to see how we can work with the applicant to reach any consensus where we can, and maybe providing additional buffer or additional setbacks or some other condition that could help. Anyways, the final decision of whether a project is approved or denied is by the Board of County Commissioners. So, certainly, your input, letters expressing concerns or support for a project is greatly appreciated, because we can use that to incorporate in our analysis and findings. MR. ARNOLD: If I could just add to what Ray said. Just in your own community, for instance, when I was working with the GL Homes to obtain your zoning from agricultural to PUD, we included all the gamut of dwelling unit types, because I remember doing iterations of site plans for them, and we had pods that were going to be multifamily, and some that were zero lot lines, some that were going to be townhomes, and they ultimately made the 24 decision that this community was better suited to be single family from their marketability standpoint. Part of that's when it comes to market and how many units you have. And as Rich said, this is very much an infill project. I mean, you have the luxury of 241 acres to do some really large scale master planning. And we're pretty confined with the little, which we call it postage stamp site by most standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to start here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm sorry. I might have missed this, but does this not require a zoning change? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And that's what we're doing. We're going through the process. We're currently zoned (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I mean, if I heard it, I'm sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I may not have (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) here. MR. YOVANOVICH: They will be. We'll go to the Planning Commission. We don't have any dates 25 set yet. MR. ARNOLD: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the building you're talking about potentially could be the equivalent of like a four-story building. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Right. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's the senior (indiscernible). MR. ARNOLD: Could be. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to say the senior could be up to four stories. I don't think they're going to be able to get five stories in a 45 -foot zone lot. So maybe four stories. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And how many units will be in the four-story building? MR. YOVANOVICH: If we did senior housing, we could have up to 200 units, which, from a transportation standpoint, believe it or not, is less than the other alternative of multifamily. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because they don't drive. They really don't drive. When they move in, they come in with their car, and then they 26 (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Would they be rental units or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. Don't know. Sandalwood is. There's a big -- there's varying needs out there. Not everybody is moving into Moorings Park. There are -- and Sandalwood is at a nice market for people to pay a nice -- it's not cheap, but a nice monthly rental. So it depends on, you know, who the senior developer would be. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's a good thing they're not driving if they had to pull out onto Immokalee Road. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The question was, though, when, during the process, will that be decided? On what type of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We will -- we will make the decision -- I'll be honest with you, the decision will be made when the ultimate developer buys the piece from us. So it will either be sold to -- this will be either sold to a multifamily developer, a single-family developer or senior 27 housing. It will not be a combination of those things. Someone will come in and pick from one of those, basically, three options. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anybody else in the back before I come back to the front? Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Again, I think one of the questions was when is this decision slated to be? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the staff reviews the submittal when it first comes in. So our transportation folks review it, landscape folks, fire, water management, engineering. They all review it to make sure it meets county codes. For water management, so it doesn't have storm water running off into adjoining developments. Transportation will make sure that there's not going to be a capacity problem or an access issue. They'll look at whether signalization is warranted. All those comments go into -- the lead planner in this case will probably be me. I'm taking over for someone who is ill, and we'll generate a report outlining how it's consistent with the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. W-? Density is one of those things that we'll compare. Our comprehensive plan limits density in certain areas. And you can get more density by qualifying for some processes such as affordable housing. They're not doing that in this case. They're not proposing an affordable housing project with density bonuses. MR. YOVANOVICB: No. MR. BELLOWS: But what is going on is staff is trying to make sure what is being proposed is consistent with our codes and regulations, including water management district permits that are required. But the first step in the process is the zoning step. The next step -- and you're -- the board would be looking at an option, single-family option or multifamily option. It's still going to be an administrative process after the board approves the zoning. It's an administrative process after that. If they come in for single family, it will be a platting process, which is done administratively. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The board (indiscernible) the board can hear this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. 29 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. After all the reviews are done, and depending on if the applicant -- (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. BELLOWS: Some of it is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We probably (indiscernible) catch up, because you're new, you know, where we are. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: But my guess is we're not going to be in front of the Board of County Commissioners until Octoberish at the earliest. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, late fall. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And will our community be notified in that period? MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. You will get -- if you got a letter for this -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- you'll get a letter for that. Your association will get a letter. I'm assuming you guys can do e-mail blasts. There will be signs on the property, out on the street, that will say when the hearing is. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That no one can read. 30 MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be an ad in the newspaper -- MR. BELLOWS: But at least you know to call the county and we can fill you in on the details. MR. YOVANOVICH: My guess is we're probably talking in October, if everything goes smoothly from this point forward. MR. ARNOLD: I'd like to jump in, too. Since we don't have hearing dates set, Sharon, who is recording the meeting for us tonight, she's also our lead planning technician at the office, we'll set up a link on our -- on the county's website, right, or our website? MS. UMPENHOUR: Our website through the county. MR. ARNOLD: We'll set up a link that -- to keep you up to date at least with the current submittal information that's there and then the county provides notices of the public hearing. So they will notify, I'm pretty sure, your association. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And your association, I know, was very good. When we had to cancel the first meeting, they sent out an e-mail blast and were 31 very good about assisting us to get the notice out to you all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What's the chance of all this construction happening at the same time with this project and then the GL Homes one for the shopping center? Could it possibly all impact all at one time? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know where they are in the process. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: In the timeline? MR. YOVANOVICH: Wayne, are you working on that project? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not working on that project. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not working on that one, so I don't know where they are in the process. MR. ARNOLD: I think they recently held a neighborhood meeting, didn't they? MR. YOVANOVICH: They had a neighborhood information meeting? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes. I think they said 2018, but, you know -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, they're a little bit ahead of us, but they're also having to amend the comprehensive plan to convert that corner to commercial, so. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am, and then you, sir. 32 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm really concerned, because it's my understanding that, from here down to Ave Maria, they are building about 11 different complexes without infrastructure going across. How can the county approve all of these developments going on? This Immokalee Road will be like 75, only we have three highways instead of four. I don't understand why. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and Jim Banks can get into the greater detail, but the county has what's called concurrency management. There is a requirement that each project, when it comes basically in for either its site development plan or its plat, there's another transportation study done at that time to make sure that the capacity that the road has is still available for that project to go forward. If there's not, just because we get the zoning doesn't guarantee you're ultimately going to get it built. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They are taking 33 their sweet time doing roads going up across. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand that, but from the analysis that's been done and the review that's been done, there is adequate capacity for our proposed project and the number of trips that are going to go through, because the county does have the concurrency management system. If you don't have water, if you don't have sewer, if you don't have roads, you don't get to build. So we're going to go through another analysis when either the plat or the sight plan goes through to make sure that what's there today is there in the future when we are going to be building. Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can you talk a little bit about the traffic pattern? Particularly, it appears you're going to be shooting traffic through the shopping mall that's going to come out on Logan or then they're going make a (indiscernible) go up and make a U-turn (indiscernible). MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we're actually here. We're actually right here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You're not next to the shopping mall? 34 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. This is Mr. Walker's property. I don't know what title he owns it under, but this is another piece. This is not us. And this is the shopping center. In a perfect world, and this is what the county likes to see happen, is you can see on our master plan they're going to require us to interconnect. If I'm, again, a betting man, they're going to want this project to connect to the shopping center so people who are in our community will not have to get out onto Immokalee Road to find their way to the shopping center, either getting there or coming back. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Especially if they're assisted living. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. They'll either walk or they'll drive (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: In golf carts. MR. YOVANOVICH: (Indiscernible) driving golf carts. But there will be -- hopefully, there will be an interconnection to do what should happen, which is to keep people off the main roads. Whether this property owner is going to want that to happen or not, I don't know, I can't speak for them. But, ultimately, the county's desire is 35 to have kind of these (indiscernible) frontage roads to allow people to go back and forth without getting onto Immokalee Road or -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: How big is the space between your property and the shopping mall? Is it the same -- MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's about a 10 -acre tract. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's about the same width. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Same width?. MR. ARNOLD: It's about a 10 -acre tract. It's about 330 feet wide. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So, in essence, they could come in there and build another 200 units for senior housing or whatever, whoever. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Or they could -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So we could have a major explosion of people in this narrow area here. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would -- again -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I mean, there's no other use for that property, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's not. I mean, it's either -- it's going to be some form of residential. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's got to be 36 residential property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Most of us in here are getting a little older. So, at some point, we're going to move into some of those senior housing places, some of us sooner than later, but there's, you know, there's definitely -- I can't tell you how many senior housing projects we've taken through the process in the last few years to meet public demand. Now, it will probably slow for a while because there have been a few built, but it's in big demand. Anybody -- anybody else? So just to recap where we'll go next. We'll be going to the Planning Commission probably sometime late summer? MR. ARNOLD: Yep. MR. YOVANOVICH: You'll get notice of that. There will be signs on the property. There will be ads in the paper. And then we'll go to the Board of County Commissioners, probably latter part of -- I would guess Octoberish we'll get in front of them. Again, it's a public hearing process. The commissioners want to hear from you. 37 Staff wants to hear from you. And we want to hear from you. The suggestions about providing some additional landscaping on your side is a reasonable request, and we'll talk to our client about that. There are ways to address concerns you may have with buffers and breaking up what you might -- may or may not see from (indiscernible). Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Are you at liberty to say who your client is? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the Clearys. The Clearys own it, but they don't -- they own the property, but they're not developers. So I don't know who the ultimate builder may or not be (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Will the zoning automatically -- whatever you're zoned for in your piece of property, will that automatically carry over to the Walker's property? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. They'll have to go through the very same process we are going through, to talk to you all about what they want to do with their property and when they're ready to develop. Just because we get approved doesn't guarantee them M anything. Their property is a little bit different. We have to (indiscernible) preserve. They will probably (indiscernible) living on this cul-de-sac, I guess there's some (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So, currently -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But we have no impact on our neighbor. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So, currently, both properties are zoned for single family? MR. ARNOLD: Agriculture. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now, they're zoned agricultural, which, in the urban area, basically, is okay for future development. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I just don't understand where everybody fits in and where we are. Your clients are the property owners now? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And then the property owners will probably sell to a developer once the property is cleared for building? MR. YOVANOVICH: Once we get the zoning approved, it typically works that way. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Especially on smaller 39 parcels. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Bigger parcels, like GL Homes, put it through the process themselves. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. Like they did for the shopping center. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Yes. So usually that -- for small pieces like that, in order for it to move forward, they like to -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So, basically, you're in the process of preparing that and, legally, for a developer to buy it and develop it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And whoever -- whoever develops the property will have to live with all of the commitments we made in the PUD. So it's not just this group. It's whoever develops it. That's where you'll find your safeguards and make sure that you're getting (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is your client bidding on that piece of property between the one you're describing and the shopping mall? MR. YOVANOVICH: This right here? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: They're not bidding on it. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's not for sale. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's not for sale. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: The nursery owns it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) for sale. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I used to believe that, too, but I'm not sure this is for sale. MR. ARNOLD: That property that, Rich, is next to our property, is owned by the Cullen Walkers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. ARNOLD: -- the landscaper, who owns that parcel. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know -- Cullen owns pieces of property all over Collier County. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, it's a useless piece of property, and particularly when he passes away, you know, his heirs are not going to want to sit there with a useless piece of property. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, that's probably long off. 41 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It could be. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Any other questions, comments? Yes, sir. MR. NADEL: I'd just like to offer an informational comment. I'm your neighbor, Dick Nadel (phonetic) for Saturnia. I'm the commercial realtor who has been representing the Cleary family for the last couple of years on this property. I also sold the big piece of property to GL Homes. Just so you know, that property could have gone a number of different directions. As a PUD, it was eligible to be a school, a church. I've been contacted by people who had a mosque, okay, Ractrac, gas stations. And the highest and best use for this property, to me, would be a high-end, you know, type of development that they're talking about here. You know, the owners of a property have a right to sell, of course. And you just want, you know -- we, as homeowners in Saturnia, want to make sure that it's, you know, it's going to be compatible with what we're doing. Something on -- it's upscale like Sandalwood or something similar to that would make a lot of 42 sense, more than a lot of the other possibilities, and I've seen them in the last two or three years. So I think they're doing the right thing. It will be the best for the folks. It could be a lot worse, I guarantee. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: 200 units on here seems like an awfully high density to say this is high-end property. MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be the max. Everybody -- all the potential buyers don't need that much. Some need 150, 160, 180. So you don't know. You don't know until somebody actually puts a contract on it. MR. ARNOLD: And if I might just add to that. You don't really know until one of the senior housing providers comes along. Some do memory care and have many smaller units than you would typically find if you were just, you know, Moorings Park, where you're selling a very much luxury lifestyle of several thousand square foot units. So until we know what that mix is, you just don't know. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But I think, in this area, you want it to be high end. This is a high-end area around here, and you don't want to be W91 overly dense. And, you know, keep the real estate values. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Those are the kind of people that we've been talking to, by the way, higher end. It makes a lot of sense. MR. ARNOLD: And these places are, you know, one, they have to provide dining facilities. They've got to provide a wellness center. They're highly amenitized places. So they are high end. It's not -- it's not just -- I mean, 200 units sounds like a lot of units, but it's usually one or two people in those units. A lot of times, there's just one person in those units, but they have high -- they have lots of amenities within that facility, because -- and they have transportation that takes them to and from where they want to go. So it's a community that they're very close knit, companionship, they're not going, traveling about a lot. They've got what they need right there for themselves. And it is going to be a high-end community. I don't -- I think Sandalwood is somewhere around $4,000 a month. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Close to it, yes. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I mean, that's not inexpensive. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But just, as an example, what size are the Sandalwood units square footage -wise? MR. ARNOLD: You know, I was afraid you were going to ask me that. I don't know. I do know that -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Are they like two bedroom, one bedroom? MR. ARNOLD: Some are. MR. YOVANOVICH: Most of them are -- they are two bedrooms. They have some two bedrooms. A lot of them are one bedrooms, because they are single people. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There are studios also, just to (indiscernible). MR. YOVANOVICH: There may be some studios, but I think most of them are, you know, a ONE bedroom with a living room. And a lot of them have the cooking facilities, but then -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible). MR. YOVANOVICH: But they like to know they can if they want to. It's a nice little apartment for people that don't want to have their own condo 45 or house. Any other questions or comments? All right. Well, I thank you and I thank you for coming, and have a good evening. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you all. (Recording concluded.) M STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 1. The foregoing transcript contains a full, true and correct transcript of proceedings in the above -entitled matter, transcribed by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a digital audio recording. 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or employed by any of the parties in the above -entitled cause. 3. I am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this case. DATED: May 7, 2017 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: Joyce B. Howell SATURNIA LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 1310SATURN7AGRANDE DRIVE NAPLES. FLORIDA 34119 239-591-1893 Fax 239-591-8260 September 21, 2017 To the Board of County Commissioners: Attached are 200 petitions from the property owners of Saturnia Lakes who oppose the proposal for rezone PUDZ-PL20160001985, Cleary Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) located in the vicinity of Immokalee Road and Saturnia Lakes Blvd. The proposed use of the property is for residential and/or group housing for seniors. We urge the Board to deny the rezone for the following reasons: 1: The applicant(s) have requested a zoned height of 45-50 feet for group housing; the proposed height exceeds that of all other buildings in the area. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new projects to be compatible with and complimentary to surrounding land uses. The proposed density and proposed group housing height of 45-50 feet is significantly larger or higher than immediately adjacent to Saturnia Lakes and other residential developments in the area. We are asking the Board of County Commissioners not to rezone to the proposed RPUD and to keep density and the height of the buildinns in the neighborhood similar to residential properties in the community. 2. The applicant(s) have requested a rezone for group housing. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new projects to be compatible with and complimentary to surrounding land uses. Group housing use is more similar to an institutional/commercial type of land use than a residential land use which is clearly incompatible with Saturnia Lakes residential development. In addition, the proposed 200 units of group housing proposed will be immediately adjacent to Saturnia Lakes which would impact Saturnia Lake homeowner property values. Please maintain the value of our communitiesl The Saturnia Lakes Homeowners Proposal: The proposed use of the property should be limited to residential development only. Professionally Managol by KNy Property.Nianagement Email: Sanim_ iaManageraconuast.net • Salumia.AdminRacoml ast.net Exhibit D Letter to Board of Collier County Commissioners We, the property owners of Saturnia Lakes oppose and object the proposal for rezone PUDZ-PL20160001985, Cleary Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) located In the vicinity of Immokalee Road and Saturnia Lakes Blvd. The proposed use of the property is for residential and / or group housing for seniors. We urge the Board of County Commissioners to deny the rezone for the following reasons. 1 -- The applicant(s) have requested a zoned height of 45-50 feet for group housing; the proposed height exceeds that of all other buildings in the area. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new projects to be compatible with and complementary to surrounding land uses. The proposed density and proposed group housing building height of 45-50 feet is significantly larger or higher than the Immediately adjacent Saturnia Lakes and other residential developments In the area. We are asking the Board of County Commissioners not to rezone to the proposed RPUD and to keep the density and the height of buildings in the neighborhood similar to residential properties in the community. 2 — The applicant(s) have requested a rezone for group housing. Future Land Use Element (FLUF„LPollcy 5.4 requires new projects to be compatible with and complementary to surrounding land uses. Group(tVusing use is more similar to an institutional/commercial type of land use than a residential land use which Is clearly Incompatible with the Saturnia Lakes residential development. In addition, the proposed 200 units of group housing proposed will be immediately adjacent to Saturnia Lakes which would likely impact Saturnia Lake homeowner property values. Please maintain the value of our communitiesl Saturnla Lakes -Homeowner Proposal: The proposed use of the property should be limited to a residential development only. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUE PLEASE USE YOUR FLORIDA ADDRESS WHEN SIGNING THIS PETITION. Sincerely, nature) Saturnia Lakes Homeowner Name (please print) Saturnia Lakes Homeowner address: wuw Example of signed petition - 200+ individually signed petitions such as this were received. ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE CLEARY RPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 63 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR 200 GROUP HOUSING UNITS FOR SENIORS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE EAST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.99+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Raymond J. Cleary, Jr., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a [16 -CPS -01618/1362162/1] 97 - 8/31/17 Cleary RPUD PUDZ-PL20160001985 Page I Exhibit A C7(() project to be known as the Cleary RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 63 residential dwelling units or 200 group housing units for seniors, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State, PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney By: PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman tg1/1/r7 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 -01618/1362162/11 97 - 8/31/17 Cleary RPUD P UDZ-PL20160001985 Page 2 EXHIBIT A FOR CLEARY RPUD Regulations for development of the Cleary Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum development density of 63 residential dwelling units or 200 units of group housing for seniors shall be permitted within the RPUD. Construction of more than 36 residential dwellings requires the developer to demonstrate that they have transferred 1 dwelling unit per acre from Sending Lands consistent with the infill provisions of the Future Land Use Element and Exhibit F.2 of this PUD document. The FAR shall govern group housing units. 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: MIXED USE: A. Principal Uses: 1. Group housing for seniors including assisted living, continuing care retirement communities, skilled nursing, memory care and independent living facilities at an FAR of up to 0.6 (See Exhibit A Item C, Operational Requirements for Group Housing and Exhibit E, Deviation #1); 2. Residential Dwelling Units a. Single-family, including detached, zero lot line, two family and duplex; b. Townhouse; C. Multi -family; 3. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Garages and/or carports. 2. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 3. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas, and related uses, subject to the procedures for a temporary use permit provided in the LDC. 4. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls. Cleary RPUD Exhibits A-F_v4.docx Page 1 of 8 August 23, 2017 CA€i 5. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in this RPUD, including recreational facilities, such as swimming pool, clubhouse, fitness center and maintenance facilities. 6. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses for this RPUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or the Hearing Examiner. C. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing for seniors uses shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall have the option to be equipped to notify the community staff in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. PRESERVE A. Allowable Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting, as per LDC requirements. 3. Passive Recreation areas, as per LDC requirements. 4. Water management and water management structures, as per LDC requirements. Cleary RPUD Exhibits A-F_v4.docx Page 2 of 8 August 23, 2017 EXHIBIT B FOR CLEARY RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Cleary RPUD. 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. STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE TOWNHOUSE TWO FAMILY& DUPLEX MULTI- FAMILY GROUP HOUSING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 1,600 SF 1,600 SF 10,000 SF N/A Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 40 feet 16 feet 16 feet 100 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback(') 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0/5 feet(Z) 0 feet 0 or 5 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback(') 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 20 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned Actual 30 feet 40 feet 30 feet 40 feet 30 feet 40 feet 30 feet 40 feet 40 feet 50 feet 45 feet 50 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Greater of 20 feet or Y2 BH Greater of 20 feet or 1/1 BH Minimum Floor Area 1,250 SF 1,250 SF 1,250 SF 1,250 SF 1,000 SF N/A Minimum Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES(3) Minimum Front Yard Setback(') 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet (Z) 0 feet (2) 0 feet (Z) 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback(') 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned Actual 25 feet 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet 35 feet 45 feet 35 feet 45 feet BH; Building Height—Zoned 0) Measured to edge of pavement or back of curb (single-family front entry garages shall have a 23' setback from back of sidewalk). (E) Must be at least 10 feet between structures. M Structures such as gatehouses, walls and decorative architectural treatments shall have no setback from property line. (41 Landscape Buffer Easements and/or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not be within a platted residential lot. Where a home site abuts a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts, the accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero (0) feet where it abuts the casement. Cleary RPUD Exhibits A-F—v4.docx Page 3 of 8 August 23, 2017 C 9� T N IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR846) 100' RIGHT-OF-WAY /-20' WIDE TYPE'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER o® SCALE: 1° = 100' �T --- ------ - - - POTENTIAL - INTERCONNECTIONN ]ATA L SITE AREA: 8.99±AC RESIDENTIAL 5.361 AC I' PRESERVE 1.07±AC WATER MANAGEMENT 1.0±AC BUFFERS/OPEN SPACE .513± AC I PUD BOUNDARY ZONED: A I 1 UNDEVELOPED 10' WIDE TYPE W LANDSCAPE BUFFER I MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 63 MAXIMUM GROUP HOUSING UNITS: 200 MAXIMUM DENSITY: 7 DU/AC PRESERVE: REQUIRED -1.071 ACRES (7.131 ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X 15%) PROVIDED - 1.071 ACRES OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL: 5,4±AC(66%) 5.41 AC (60%) GROUP HOUSING: 2.71 AC (30%) 2.7t AC (30%) I NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS _ SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO I 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 REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 4.06.02 AND LDC SECTION 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. A MINIMUM 6 -FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER MUST BE RESERVED FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WHICH SHALL BE ADDED OUTSIDE OF THE PRESERVE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE TO ACHIEVE THE 80% OPACITY REQUIREMENT WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. (OENzSii /C, WATER MANAGEMENT O.E. ANDA.E) /rfrlf//frf/"'I ATURN!i II A LA TRA3T KES 15'L.B.E.PPAE(PB36PG56) II %/ CONIC EPTUAL- i/ ' RESIDENTIAL ' I BUILDING I I I 111 � I 1�5' WIDE LANDSCAPE I BUFFER I � SS RIGAS PUD RESIDENTIAL CONCEPTUAL I I m RESIDENTIAL I BUILDING I `S I Y II z° III m II I� III I CONCEPTUAL I� RESIDENTIAL BUILDING �I tlt PUD BOUNDARY SA' L III •RRLSERVa I \ 15'WIDE TVPE'8' e . I LANDSCAPE BUFFER RIGAS PUD APPROX. RESIDENTIAL DISCHARGE SATURN/A LAKES PLAT ONE LOCATION (PB 36, PG 56-65) 15' WIDE TYPE 'B' TRACT"OS15" LANDSCAPE BUFFER (OPEN SPACE, O.E. AND A.E.) LAKES ®Gra6yMlnnr REVISED ^„.• °•'�,„” cRHINlert C c oenalzav :nyl reoelii �? •,�u y",".� llao�.,. L,,,,u +n"�ml �l.xu ASTER PIAN fIPII�9m4!@[LE@® R6®I IR ®IIIOOI°-11®lilllviltsi®IEl01�1A m_RM NTJ111®R'w ! �7n EXHIBIT D FOR CLEARY RPUD PARCEL 1 (OR 2651, PG 2615) THE WEST HALF (W 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL 2 (OR 2216, PG 252) THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER AND STATE OF FLORIDA PARCELS 1 & 2 CONTAINING 8.99 ACRES MORE OR LESS COMBINED Cleary RPUD Exhibits A-F_v4.docx Page 5 of 8 August 23, 2017 7 EXHIBIT E FOR CLEARY RPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 which establishes a maximum FAR of 0.45 for group housing to instead permit a maximum FAR of 0.60. Cleary RPUD Exhibits A-F_v4.docx Page 6 of 8 August 23, 2017 C EXHIBIT F FOR CLEARY RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL a. The RPUD shall be required to preserve 15% of native vegetation. 7.13± acres of native vegetation exists on-site requiring a minimum preservation of 1.07± acres (7.13 x .15 = 1.07) of native vegetation to be retained. A management plan for Florida black bear shall be submitted for review and approval at time of final plat or SDP for the project, whichever is applicable. The portion of the 30 -foot ROW easement within the preserve will need to be vacated or released prior to final plat or SDP approval, whichever is applicable. 2. PLANNING TDR credits shall be utilized in accordance with the requirements of LDC Section 2.03.07D.4.g. A maximum of 63 dwelling units are permitted in the PUD, of which 36 units are derived from the allowable base density and 27 units are derived from density bonus; of the density bonus, 9 units shall be derived from TDR Credits severed and transferred from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands consistent with the provisions of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Commencing with submittal of the first development order that utilizes TDR credits (beginning with the 37th unit), a TDR calculation sheet shall be submitted documenting that the developer has acquired all TDR credits needed for that portion of the development. The calculation sheet tracks the chronological assignment of TDR credits with respect to all subsequent development orders until the maximum density allowed by the utilization of TDR credits has been reached (all TDR credits allowing residential development reach a zero balance). PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Raymond J. Cleary, Jr., 3120 60th Street SW, Naples, FL 34116. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner Cleary RPUD Exhibits A-F_v4.docx Page 7 of 8 August 23, 2017 & and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. MISCELLANEOUS a. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. (Section 125.022, FS) b. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 5. TRANSPORTATION a. The project shall be limited to a maximum of 85 PM peak hour two-way trips. 6. LANDSCAPING a. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic removal in accordance with LDC Section 4.06.02 and LDC Section 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07. A minimum 6 - foot wide landscape buffer must be reserved for additional landscape material which shall be added outside of the preserve on the development side to achieve the 80% opacity requirement within 6 months of the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Cleary RPUD Exhibits A-F_v4.docx Page 8 of 8 August 23, 2017 9 Agenda Item 9C COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PL2O180002167 alee RD PROJECT © --�---- LOC AT IN CO 4 —1--\\Ar I 175 � Vanderbilt Beach RD Goiden Gale BLVD Y4 ( Plneiidge RD 4. 2015 CYCLE GMP AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) Project/Petition#PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 (Companion PL20150002166) CCPC: OCTOBER 5, 2017 (Continued from 9/21/2017) BCC: OCTOBER 24, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC— 2015 CYCLE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ADOPTION HEARING PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 CCPC October 5, 2017 [Zoning Companion PL20150002166] 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENT: Adoption Ordinance w/Exhibit A: PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 3) TAB: Transmittal Executive Summary DOCUMENT: Transmittal Executive Summary PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 4) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: Transmittal Staff Report PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 5) TAB: NIM Meeting Notes DOCUMENT: Neighborhood Information Mtg. Notes— PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 6) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution w/ExhibitA Text- PL20160001100/CP-2015-2 7) TAB: Legal Advertising DOCUMENT: CCPC Adoption Advertisement PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 & Companion PL2015002166 8) TAB: Project/Petition DOCUMENT: Project Application PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 Co e-� cwrnty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2017 SUBJECT: 2015 CYCLE 3, SINGLE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) Transmittal hearings on the amendment were held on February 16, 2017 (CCPC, Collier County Planning Commission)and on April 11, 2017 (Board). The Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented further below, following the petition number and title. Within CCPC materials provided, you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the Board hearing, and the Transmittal CCPC staff report for the petition, which provides staff's detailed analysis of the petition. In accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3)(b)1., F.S., pertaining to the Expedited State Review Process, this Transmittal package was provided to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other reviewing agencies on April 17, 2017. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS After review of the Transmitted amendment within each reviewing agency's authorized scope of review, the DEO rendered its Comment Letter indicating "no comment", as did the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review. FDOT commented specifically, as follows: The proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact important State transportation resources or facilities. Trips associated with this commercial development are considered local in nature and continue to contribute to and further exacerbate the long-term failure of 1-75. Although this amendment does not involve new or different plans or designs for the roadway network, FDOT reminds the County that they offer several "context sensitive" initiatives that minimize transportation impacts and encourage all modes of transportation, planned and designed in harmony with the surrounding land use characteristics. The Comments Letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide a Comment Letter. Within CCPC materials provided is an Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text for the petition; this exhibit reflects the text as approved by the Board for Transmittal. - 1 - STAFF REPORT ON THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE 2015 CYCLE THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSED AMENDMENT PETITION PL20150002167/CP-2015-2, requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element to revise the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed Use District, to add the previously-requested 150,000 square feet of commercial uses for the 14.49± acre tract per Petition No. CP-2003-1 and to add 50,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area to this same tract, both added to the existing 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, for up to a maximum of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of commercial uses; to remove a development restriction related to transportation impacts; and, to amend and re-order the text. The subject Subdistrict is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road approximately one-quarter mile west of Collier Boulevard in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 47.94± acres. This petition seeks to revise the Vanderbilt Beach-Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to increase the overall commercial square footage up to 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of commercial uses. The Subdistrict allows development of the permitted and conditional uses of the C-4 zoning district, and the Hearing Examiner (HEX)-approved enclosed mini- and self-storage warehousing facility, with specific provisions for prohibiting certain uses [gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores]. Residential uses are allowed in mixed-use buildings at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre, based on the Subdistrict's 14.49-acre expansion area. Revisions also seek to remove a specific development restriction which is no longer relevant. Retail businesses are limited to single-story buildings, while financial services, offices, and mixed-use buildings are limited to three stories. Note:A companion PUD amendment petition is scheduled for this same hearing. TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To Transmit to DEO. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 4/1). BOARD ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 4/0), per CCPC recommendation. ADOPTION Following Transmittal, staff collaborated in formally reviewing companion PUD amendment application materials. Those application materials were subsequently revised, in part, from their earlier versions. Together, the application team, staff and other County personnel collaborated on changes that would have the provisions of both requests consistent with each other as we reach Adoption consideration - including the most-recent changes based on the treatment of numbers in 2017 "batch" GMP amendments. The attached Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text reflects the Board Transmittal, but the version of Subdistrict provisions recommended here varies slightly from the version Transmitted, as noted below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC modify Subdistrict provisions to follow the ongoing changes in Plan elements that technically standardize the use of written numbers and their parenthetical numerals, as follows, and forward the single, 2015 Cycle 3 petition to the Board with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. - 2 - STAFF REPORT ON THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE 2015 CYCLE THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Note:Words underlined are added,words ctruck through are deleted-as proposed in Transmittal; words double underlined are added,words double struck through are deleted-as proposed for Adoption. 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict [page 37] (Paragraphs are re-arranged) This Subdistrict is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, consisting of approximately 47.94 acres, comprised of 33.45 acres of land for the existing area and -1-5,88 14.49 acres of land for the expansion area, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. The intent of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas, as well as to promote mixed-use development (residential uses over commercial uses). The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residents, assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this part of Collier County. This Subdistrict is further intended to create a neighborhood focal point and any development within this Subdistrict will be designed in a manner to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. __•.-. _. • e - .. as iii - -- gross leasable floor area. Transportation Element, approval of any subsequent rezone petition for the subject property by Issuance of further development orders until all impacted roadways are no longer deficient or development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with and tiro stores. the project is used in calculating residential density. Retail uses shall be limited to single story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three ' -- --- • -_ - e.-. - - - . . --. • - • •• - _ - common site, signage and building architectural elements. Each project or PUD District shall To encourage mixed use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development when located in a mixed-use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maximum density of sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre; the gross acreage of the project is used in calculating residential density. -3 — STAFF REPORT ON THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE 2015 CYCLE THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Retail uses shall be limited to single-story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three (3) stories. A combination of these uses in a single building — financial services and/or offices over retail uses — shall be limited to three cal stories. Also, mixed-use buildings, containing residential uses over commercial uses, shall be limited to three (3)stories. All principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries for each foot of building height. Development within each project or vet to be established Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall be required to have common site, siqnaqe and building architectural elements. Each project or PUD District shall provide for both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with abutting properties, where feasible. Rezonings are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district, which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with neighboring residential and institutional uses. In addition to retail uses and other uses permitted in the Plan, financial institutions, business services, and professional and medical offices shall be permitted. A total of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area is permitted within this Subdistrict as follows: Development intensity for the existing area (Mission Hills Planned Unit Development) of this Subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Within the 14.49-acre expansion area, 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial land uses is permitted. The following land uses shall not be permitted: gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores. LEGAL REVIEW This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on August 23, 2017. [HFAC] [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] -4- STAFF REPORT ON THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE 2015 CYCLE THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PREPAREDnnBY: V0-1 A. ___•.. w IP DATE: / CORBY SCHMIDT,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: / DATE: 61.6 ^() k-o, hN'It loco/) DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: _,----- 7, 7,------ DATE: G_. 17 MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APED BY: DATE: f'"-I g" /---- .� 7 AMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2015 Cycle 3 GMPA-Adoption (petition PL20150002167/CP-2015-2). DEO no.17-1 ESR Staff Report for the September 21, 2017, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This single petition 2015.2 Cycle GMPA has been scheduled for the October 24, 2017, Board Meeting. - 5 - STAFF REPORT ON THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE 2015 CYCLE THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 17- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO REVISE THE VANDERBILT BEACH/COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ADD THE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES FOR THE 14.492 ACRE TRACT PER PETITION NO. CP-2003-1; TO ADD 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA TO THE EXISTING 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES AND THE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED 150,000 SF OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES FOR A TOTAL OF 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES; TO REMOVE A DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS; TO AMEND AND RE-ORDER THE TEXT; AND PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT SUBDISTRICT IS 47.94± ACRES AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1h MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20150002167] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Community Planning Act, formerly the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Petitioner, Vanderbilt Commons, LLC has initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use element; and [15-CMP-00959/1355492/1]215 8/2/17 Page I of 3 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions *** *** *** *** are a break in text WHEREAS, Collier County transmitted the Growth Management Plan amendments to the Department of Economic Opportunity for preliminary review on April 17, 2017, after public hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Opportunity reviewed the amendments to the Future Land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its comments in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and WHEREAS, Collier County, has 180 days from receipt of the Comments Report from the Department of Economic Opportunity to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and analysis supporting adoption of these amendments, including the following: the Collier County Staff Report, the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendments and other documents, testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission held on September 21, 2017, and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on October 24, 2017; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The amendments to the Future Land Use Element attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order [15-CMP-00959/1355492/1]215 8/2/17 Page 2 of 3 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions *** *** *** ***are a break in text determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commenced before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A -text [15-CMP-00959/1355492/11 215 8/2/17 Page 3 of 3 Words underlined are additions; Words struck through are deletions *** *** *** *** are a break in text • P L20150002167/C P-2015-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Urban Mixed Use District [Page 37] 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (Paragraphs are re-arranged) This Subdistrict is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, consisting of approximately 47.94 acres, comprised of 33.45 acres of land for the existing area and 45,88 14.49 acres of land for the expansion area, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. The intent of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas, as well as to promote mixed-use development (residential uses over commercial uses). The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residents, assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this part of Collier County. This Subdistrict is further intended to create a neighborhood focal point and any development within this Subdistrict will be designed in a manner to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. of gross leasable floor area. -- issuance of fu her development orders until-all impacted roadways are no longer deficient or through lanes, and tire stores. Retail uses shah be limited to single story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to over retail uses shall be limited to three stories. Also, mixed use buildings, sentaining residential uses over commercial uses, shall be limited to three stories. All principal buildings shall be set back-a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries far each foot of 1 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. PL20150002167/C P-2015-2 properties. To encourage mixed use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development when located in a mixed-use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre; the gross acreage of the project is used in calculating residential density. Retail uses shall be limited to single-story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three stories. A combination of these uses in a single building —financial services and/or offices over retail uses — shall be limited to three stories. Also, mixed-use buildings, containing residential uses over commercial uses, shall be limited to three stories. All principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries for each foot of building height. Development within each project or yet to be established Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall be required to have common site, signage and building architectural elements. Each project or PUD District shall provide for both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with abutting properties, where feasible. Rezonings are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district, which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with neighboring residential and institutional uses. In addition to retail uses and other uses permitted in the Plan, financial institutions, business services, and professional and medical offices shall be permitted. A total of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area is permitted within this Subdistrict as follows: Development intensity for the existing area_iMission Hills Planned Unit Development) of this Subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Within the 14.49-acre expansion area, 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial land uses is permitted. The following land uses shall not be permitted: gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores. 2 Words underlined are added; words str-usk-thy# are deleted. {' +t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the single petition within the 2015 Cycle 3 of Growth Management Plan Amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review and Comments response, for an amendment specific to the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road approximately one-quarter mile west of Collier Boulevard. (Transmittal Hearing)(CP-2015-2/PL20150002167) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners(Board)to approve the single petition in the 2015 Cycle 3 of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for transmittal to the Florida Depaitment of Economic Opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163,F.S.,provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Plan. • Collier County Resolution 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the GMP. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2015 Cycle 3 petition on February 16,2017(one petition only, CP-2015-2/PL20150002167). • This Transmittal hearing for the 2015 Cycle 3 considers an amendment to the Future Land Use Element(FLUE). The GMP amendment requested is specific to a site comprising approximately 14.49 acres of the larger Subdistrict and is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and approximately one- quarter mile west of Collier Boulevard(CR 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The subject site encompasses the Carolina Village MPUD, is already approved for 150,000 sq. ft. of office and retail commercial uses, 64 residential units over commercial uses, and preserve — and is currently under development. Petition CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 seeks to amend the FLUE text of the GMP to revise the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to: 1) add 50,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of commercial land uses to the 150,000 square feet in the (originally) 15.88-acre expansion area,which is the site of the Carolina Village PUD,resulting in a total of 400,000 square feet of commercial land uses in the entire Subdistrict;2)remove a development restriction related to transportation impacts;and, 3)amend and re-order the text. One-half of these 400,000 square feet will be allocated to each of the two Planned Unit Developments within the Subdistrict. The Mission Hills PUD portion is not involved with any of the changes proposed by this amendment. The 200,000 square feet that is allocated to the Carolina Village PUD is split between the 150,000 sq. ft.previously requested in 2003, and the additional 50,000 square feet that is the subject of this request, CP-2015-2/PL20150002167. The 2003 GMP amendment did not carry over the 150,000 square footage to the adoption ordinance, so it is included in this amendment. The net effect is an increase of 50,000 square feet of building floor area in the Carolina Village PUD. The following findings and conclusions result from the reviews and analyses of this request: • A number of documents submitted with this application confirm that the 150,000 overall maximum square footage and the 60,000/90,000 office/retail square footage split were requested in the original 2003 GMP amendment application; however, it did not carry over to the adoption ordinance. - 1 - • The infrastructure needed to serve the development can be provided without related levels of service or concurrency concerns. • The impact from the development on the environment does not pose concerns, including historic or archaeological sites. • Documentation submitted confirms that small pieces of land have been, or are being, dedicated to the County,thereby reducing the size of the property from the original 15.88 acres to 14.49 acres. • The property is presently zoned "Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD", and the site is partially developed with a self-storage facility,building pads, infrastructure, street improvements, etc. • The property is presently designated in the GMP for commercial development. The amendment increases commercial square feet within the existing commercially-designated site;the net effect is an increase of 50,000 sq. ft. of building floor area. The amendment does not carry over the previously-requested commercial split of 60,000 sq.ft. for offices and 90,000 sq. ft. for retail. • Based on data and analysis submitted for the supply of, and demand for, existing and potential commercial development within the study area for the subject property,the need for the additional commercial floor area contemplated by this amendment has been demonstrated. This location fulfills the localized need to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas. • Correlating amendments to the Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD may be submitted subsequent to, or concurrent with,the Adoption phase of this GMPA application. The data and analysis provided for the amendment generally supports the proposed changes to the FLUE. Additional staff analysis of this petition is provided in the CCPC Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts to Collier County result from this amendment, as this approval is for the Transmittal of this proposed amendment. Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of associated legal advertising/public notice for the public hearings. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment by the Board for Transmittal and its submission to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity will commence the Depaitiiient's thirty (30) day review process and ultimately return the amendment to the CCPC and the Board for Adoption hearings tentatively to be held in July and September of 2017. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan amendment is authorized by,and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234,as amended.The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: "plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to,surveys, studies,community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment.To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." 163.3177(1)(f),FS In addition, s. 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area,as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies,public facilities, and services. -2 - non- conforming n- II e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of o conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. This item is approved as to form and legality. A majority vote is needed for Board approval for this transmittal hearing. However,please note if approved today,the item will require an affirmative vote of four when this item returns for the adoption hearing of the GMP amendment. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of the petition with the specific revisions to the applicant's proposed Subdistrict text(for proper code language,format,clarity,etc.only—not intended to change allowable uses, intensities,development standards,or other items of substance)as contained in the staff report to the CCPC. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their February 16,2017 meeting. There was discussion by the CCPC about allowing coffee shops with drive-through lanes, as this use is currently one of those uses not permitted in the Subdistrict("fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes"). Staff presented new language regarding an exception for coffee shops from those not-permitted uses,which was not part of staff's recommendation to the CCPC. Following discussion and consideration of an exception for coffee shops, the CCPC did not endorse this special exception. Seven speakers made presentations in the CCPC hearing. Most of the concerns stated were pertinent to the companion PUD and an outside, third-party agreement. Speakers were clear however, in their desire for retaining the current prohibition on certain commercial uses, and in their opposition to any specific exceptions. The CCPC forwards petition CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 to the Board with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity with the staff-recommended revisions (vote: 4/1) except for the allocation of 95,550 square feet(of the 200,000 square feet total)to self-storage use, and except for the allocation of remaining square feet to retail and office land uses. The CCPC also recommended the addition of a parenthetical reference to the Mission Hills PUD that comprises the acreage of the original subdistrict property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: To transmit petition CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity per the CCPC recommendation. Prepared by: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section,Zoning Division -3 - Agenda Item 9, v e-r ..:vu- -rty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: February 16, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION CP-2015-2 / PL20150002167, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) APPLICANTS/OWNERS/AGENTS: Vanderbilt Commons, LLC - Ralph Cioffi, Manager c/o Welsh Companies of Florida, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103 Fred Hood, AICP Bruce Anderson, Esq. Davidson Engineering, Inc. Cheffy Passidomo, PA 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 821 5th Avenue South Naples, Florida 34104 Naples, Florida 34102 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises approximately , 0 .: ," 14.49 acres (originally 15.88) and is located on ` '`$� " - R the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CRet ' t - d .Y 862) approximately one-quarter mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 34, `- ' y Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The ' , i 7 aje‘ , ;t`j.1 1 'i-;:.;:r, k subject property is a component of the larger, 47.94-acre (originally 49.33) parent Vanderbilt a ° e Beach / Collier Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict, r.._,_,.= . µ `° ""'` which encompasses two geographic areas; the easterly "existing area" (33.45 acres) and the Existing Area westerly "expansion area" (originally 15.88 "- " [ acres). (Urban Estates Planning Community) REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) to revise the Vanderbilt Beach / Collier Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict to: 1) add 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of commercial land uses in the (originally) 15.88- acre expansion area, which is the site of the Carolina Village PUD (150,000 sq. ft. was requested as part of the 2003 GMP amendment to expand the Subdistrict but was not actually included in the Subdistrict text though the Carolina Village PUD is approved for that 150,000 sq. ft., plus an - 1 — CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. additional 50,000 sq. ft.), resulting in a total of 400,000 square feet of commercial land uses in the entire Subdistrict; 2) remove a development restriction related to transportation impacts; and, 3) amend and re-order the text. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The amendment proposes to add a previously-requested 150,000 square feet (sq. ft.) allotment of commercial space per petition no. CP-2003-1, increase the maximum floor area from 150,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 200,000 sq. ft., and remove a development restriction related to transportation commitments—now met. The net effect of this amendment is to allow an additional 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. [Note that, while this amendment recognizes and corrects the gross leaseable 150,000 sq. ft. figure, it does not recognize or include the (also) previously requested split in 2005 between 90,000 sq.ft. retail and 60,000 sq.ft. office uses. No allotment of commercial space differentiates retail space from office space in the current request] STAFF ANALYSIS: SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: Subject Property: The (original) 15.88-acre "expansion area" subject property is zoned Carolina Village Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD). This acreage has since been reduced to 14.49 acres by the dedication in fee simple of small, adjacent land areas to Pristine Drive and Buckstone Drive. This PUD is approved for 150,000 sq. ft. of office and retail commercial uses, 64 residential units over commercial uses, and preserve area — and a portion is currently being developed with a self-storage facility. [Note that, while the Carolina Village MPUD provides for this 150,000 overall square footage maximum, it does not divide this total between 90,000 sq. ft. retail and 60,000 sq. ft. office uses as requested in CP-2003-1.] The 33.45-acre"existing area" portion of the parent Subdistrict is zoned Mission Hills PUD. This PUD is approved for 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial,financial, health and office uses, and preserve areas. Of the 200,000 sq. ft. approved, 121,817 sq. ft. have been developed — with two undeveloped outlots remaining. The current Future Land Use Map designation for these properties is the Urban Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict. Surrounding Lands: North: A large portion of bounding lands to the north of the subject"expansion area" property are zoned Residential PUD (Wolf Creek, aka Black Bear Ridge), approved for a variety of residential uses (754 residential units), and preserve and open space. Of the 754 residential units approved, 162 single- family units and 118 multi-family units have been built. The area north of the"existing area"property is zoned MPUD(Sonoma Oaks),which allows for 120,000 sq. ft. of commercial and office uses, single- and multi-family residential uses (up to 114 residential units)or a senior housing facility(up to 456 units), and essential services (including a County well site and pump house), and preserve areas. This PUD is currently undeveloped. The current Future Land Use Map designation of these lands is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. East: Land to the east of the subject"expansion area" property is zoned Mission Hills PUD. The Mission Hills property is reaching commercial (grocery store, automotive service centers, convenience store, eating establishment, commercial strip center, branch bank, etc.) buildout. The current Future Land Use Map designation is also Urban Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict. This is the 33.45-acre "existing area" portion of the Subdistrict. —2— CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. South: A vast majority of the land to the south of the subject property, across Vanderbilt Beach Road, is zoned Estates and developed with estate residences. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates this estate residential area Estates Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict West: Land to the west of the subject property is zoned Residential PUD (Wolf Creek, aka Portofino Falls), approved for residential uses (754 residential units), and preserve and open space. Of the 754 residential units approved, 162 single-family units and 118 multi-family units have been built. The current Future Land Use Map designation of this land area is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. In summary, the existing land uses in the area immediately surrounding the subject property are predominately urban residential in nature to the west and north; estates residential to the south; and, commercial to the east (within the "existing area" of the Subdistrict). A place of worship is located farther east, across Collier Blvd. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Requirements for Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., Specifically Sections 163.3177(6)(a) 2. and 8.: Considerations required for the adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment are listed below. 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. —3— CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as necessary, that data and analysis. Application Exhibit "T", the Narrative & Justification of the Proposed GMP Amendment, addresses these requirements. BACKGROUND, CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS: Future Land Use and Zoning History: • 1998—The first PUD, the Golden Pond PUD, is designated for the 33.45-acre property at the northwest quadrant of the Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, to allow up to 75 multi-family dwelling units. This PUD would remain undeveloped. • 2001 —The GMP amendment is approved to establish the [subject] Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict, to allow up to 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses, financial institutions, business services, and professional and medical offices on the same 33.45-acre property. • 2003 — The next PUD, the Mission Hills PUD, replaces Golden Pond on the 33.45-acre property at the northwest quadrant of the Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, to allow 200,000 sq. ft. of general commercial uses. • 2005 — The GMP amendment is approved to expand the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict, which prohibits certain commercial uses considered incompatible with residential uses in the mixed-use setting. The adoption Ordinance for the Subdistrict, unintentionally omitted language for an additional amount of commercial floor area (150,000 sq. ft.), and its office— retail split (90,000 sq. ft./60,000 sq. ft.). • 2005—The Carolina Village MPUD is approved for the (original) 15.88-acre "expansion area" property at the northwest quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, to allow up to 150,000 sq.ft. of commercial uses and, up to 64 residential-over-commercial units. This MPUD does not include the gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores prohibited by Subdistrict provisions. Also, this MPUD does not include a square feet limitation for office/retail use categories. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Exhibit "A", and proposes to: • Correct a text omission from the formal adoption document related to the amount of commercial space allowed within the (original) 15.88-acre expansion area. The (then) petitioner requested a maximum floor area of 150,000 sq. ft. split between 90,000 sq. ft. retail and 60,000 sq. ft. office uses. These figures did/do not appear in the adoption Ordinance or FLUE however. • Increase the maximum commercial floor area from 150,000 sq. ft. to 200,000 sq. ft. within the (original) 15.88-acre expansion area. The 200,000 sq. ft. will be allocated to air conditioned and mini- and self-storage warehousing, retail and office uses. • Dedicate up to 95,550 sq. ft. of commercial floor area to air conditioned and mini-and self- storage warehousing within the (original) 15.88-acre expansion area. An air conditioned and enclosed self-storage facility has been determined to be comparable in nature to other permitted commercial uses (HEX(Hearing Examiner) decision: 11/19/2015]. —4— CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. • Increase the commercial density for the entire Subdistrict from [the corrected] 350,000 sq. ft. on (originally) 49.33 acres to 400,000 sq. ft. on 47.94 acres (7,095 sq. ft./ac. to 8,343 sq. ft./ac.). • Remove a development restriction related to transportation impacts. Note that the application provides a number of support materials, including Exhibit "T", the Narrative & Justification of the Proposed GMP Amendment, which provides CCPC Minutes from the May 2004 consideration of the request to approve the 15-acre "expansion area", and original application materials and revised FLUE Subdistrict language for the 15-acre "expansion area". The public has also submitted materials, including a signed petition of opposition and individual letters of concern. These materials are included in the documents being provided to you along with this Staff Report. The PUD related to this GMPA is the "Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD." An amendment to this PUD will become a companion item for consideration at the adoption stage of this GMP amendment. Applicant's Justifications: (Refer to application Exhibit "T", the Narrative & Justification of the Proposed GMP Amendment) The justifications for the proposed amendments stated in the Introduction section of the exhibit [with staff assessments in italics]are: • The square footage figure to be corrected was originally requested but was not added to the original GMP text language; [Staff Assessment: Acknowledged, as a number of documents submitted by the petitioner—as discussed and evident in public record, including minutes from meetings when the Subdistrict was under initial consideration — support this statement. The square footage cap was clearly requested to appear in Subdistrict language as a maximum of 150,000 sq. ft., with 90,000 and 60,000 sq. ft. split between retail and office uses.] • The additional 50,000 sq. ft. is requested for currently-permitted commercial uses; [Staff Assessment:Acknowledged, as the residential and commercial uses are already allowed in this Subdistrict, either by its original 2005 approval or by a 2015 HEX decision.] The applicant's narrative and justifications generally support the proposed GMP amendments. Commercial Analysis Commercial Development: The intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard is anchored by the subject Subdistrict and the Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict (on the west side of Collier Boulevard). The subject property lies within approximately 2 miles south of the Immokalee Road — Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center (No. 3), and within approximately 2 miles north of the Collier Boulevard — Pine Ridge Road Neighborhood Center. The Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict lies within approximately 3 miles south of the subject property. Three of these locations provide opportunities for commercial development as follows: • The Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict comprises±6.23 acres in the southwest quadrant of the Collier Boulevard — Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection, and is currently zoned for estate residential land uses. This Subdistrict has 41,490 undeveloped yet —5— CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. developable sq. ft. on approximately 3.93 acres available for low intensity office uses, medical uses, and financial institutions permitted whether by right or by conditional use, in the C-1 (Commercial Professional and General Office) zoning district. Undevelopable open space comprises the balance of the ±6.23-acre area. (The two parcels comprising this Subdistrict were acquired by Collier County in 2004 and 2006, and no longer provide opportunities for commercial development.) • The Collier Boulevard — Pine Ridge Road Neighborhood Center Subdistrict comprises approximately 30 acres in the northwest and southwest quadrants of the Collier Boulevard — Pine Ridge Road intersection; is zoned (NW) for ±182,000 sq. ft. of C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) uses and developed with a gas station-convenience store and commercial strip center and, Brooks Village Commercial PUD (SW),that is 22.7 acres in area providing up to 105,000 sq., ft. of C-3 uses with a grocery store, commercial strip center, branch bank, and pharmacy-convenience store. This Subdistrict has approximately 49,643 undeveloped yet developable sq. ft. on approximately 5.41 acres (net) available for Neighborhood Center Uses. • The Collier Boulevard — Immokalee Road Mixed Use Activity Center comprises approximately 120 acres in of all four quadrants of the Collier Boulevard — Immokalee Road intersection; is zoned for 541,000 sq. ft. of office and commercial uses, group/retirement housing facilities, essential services, hotels/motels, etc., as parts of Addie's Corner and Tree Farm MPUDs (NW) [fully undeveloped], Heritage Bay PUD (NE) [with an emergency-outpatient healthcare facility, pharmacy-convenience store, Cameron Corners commercial strip center] and, Richland PUD (SW) (aka Pebblebrook Lakes) [with eating establishments, pharmacy-convenience store, grocery store, animal hospital, branch banks, commercial strip center] and, agricultural uses (SE) [Pelican wholesale nursery]. This Activity Center has approximately one-half of its undeveloped yet developable sq. ft. remaining on ±80 acres (net) available for Activity Center Uses. Current PUD amendment applications pending approval for Addie's Corner and Tree Farm MPUDs may reduce this commercial floor area by±40,000 sq. ft. —leaving approximately 230,000 sq. ft. available for Activity Center Uses. • The Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill (GGECI) Subdistrict comprises ±10 acres in the northwest quadrant of the Collier Boulevard — Green Boulevard intersection, and is zoned for 83,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses in the Sungate Center Commercial PUD and partially developed [with a USPS facility]. This Subdistrict has approximately 68,874 undeveloped yet developable sq. ft. on ±6.50 acres (net) available for Commercial Infill Uses, which are low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and personal needs, and intermediate commercial uses to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic—similar to C-1, C-2 (Commercial Convenience), or C-3 zoning districts. The above-listed sites are located within the Support Area described in the Alternative Site Analysis submitted with this petition, and currently provide a total of nearly 806,000 sq. ft. of commercial space — while more than 421,433 sq. ft. already approved for commercial development have yet to be developed. Just one of the four locations allow more than C-3 intensity, intermediate commercial uses. This one site, the Immokalee Road — Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center, is either partially developed with only small parcels remaining (NE), agriculturally active (SE), fully developed commercially (SW) or, pending [re-]approval of mixed- use developments (NW) involving PUD and/or PDI changes that will allow up to 350 multi-family residential dwelling units and up to 75,000 sq. ft. of commercial development, or up to 135,000 sq. ft. of commercial development, and/or a retirement community/group housing, and/or a —6— CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. hotel/motel on a ±12.87 acre parcel; and, up to 281 multi-family residential dwelling units or 138 single-family residential dwelling units and up to 120,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail, and professional and medical office development on a ±18.69 acre parcel. If the proposed changes are approved for these two mixed-use PUDs located in the northwest quadrant of the Immokalee Road —Collier Boulevard intersection, the total amount of commercial space provided is closer to 766,000 sq. ft.—while the more than 348,517 sq. ft. that is approved for commercial development has yet to be developed. Sources: December 2015 Planned Unit Development(PUD) Master List (prepared and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Planning Section) and the Collier County Appraiser's Parcel and Building Footprint GIS databases. Generally, commercial development within a community can be categorized as strip commercial development, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, regional commercial, and so forth. Based on specific studies and/or demographic data for an area, such as population, income, household size, percentage of income spent on retail goods, etc., an analyst is able to estimate supportable commercial square feet for different commercial intensities for that geography by shopping center type. Petitioner's Market Demand Study: The firm of Davidson Engineering prepared an Alternative Site Analysis (Exhibit "N") dated October 2015, and revised through November 2016, as a "market study light" in support of the increased commercial square feet. This exhibit provides an evaluation of alternative sites within the site's "support area" that would function for the commercial uses found in this PUD. Comprehensive Planning staff utilized the Subdistrict's Support Area as described in the Alternative Site Analysis submitted with this petition and available County resources to conduct an evaluation of the CP-2015-2 proposal, with the following results: Market Study and Trade Area Analysis Section The Analysis studies a radial Support Area extending 3.5 miles from the subject property. Existing Local Population subsection Permanent population presently estimated in the Support Area is 38,304 (44,689 peak). Within the more-immediate, one-half mile area, the permanent population is estimated at 11,980 (13,977 peak). Proposed Population Growth subsection Year 2021 population in the Support Area is projected to be 44,002 (51,322 peak); while year 2026 population in the Support Area is projected to be 49,037 (57,187 peak). Existing Services subsection Ten (10) restaurants, coffee shops, and cafes are identified within 1.7 miles of the subject property; no others were reported within the 3.5 mile Support Area. Three (3) child care or pre-school facilities are identified within 2.3 miles of the subject property; no others were reported within the 3.5 mile Support Area. Thirteen (13)medical and general offices are identified within 1.8 miles of the subject property; no others were reported within the 3.5 mile Support Area. Seven (7)retail establishments are identified within 2.0 miles of the subject property; no others were reported within the 3.5 mile Support Area. —7— CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. Two (2) self-storage facilities are identified within 3.2 miles of the subject property; no others were reported within the 3.5 mile Support Area. Property Availability Section Alternative Site Analysis subsection Three key criteria for site development chosen by the petitioner are identified as those properties that are: 1) eligible for C-4 (General Commercial) zoning, 2) a minimum 10 acres in size, and 3) located with frontage on an arterial or collector roadway. These criteria were chosen to "provide an alternative site that will function for all proposed uses". Proposed Site Location subsection The subject property is a PUD providing commercial intensity ranging from C-3 to C-4, approximately 14.5 net developable acres, and frontage on Vanderbilt Beach Road — classified as a Minor Arterial roadway. Alternative Site Locations subsection The Alternative Site Analysis identified two alternative sites within the Support Area extending 3.5 miles from the subject property that meet all three (original] key criteria for site development; the ±17.26 acres (±12.87 net) acres in the Addie's Corner MPUD [allowing up to 135,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail and office development] and, the ±51.04 acres (±18.69 net) acres in the Tree Farm MPUD [allowing up to 175,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail and office development] located at the lmmokalee Road and Collier Boulevard intersection. Both locations pose limitations that make them less suitable, and are pending [re-]approval of their owners' proposed PUD and/or PDI changes to residential and commercial square feet in the mixed-use developments, making them unavailable. Conclusion The Alternative Site Analysis provided by the petitioner evaluated the commercial uses and the number of alternative sites meeting criteria for site development to conclude demand is evident for additional commercial development, of the type proposed with this amendment, within the subject property's support area. Staff Assessment: Comprehensive Planning staff utilized the Subdistrict's market area as described in the Alternative Site Analysis submitted with this petition and available County resources to conduct an assessment of the CP-2015-2 proposal, with the following results: Guidelines for Commercial Development utilize information about the different commercial centers in the County for this assessment and provide the figures for: • An 11-acre land area and a 110,734 sq. ft. building dimension for a Neighborhood Center (8.45 sq. ft. per capita), and • A 28-acre land area and a 257,668 sq.ft. building dimension for a Community Center(7.48 sq. ft. per capita). The above acreage and floor area figures are the average sizes of Neighborhood and Community Centers in existence (built) in Collier County. This means some Centers are larger, and some smaller, than these County-wide averages; that is, there is a range in size of each type of Center. Each type of Center is classified based upon size as well as uses. Demand in year 2016 for commercial development in the proposed Subdistrict's market area is calculated to be 334,274 (for Community Center commercial space), and 377,622 (for —8— CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. Neighborhood Center commercial space), while the County's PUD Master List reports more than 1,205,649 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space is available. This market area currently provides a surplus of 69% more than the 711,896 sq. ft. of commercial space needed to serve the estimated current [peak seasonal] population of 44,689. [Staff also found an inventory of 1,637,128 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space available employing Property Appraiser's GIS database figures. These figures are believed to be more accurate than the PUD Master List, and this current supply calculates to a surplus of 129% more than the commercial space needed.] The market demands of the population projected for the proposed Subdistrict's market area in year 2026 increase to 427,759 (for Community Center commercial space), and 483,230 (for Neighborhood Center commercial space), while the PUD Master List figure of more than 1,205,649 sq. ft. would still be developed or available— providing a surplus of 32% more than the 910,989 sq. ft. of the commercial space needed to serve the estimated year 2026 [peak seasonal] population of 57,187. [Again, staff utilized the figure of 1,637,128 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space available employing Property Appraiser's GIS database figures. These figures again, are believed to be more accurate than the PUD Master List, and this future supply calculates to a surplus of 79% more than the commercial space needed.] Note here how the figures derived above for the supply of commercial space appear far greater than demand will ever support. This amount of commercial supply is due to the full range of the types of commercial centers found in the market area — Neighborhood, Community and Regional centers. Regional centers are characteristically anchored by one or more full-line department stores, developed with or developable for 300,000 to 1,000,000 sq. ft. of the commercial space on 30, or 50 acres or more. One Regional commercial center is found inside the market area — the Malibu Lake Target plaza at 1-75 and Immokalee Road. One more Regional commercial center is found at the outer edge of the market area —the Donovan Center Walmart plaza in the southwest quadrant of 1-75 and Immokalee Road. These two commercial centers provide for 330,000 sq. ft. and 250,000 sq. ft., respectively — which in an apples-to-oranges comparison, ostensibly reduces the commercial space figures by approximately 580,000 sq. ft. — leaving just the Neighborhood and Community centers to compare the subject property. Again employing Property Appraiser's GIS database figures, this calculation reveals a current surplus closer to 48% and a future surplus closer to 16% more than the commercial space needed. A surplus of 25% may not be unreasonable. As reported above, all but one of the other locations—along with the subject property itself—allow more than C-3 intensity, intermediate commercial uses. That one site, the Immokalee Road — Collier Boulevard Mixed Use Activity Center, is either partially developed with only small parcels remaining, agriculturally active, fully developed commercially, or pending approval of proposed development. This assessment lends support to the proposition that a need is evident for a future land use change to introduce an additional amount of commercial land uses to this area, and that this location is appropriate to fulfill the need for providing convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas, and ...to create a neighborhood focal point ...designed in a manner to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. Appropriateness of the Site and the Change: The proposed amendment identifies climate-controlled self-storage as a commercial use that will share the overall amount of commercial floor area approved with office and retail uses. FLUE provisions primarily direct new commercial development into Mixed Use Activity Centers, and —9— CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. gives preference to commercial expansion adjacent to both Mixed Use Activity Centers and other commercial designations when additional demand can be demonstrated. This application increases commercial square feet within an existing commercially-designated site. Environmental Impacts: Collier County Development Review staff reviewed this petition and provided the following analysis: The majority of the property has been previously cleared and filled when the PUD was subdivided and subdivision improvements constructed, with a required 0.17 acre preserve located along the north property line adjacent to a platted common area and preserve within Wolf Creek PUD (Black Bear Ridge— Phase I subdivision). A letter from the Florida Master Site File (the State's official inventory of historical, cultural resources) lists no previously recorded cultural resources on the subject property. The project will be subject to the requirement of accidental discovery of archaeological or historical sites as required by Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 11.1.3. The provision is also included in Subsection 2.03.07 E of the LDC. Staff has identified that a portion of the identified Subdistrict is within wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zone W-4 as defined in LDC Section 3.06.00. LDC Section 3.06.00 does not provide any prohibitions or restrictions for the land uses described in the proposed GMP amendment. The proposed GMP amendment will have no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). [Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division] Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions submitted a Traffic Impact Statement (Exhibit "Q"), dated November 1, 2016. Collier County Transportation Planning personnel reviewed this petition and provided the following analysis: The 2004 AUIR reported the Airport Rd.-to-Collier Blvd. segment of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. as an existing deficiency and identified the project programmed to remedy it as "under construction". By the 2005 AUIR, construction to remedy the deficient nature of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. was underway, and no longer mapped as a deficiency. The 2016 AUIR does not indicate this segment of roadway as being deficient, so specific mitigating stipulations are no longer needed. No fewer than four "Capacity Enhancement Projects" in the surrounding area are identified in the AUIR. Plus, no projected deficiencies are present in the same area. The net new trips, while significant on Vanderbilt Beach Road, do not indicate that they would cause adverse impacts. The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element, and as such, no mitigation would be required within the project's area of significant impacts to accommodate the identified impacts on network capacity. The project's significant impacts are found only on the first link of Vanderbilt Beach Road. These significant impacts are expected from 183 Southbound trips (6.10% impact), and 104 Northbound Trips (3.47% impact). In this case, only the 104 northbound trips are of interest in reviewing the — 10— CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. project for consistency with the Transportation Element, as this is the peak direction of the network. No other subsequent impacts are expected to exceed the 2% (or consequent 3%) threshold(s). [Michael Sawyer, Project Manager Transportation Planning Section] Public Facilities Impacts: No issues or concerns have been identified regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater, solid waste, drainage, park and recreational facilities, schools, or EMS and fire protection services. • Potable Water System: The subject project will be served by Collier County potable water services and lies in the North County Water Service Area. The anticipated average daily demand for potable water for the project is 16,610 gallons per day (gpd) [74,745 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide water services. • Wastewater Collection and Treatment System: The subject project will be served by Collier County wastewater collection and treatment services and lies in the North County Water Reclamation Service Area. The anticipated average daily demand for wastewater collection and treatment for the project is estimated at 16,610 gallons per day(gpd) [74,745 gpd "Peak"]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide wastewater services. • Solid Waste Collection and Disposal: The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier _ County Solid Waste Management. The 2015 AUIR identifies that the County has sufficient landfill capacity up to the year 2070 for the required lined cell capacity. • Stormwater Management System: The 2015 AUIR does not identify any stormwater management improvement projects in the vicinity of the subject property. Future development is expected to comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of stormwater events by both on-site and off-site improvements. • Park and Recreational Facilities: There will be no adverse impacts to park facilities from the proposed commercial development. • Schools: There will be no adverse impacts to public school facilities from the proposed commercial development. • EMS and Fire Protection: The subject property is located within the Golden Gate Fire and Rescue District. EMS services are provided by Collier County. The Golden Gate Fire and Rescue District Station 73 is located at 14575 Collier Boulevard. The proposed commercial development is anticipated to have no significant impacts on these safety services. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: [Please note the following synopsis summarizes the formal Neighborhood Information Meeting that covered an earlier version of the proposed GMP amendment. Since that time, the application team considered the neighbors'concerns and submitted a revised proposal — as reflected in this current review and report. Portions of the NIM proceedings reflected below no longer apply.] A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Wednesday, September 7, 2016, 5:30 p.m. at the Vineyards Community Park — Meeting Room, located at 6231 Arbor Boulevard West. Approximately 49 people other than the application team and County staff attended — and heard the following information: —11 — CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. The agent representing this application (Fred Hood, of Davidson Engineering) provided a full description of the proposed changes to the group, including how the two companion requests (Growth Management Plan amendment-GMPA/Planned Unit Development amendment-PUDA) mainly cover potential future uses allowed in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate and C-4, General Commercial zoning districts, including a use determined to be a comparable and compatible use — enclosed mini and self-storage warehousing. Please be reminded the NIM presentation and discussion covered the GMPA, the PUDA, [indirectly] a recent HEX determination, and a recently- approved Site Development Plan (SDP)for the self-storage facility in-combination simultaneously. Mr. Hood provided to attendees print handouts of a NIM outline, the PUD amendment application, conceptual development plans and copy of Naples Daily News article regarding the proposal. Mr. Hood explained the hearing process for the Transmittal phase of the GMP amendment request and how the first set of public hearings will not be concerning Planned Unit Development amendments. He reviewed an anticipated hearing schedule for these requests. The later Adoption phase of the GMP amendment request will also take the companion PUD amendment into consideration. Mr. Hood took [and addressed] questions and comments from those in attendance, covering topics such as, if and how signalization would be required and introduced at Vanderbilt Beach Road intersections with Pristine Drive and Buckstone Drive [when warranted at Pristine, along with specific directional traffic controls and median changes at Buckstone]; clarification about the 150,000 commercial square footage approved and the additional 100,000 square footage requested [with the under-construction self-storage facility already consuming 100,000 of the approved 150,000 sq.ft.]; plans for stormwater management[that will still be tied into southbound flow from the community located to the north], and; plans for lighting and adequate protection to neighboring properties [to be accomplished by limiting fixtures to wall-mounted sconce lamps mounted on the interior sides of walls built along the northern and southern edges of the development]. One speaker voiced opposition to that part of the proposed GMP amendments removing specific prohibitions that will allow gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps,fast food restaurants with drive through lanes and tire stores [no longer proposed]. Another speaker spoke of a 'third- party' cost sharing agreement, which requires a number of property owners to pay the costs associated with roadway and intersection improvements in this area north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. Changes that accelerate the need for these improvements are opposed. Mr. Hood took more questions and comments about the proposed reduction of the buffer area along the northern edge of the development[which can be reduced, as the size of the property has been reduced to less than (a buffer-specific threshold) 15 acres]; locating internal traffic circulation drives behind businesses located on the north half of the property, including driveways, parking areas, back-side entries and delivery and services' activities [plans do not include an internal drive along the full length of the business properties, as each individual commercial property/use may propose these features and activities on a lot-by-lot basis]. A speaker observed how construction of the self-storage facility leaves only a small portion of the developable commercial square footage to be developed on a large portion of the subject property. Statements found in the"permitted uses"section of the draft PUD exhibit read as though the self-storage facility is limited/allocated to the additional 100,000 commercial sq. ft. proposed. But this is not the case, as the already-approved self-storage facility square footage has been allocated from the original 150,000 sq.ft. The developers would find themselves in a predicament [with this PUD provision, or the amount of developable space remaining] if the additional commercial square footage is not approved. Another speaker pointed out the length of time this —12— CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. partially-developed property had sat idle, and asked about the possibility of another lengthy period of inactivity[which should not occur if the new uses and additional square footage are approved]. A speaker voiced concerns over the proposed strip commercial centers for parcels fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road, and how the front of these buildings will face this roadway; while the back of the buildings will face the east-west Vanderbilt way — internal to the property. This leaves a similar set of issues [posed by traffic circulation areas situated behind businesses located on the south half of the property, including driveways, parking areas, back-side entries and delivery and services' activities] to address and resolve, or to remain another item of opposition. A speaker revisited the traffic circulation issue to and from Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Any signalization or other changes at Pristine Drive and Buckstone Drive affects the individual Wolf Creek communities, Mission Hills, and undeveloped lands to the north. Much discussion took place about how future eastbound Vanderbilt Beach Road traffic will be limited to northbound left turns at the Pristine Drive signal or, to crossing Collier Boulevard to U-turn to become westbound, crossing Collier Boulevard again, to then make northbound right turns at Buckstone Drive. Using Collier Boulevard adds further inconvenience and distance to access these areas from Vanderbilt Beach Road. Another speaker characterized this as making a bad traffic situation worse. Speakers asked the application team to communicate with them more and consider holding discussion meetings with the neighbors [agreeable to application team], and emphasized the importance of getting and staying involved. Nearly everyone in attendance [by show of hands] expressed opposition to the proposed changes. The meeting was completed by 7:15 p.m. NIM summary minutes, prepared by the application team, are included in this petition package. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] [The application team presented information to more than 35 residents during a November 9 meeting with the Black Bear Ridge Property Owners Association. This presentation was held as a courtesy to inform the neighbors of the changes to the application, and did not serve as an additional NIM] Following the applicant's November 9, 2016, informational presentation and revised resubmittal, the Comprehensive Planning Section of the Zoning Division received a petition with 119 signatures and 115 individual letters from nearby residents stating their objections and concerns. These materials have been copied and are provided as an appendix to this Staff Report. In summary, these materials address the following main points: • Proposed changes [are] out of character with the intents and purposes of Subdistrict; • Increased commercial square feet [and project's] ability to mitigate for associated noise and light; • Types of businesses allowed, redundancy with uses in Mission Hills; • Prohibition on fast food restaurants, drive-through establishments [and project's] ability to handle vehicular stacking/traffic; • Clarity [needed] regarding uses at the self-storage facility; • Increased buffering [needed] along the northerly property line; • Traffic congestion attributable to increased commercial density; and, —13— CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. • Uncertainty and restrictions on future changes, effect on property values. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The following findings and conclusions result from the reviews and analyses of this request: • A number of documents submitted with this application confirm that the 150,000 overall maximum square footage and the 60,000/90,000 office/retail square footage split were requested [by the original 2003 GMP amendment application] but did not carry over to the adoption ordinance. • The infrastructure needed to serve the development can be provided without related levels of service or concurrency concerns. • The impact from the development on the environment does not pose concerns. • This amendment effects no known historic or archaeological sites. • Documentation submitted confirms that small pieces of land have been dedicated to the County, thereby reducing the size of the property from original 15.88 acres to 14.49 acres. • The property is presently zoned "Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD" and the site is partially developed with a self-storage facility, building pads, infrastructure, street improvements, etc. • The property is presently designated in the GMP for commercial development. This application increases commercial square feet within an existing commercially-designated site; the net effect is an increase of 50,000 sq. ft. of building floor area, and removal of the previously-requested commercial split of 60,000 sq. ft. for offices and 90,000 sq. ft. for retail .� —which did not carry over. • Based on data and analysis submitted for the supply of, and demand for, existing and potential commercial development within the study area for the subject property, the need for the additional commercial floor area contemplated by this amendment has been demonstrated. This location fulfills the localized need to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas. • Correlating amendments to the Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD may be submitted subsequent to, or concurrent with, the Adoption phase of this GMPA application. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Office of the County Attorney and has been approved as to form and legality. The criteria for land use map amendments are in Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 8., Florida Statutes. This staff report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on January 30, 2017. [HFAC] [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] —14— CP-2015-2/PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2015-2 /PL20150002167 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of the petition with the following revisions to the applicant's proposed Subdistrict text (for proper code language, format, clarity, etc. only — not intended to change allowable uses, intensities, development standards, or other items of substance): Note: Words underlined are added, words struck through are deleted—as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words double struck throug14 are deleted — as proposed by staff. 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict This Subdistrict is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, consisting of approximately 47.94 acres, comprised of 33.45 acres of land for the existing area and 15.88 14.49 acres of land for the expansion area, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. The intent of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas, as well as to promote mixed-use development (residential uses over commercial uses). The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residents, assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this part of Collier County. This Subdistrict is further intended to create a neighborhood focal point and any development within this Subdistrict will be designed in a manner to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. - --. . -. - ---- - e- - - - • - . _ . _ .. ... _ .- - -- _ groat leasable floor area. Transportation Element, approval of any subsequent rezone petition for the subject property by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners shall be contingent upon prohibition of Rezonings are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district, which must contain and tirc stores. located in a mixed use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential the project is used in calculating residential density. —15— CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. . -- --• ••• -- - - - - - -- _ -_ • .__ - _ . .• - r.- - - - - - provide for both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with abutting properties. To encourage mixed use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development when located in a mixed-use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre; the gross acreage of the prosect is used in calculating residential density. Retail uses shall be limited to single-story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three stories. A combination of these uses in a single building = financial services and/or offices over retail uses — shall be limited to three stories. Also, mixed-use buildings, containing residential uses over commercial uses, shall be limited to three stories. All principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries for each foot of building height. Development within each project or yet to be established Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall be required to have common site, signage and building architectural elements. Each protect or PUD District shall provide for both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with abutting properties. where feasible. Rezonings are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district, which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with neighboring residential and institutional uses. In addition to retail uses and other uses permitted in the Plan, financial institutions, business services, and professional and medical offices shall be permitted. A total of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area is permitted within this Subdistrict as follows:= Development intensity for the existing area of this Subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Within the 14.49-acre expansion area, 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial land uses is permitted. Of the square footage provided, up to 95,550 square feet may be for air conditioned and mini- and self-storase facilities. The remainder of the s•uare footase may be for retail and office land uses 0.14€14410 The following land uses shall not be permitted__; gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] —16— CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Agenda Item 9.A PREPARED BY: 0-411ayA , — DATE: f h 42Ort CORBY SCHMIDTlAICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVI PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED Y: r -3°- DATE: DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: 1 30 - 1- MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 4111. C`'. DATE: !-_.70 -/7 JA,.d -F-ENCH, DEPUTY DE ARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT APP Vpi 7. 4 J F , DATE: J 3's f "71 DAVID S WILKISON, DEPARTME1m11 HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION No: CP-2015-2;PL201500021 G7 Staff Report for the February 16, 2017, CCPC Meeting- NOTE: This pettion has been scheduled for the March 28, 2017, BCC Meeting, -17- arde'blt ea_i-;Ccdl Er -..:.culeva-a Commerc al SLbcis r c: DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 • Naples, FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 F: (239)434.6084 www.davidsonengineering.com MEMORANDUM September 14, 2016 TO: Corby Schmidt,AICP—Collier County Growth Management Fred Reischl,AICP—Collier County Growth Management FROM: Jessica Harrelson, Senior Project Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Frederick Hood,AICP, Senior Planner RE: Vanderbilt Commons PUDA- P120150002166;GMPA-P120150002167/CP-2015-2 Neighborhood Information Meeting—Meeting Notes A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on Wednesday,September 7th, 2016 at the Collier County Vineyards Community Park, located at 6231 Arbor Blvd W, Naples, 34119. The following individuals associated with the review and presentation of the project were present: • Frederick Hood, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Josh Fruth, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Jessica Harrelson, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Jenna Woodward, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Megan Polk, Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Bruce Anderson, Cheffy Passidomo • Corby Schmidt, Collier County • Fred Reischl, Collier County Fred Hood started the meeting by making a presentation, reading the following: Introduction: o Good evening. My name is Fred Hood with Davidson Engineering. I am the land development consultant representing the applicant Vanderbilt Commons, LLC for a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) application. o Per the land development code, tonight's meeting will be recorded. At the end of my presentation I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the rezone. Page 1 of 8 DE DAVIDSON o Here with me tonight is Bruce Anderson with Cheffy Passidomo (our land use attorney and co-agent for the PUDA and GMPA applications), Josh Fruth, Jenna Woodward and Jessica Harrelson with Davidson Engineering (project engineers and project coordinator) and George Vuko with Welsh Properties,the applicant and developer. o Corby Schmidt and Fred Reischl with the Collier County Growth Management Department are also in attendance tonight and are the reviewing planners for Collier County. Size and Location: o The subject property is approximately 14.5 acres and is located immediately north of Vanderbilt Beach Road about 1/4 of a mile west of Collier Boulevard.The property has frontage along Vanderbilt Beach Road, Pristine and Buckstone Drives;with internal access provided from Vanderbilt Way which bisects the property per an existing and approved plat. o Along the western boundary, there is developed and undeveloped property within the Falls of Portofino residential development within the Wolf Creek RPUD zoning across the Pristine Drive right- of way. Preserve for the Black Bear Ridge residential community, also within the Wolf Creek RPUD, is situated along northern boundary of the subject property.To the immediate east is Buckstone Drive with the commercially zoned and developed Mission Hills CPUD across the Buckstone right-of-way. To the south of the subject property is Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way with Estates zoned properties (developed and undeveloped) beyond. Purpose of the GMPA and Rezone: o As I noted earlier,there are two parts to the land use entitlement of the subject property. o The Growth Management Plan describes the vision for the future of the County to ensure that all lands are developed in a manner that makes sense and consistent with the goals and objectives that Collier County has determined for its future. o The PUD defines the development and design standards as well as the commitments outlined as part of the zoning for the specific Vanderbilt Commons property. o Because we are requesting to add the previously excluded land uses in the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to the PUD (thereby making them permitted uses), not only do we need to change the zoning,we are required to amend the future land use of the subject property.The GMPA process is the application that allows that change to the future land use. o The uses allowed in the current PUD are typically permitted in the C-3 and C-4 commercial Districts as outlined by the LDC. o Per the land development applications in for review with Collier County, the applicant is requesting to make the following changes and or additions: Page 2 of 8 DE DAVIDSON • Amend the future land use element to revise the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict of the Urban Mixed-Use District, identified in the Collier County Growth Management Future Land Use Element, to remove an outdated development restriction imposed to address transportation impacts that have been resolved; • Revise certain provisions specific to the 15.88-acre"expansion area"of the 49.33-acre Subdistrict; • Update the acreage in the PUD to show a reduction, from 15.88 acres to roughly 14.5 acres, to reflect portions of Pristine& Buckstone Drive ROWs being deeded to Collier County; • Remove excluded uses to allow gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive through lanes and tire stores; • Remove mixed residential-over-commercial uses; • To correct a scrivener's error that omitted the previously approved square footage (150,000); • Add an additional 100,000 square feet(to the existing permitted 150,000 square feet)for the self- storage land use; • And to include indoor self-storage as an allowed use. • Amending the Carolina Village MPUD to change the name of the PUD to "Vanderbilt Commons CPUD"; • Replace the PUD master plan with an updated "conceptual master plan"; • Permit a deviation from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.03.02 H.1.b, in order to remove the requirement to place a wall 4 feet in height a minimum of 3 feet from the rear of the right-of- way landscape buffer line of Vanderbilt Beach Road; and • Reduce the 20-foot perimeter landscape buffers to the widths as required by the LDC as the property is no longer 15 acres. Impacts and Summary of the GMPA and Rezone: o The land use and square footage additions to the PUD and GMP, as outlined previously, have been analyzed through the traffic and utilities level of service studies provided to the County. It has been shown that the proposed developable square footage,at build-out, is not significant or adverse from a traffic generation or utilities consumption standpoint;and in some cases the impacts are less for the available infrastructure at this location. o The stormwater management system for the site has been approved by Collier County under PL20150001453. Therefore, no level of service issues is created by either of the proposed site build- out conditions with respect to surface water management. Page 3 of 8 DE DAVIDSON FNEGINEFRINCI o The proposed development, upon completion, will be served by Collier County Public Utilities. The previously proposed mixed-use development has been shown to be significantly higher than those created by the maximum conceptually proposed commercially developed site.With the development of a fully commercial development, less demands will be made on the existing water and sewer systems. o It should also be noted that these land use change requests do not propose revisions to the development standards of the commercial use areas identified per the PUD document, with the exception of the addition of development standards for the air conditioned and enclosed self-storage facility. The addition of development standards have been added to the PUD document in place of the residential standards;which are no longer applicable. o The updated Conceptual Master Plan for both the rezone and the growth management plan amendment,shows a development envelope for the property with required setbacks, buffers and on- site native preservation as required by the Land Development Code and the existing PUD document. o All required vehicular and pedestrian interconnections shall be adhered to with the development of any future projects on the property subject of this application. o The proposed self-storage and additional commercial land uses will result in increased development options for the subject property but will not cause any detrimental level of service to the surrounding area. QUESTIONS: 1. The building under construction will be self-storage? Is it being built without the proposed amendment? Response: Fred explains the Comparable Use Determination and how the self-storage facility was deemed comparable and compatible with the approved land uses within the existing PUD. 2. When was the additional 100,000 square feet added? Our community wasn't made aware of the additional square feet. Response: Fred explains the scrivener's error that occurred within the previous Growth Management Plan Amendment. 3. Do you still have a line that will be connected into Black Bear Ridge's(BBR)drainage system? Response: Fred responded that a connection to the BBR's drainage system is no longer proposed. 4. How will the site lighting be set up to not interfere with Black Bear Ridge? Response: Fred uses the conceptual site plan to show the site and explains his current knowledge of lighting on the site. He also explains that the back of the buildings will have wall-type sconces Page 4 of 8 DE DAVIDSON FNCGIN FFR ING and not light poles. 5. What are you proposing to do about traffic control within the development? We've had a problem with the private road being used as a "drag strip". Response: Fred and Josh Fruth both responded that typical traffic calming devices will be installed along the private right of way (stop signs, etc.). Also, that once the properties develop the opportunity for using the private right of way as a "drag strip"will no longer be available. Fred also mentioned they may add speed bumps to the private road. 6. Residents expressed concerns with traffic controls and ingress/egress onto Vanderbilt. Are you proposing a light at Buckstone? Response: Fred stated that a traffic light is not proposed at Buckstone but instead being proposed at Pristine. Fred also mentioned that out the County has plans to possibly close the access point from Buckstone to Vanderbilt. 7. BBR residents expressed opposition for the additional uses proposed for the PUD and increasing the intensity. The residents also expressed their concerns regarding traffic, safety, noise, pollution, lights,taxes and the potential negative impacts to their property values.The residents further inquired why the amendment is being requested? Response: Fred replied that the developer is just looking for the opportunity to explore different options. 8. Is there a specific tenant proposed at this time? Response: Fred answered that just the zoning is being sought and there are no specific tenants at this time. 9. What are the benefits to the BBR Community? Response: Fred replied the additional land uses being sought. 10. Where will the reduced landscape buffers be and where will the wall be eliminated? Response: Fred uses the conceptual site plan to indicate the landscape buffers and the location of the wall deviation. 11. A resident requests information on why"neighboring properties"are responsible for a portion of the roadway improvements. Response: Fred explains the recorded Third-Party Cost Sharing Agreement that was previously established. 12. Traffic control and issues were again discussed by several residents. Page 5 of 8 DE DAVIDSON F N C I N F F R I N C 13. Why is there a reduction in the landscape buffer being requested? Response: Fred replied that it is no longer required because the site does not meet the criteria in the Land Development Code for the buffer. He also states that it is the developer's right to request it. 14. Is there going to be an access road at the rear of the back lots/buildings? There is a road there now. Response: Fred answered that there is not an access road proposed in that location and explains that the existing road is for construction purposes only.Plans for access along the rear of lots could happen depending on the site development plan but are not proposed at this time. Fred uses the conceptual site plan to show the currently approved access points to the site. Fred later explains, per code, you have to be able to access three sides of the building. Corby Schmidt requests that everyone speak one at a time. 15. Why is there a reduction in the acreage on the site? Response: Fred explained the ROWs that were deeded to Collier County for both Buckstone and Pristine reduced the acreage on the site. 16. Explanation of the scrivener's error and when the PUD was approved? How was the self-storage facility approved? Response: Fred explained the 15.88-expansion area of the GMP and the approved 150,000 square feet that was omitted from the text language. Fred also explained the Comparable Use Determination and that the self-storage facility was deemed comparable by Collier County, being viewed as more of a retail establishment than an office use. 17. If you don't get the approval for the additional square footage, does the self-storage facility take up all of the retail space,only leaving office space square footage? Response: Fred replied that was correct. 18. What are the next steps in the process and the timeframe? Response: Fred and Corby explain the hearing processes and timelines for both the PUDA and GMPA and the purpose of the Neighborhood Information Meeting. 19. If this is not approved, what will be the developer's options for retail space? How much remaining? Response: Fred replied about 50,000 square feet of retail space remains currently on site. Page 6 of 8 DE DAVIDSON F N G I N F F R I N G 20. Are they selling parcels off or will there be a single owner? Response: Fred uses the conceptual site plan to show the current plan of ownership/tenants. 21. Where are you going to have parking for the proposed two strip center buildings with the proposed 16 units? Response: Fred explained the parking standards for Collier County and how the site will meet the standards. 22. How do we express our concerns in an organized fashion? Response: Fred Reischl stated that emails, attendance to hearings, and phone calls would all be ways to express concerns. 23. Will this project drag out? Response: Fred replied that the developer is aggressively looking to develop the property. 24. Will the shopping centers have free standing units? Response: Fred uses the conceptual site plan to indicate that there will be two separate buildings for the shopping center. 25. Will these have retail on the first floor and offices on the second? Response: Fred replies that the shopping centers are currently only proposed to be one story. 26. Will you look at the rear of the buildings when driving east on Vanderbilt? Response: Fred responded that the front of the buildings would face Vanderbilt, and explains the landscape buffers. 27. If this change is approved,there could be more than one drive-thru? Response: Fred responds that there could potentially be more than one drive thru, but currently only one is proposed. 28. Has the proposed daycare gone away? Response: Fred replied that the daycare use has not been eliminated. 29. Is there a possibility of a movie theater? Response: Fred responded that a movie theater is a possibility but not feasible at this time. Page 7 of 8 DE DAVIDSON FF..GIN FFRING 30. Are the proposed changes lot specific? Response: Fred answered that the changes are for the entire development. 31. Are there requirements for security cameras? Response: Fred replied security cameras are not a requirement but could be installed. 32. Will the preserve remain? Response: Fred answered the existing preserve will remain. He also explained the Type "A"landscape buffer requirement. 33. What is a Type "A" buffer? Response: Fred responded that he believed it was a 10 foot wide buffer with trees planted 30 feet on center and no shrubs required. 34. What triggers the traffic study? (More discussion regarding concerns with traffic&safety). Response: Fred replied that the residents need to contact Collier County regarding their concerns about existing intersections and traffic issues. Fred Reischl also replied and directed the residents .-. to contact Collier County Staff with their concerns. Fred discusses the traffic impact statement that was prepared for the existing PUD and the proposed PUDA. 35. What are all of the roadway improvements that are part of the shared costs? Response: Fred responded that there is information on the costs within the third-party agreement. 36. Can you install a barrier of some sort along the back so we can't see headlights? Response: Fred replied that it would be looked at. Fred Reischl spoke more about the purpose of the Neighborhood Information Meeting and why they were instituted. 37. Is the recording of the meeting available to the public? Response: The recording becomes part of the public record and will be available. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00p.m. End of memo. Page 8 of 8 wz o 0 ou Ma Q o 2 J - -)' -' i ' '4;z C , ' . (,,t 3 2 S 4-i z., w s3 1 4. �. N4 o N 3 2 \ . e; N: § .4'c ' g : ci Cii .c VI 1— ‘\P'<Z. \st k ; : -A 4 toa - �; Z o N N V O O O d' o -4 „,, 1- N N d 0 J I L4 irtit a t t c m ® _ o m u s L 1, 4 - � 1 v � ® t.7: 1 j A L.o T, ;k,.A__, �"_ ?G )\\ OJ.. z � �' , N M' �1 (4 N- 00 C) O 7 N _co 1 L,r 2 CO •r c- �- �- r r r r Nk tt . 4 i zo tv ( ) ,,, (1... .., I , ,....„ 01'' Clow , • °-3 ' �1 m �"` fi ~M f" 0. 2 's '' ,1 "1 g c=.,m_- . (\<*-A ck z- &(`) `-' , )• fTh ( .m 'N 1 , 4 .-3- kb r 1 .. A ), ? k '— i— 1 r." ' C9 14Tc) Il .4 'Q 1 4i < , 6 Id-, (1 ,, .4 0 0 , Co Q - o s i _ . c,N VJ N o NJ C- s \ 4 S y w vieJ o Q, ' b J N o C4 4 &‘ 3" E W V \'‘ -14 ..)_ rid_ syks F ‘ V > z '' 0/\ AlV i Qi. 6 �k c^ ? .\ -' , Q CA O r N CO d to CO N- 00 CA O n- N CO d' LS, CO Cl. c- N N N N N N N N N N CO CO M CO CO Ch CO ttJ\ r-\ c I 1116-`z: <1) "',. ./,.N C Lbw ° j o40 ' r'(` 1 C L 51) \\4---' cp _ _ 4- Csi 3 ' tis 0) E a� L C IN Z ® N O N O O E 0 O V \ O V N wA ' ' '' ' .. N z , ,,,.,,,, .,.._40 0 I- Co CZ 0 "c- N CO d- In Cfl 00 O 0 N CO d' d LLI I— zF0 p Z 0 D 0u) w0Q 0u. za CI 00 m Cl) a c D 0m g 0. 5a (D C Ince aw a. a0 �_, a_ Q 0> W C a C re O .-1 LLY occ N C.0 0� Z c0 TThuI J a CL Em J 1 Z a^ a_ L a) 15 m o C Sa J C¢ ¢ m m rc a .. �a a s� A w - 0 E rcs 3N - .. - ¢ 0. cs CN18 aaipoD ng O m m gr2 $a i4 eN + 0- t6 it 0 iT1T pGw w c-aO._ C6 ¢ a O .I i n BLVD N S aMs uelioi In the Know: Restaurants, retail coming to new center on Vanderbilt Beach Road Tim Aten, tim.aten@naplesnews.com; 239-263-4857 7:02 a.m. EDT August 29, 2016 TT • 4-04401M44 � w rx ,' Vanderbilt Commons retail center will include more than 30 units fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road just west of Collier Boulevard.(Photo: Welsh Companies Florida) 346 CONNECTTWEET 6 LINKEDIN 1 COMMENTEMAILMORE Q: What is being built on that strip of vacant land just east of Island Walk and west of Tuffy (Tire and Auto Service Center) on Vanderbilt Beach Road? After laying quiet for many years, there is now a lot of movement on that parcel of land. —John W. Zasoba,North Naples A: What you see being built is merely the beginning of what is planned by this time next year for Vanderbilt Commons, a new commercial development with restaurant, retail and medical space. A proposed retail center fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road just west of the shopping center on Collier Boulevard anchored by Winn-Dixie, Vanderbilt Commons will include more than 30 units, said George Vukobratovich, president/broker of Welsh Companies Florida. Welsh, a Naples-based commercial real estate firm,will own and operate the new retail center, Vukobratovich said."This is a big project,"he said. "We're invested in this, our company, our investors. We are going to own it and operate it." IvANDMUX COMMONS TAUAANTfBETAS.f'UAEDOCAL SPACE ICrtue 2cototties 7 24" 4 Vanderbilt Commons retail center will be built fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road just west of Collier Boulevard. Midgard Self Storage's three-story warehouse is under construction at the rear of the property. (Photo: Tim Aten/Naples Daily News) The first phase—a nearly 35,000-square-foot, one-story strip center—is targeted for completion in the first quarter of 2017. The second phase—a nearly 37,000-square-foot strip center that practically mirrors the first is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of next year. "We want Phase 2 to come on line maybe a year from now, maybe sooner if we can do it," Vukobratovich said. Midgard Self Storage, under construction on more than 2 acres on the northwest corner of Vanderbilt Commons, will be a 95,550-square-foot, three-story, climate-controlled miniwarehouse. IIs; _— __111711 - r i 1 _ j , : a , a, Met l A conceptual sketch of Midgard Self Storage,the first business under construction in Vanderbilt Commons, a commercial project on Vanderbilt Beach Road west of Collier Boulevard. (Photo: Patrick M. Pillot Architect Inc.) "That was the first stage of selling a piece of that property, but it's not anything to do with the retail that's going across the front,"Vukobratovich said. The two strip centers, in line on 6.5 acres along Vanderbilt Beach Road, will have about 16 units of varying sizes. The intention is to open three restaurants in each building, but no more," Vukobratovich said. "We are going to be part of trying to do a good mix of local tenants and also national tenants,"he said. "That creates a synergy that makes a center work." The only tenant specifically named so far is CPR Cell Phone Repair Naples, a company that repairs celiphones, computers and other electronic devices. Another CPR location operates on Radio Road in East Naples. "That's a very needed service out there,"Vukobratovich said. Although none of the restaurants were named, the endcap on the eastern edge of the second phase is planned for a drive-thru window. "We don't have that signed yet, but that's there," Vukobratovich said. Other businesses expected to sign on include a pet store, nail salon, hair salon and a cellphone provider. The project has medical zoning, as well, Vukobratovich said."We anticipate some medical services,"he said. . j I I s+ --# nioisP- ‘14.-r -- J MERE IIII —Ili 4 *"...-"" -- 1 IN i , i f ,...._zza.,....= . I .111r 'Il ,iill rm.), r .L :;_ _ • En. _ 1_ ..,,, ..' lull" I rF J lilt L� G a.i■ IL-, _- ___ .� 11, •l • '-°11 .L11,._LI to lsLllLP SfICOndiify EfiSt fl titin-Building 42 �--- '� Lccalb.Mg Architectural renderings show the first retail center proposed for Vanderbilt Commons, a retail center coming to Vanderbilt Beach Road west of Collier Boulevard. (Photo: Don Stevenson Design) The exterior of the strip center is planned to have an Old Florida look, with shell rock stone on the face of part of the buildings. "We are going to do some things we know fit our environment, our community,"Vukobratovich said. "This site is really going to serve the local community." Because Vanderbilt Beach Road doesn't have an Interstate 75 interchange, as do neighboring Pine Ridge and Immokalee roads, it lacks the businesses necessary to serve residents in that fast- growing area. Vanderbilt Commons is one of the first commercial centers designed to serve local residents driving west from Golden Gate Estates, Vukobratovich said. "The amount of rooftops coming out there will blow your mind. It's unbelievable," he said. Immediately to the east of the self-storage business will be a water retention area. To the east of the pond are two lots, each more than 1 acre, for future development. This northeast corner is directly behind the second strip center. Vanderbilt Commons will occupy more than 14 acres bordered to the east by Mission Hills shopping center, to the west by The Falls of Portofino townhomes, and to the north by preserve area for the Black Bear Ridge subdivision. At one time planned to be the Carolina Commons condominium complex, the project's scope changed over time from a residential neighborhood to a mixed-use project to a solely commercial development. —` RESOLUTION NO. 17- 7 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO REVISE THE VANDERBILT BEACH/COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ADD THE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES FOR THE 14.492 ACRE TRACT PER PETITION NO. CP-2003-1; TO ADD 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA TO THE EXISTING 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES AND THE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED 150,000 SF OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES FOR A TOTAL OF 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES; TO REMOVE A DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS; TO AMEND AND RE-ORDER THE TEXT; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT SUBDISTRICT IS 47.94± ACRES AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 'h MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20150002167/CP-2015-2] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Petitioner, Vanderbilt Commons, LLC, has initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2017, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it [15-CMP-00959] 138 PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 Page 1 of 2 3/15/17 Words underlined are added,words struck through have been deleted. by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. 441 THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this I 1 day of A;?r . I , 2017. ATTEST:" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT-E. BROCI(, CLERK COLL E' i`UNTY, FLORIDA BY: / 1 ..moi_ .L _ Attest ay°tip Chairman);Deputy Clerk .� A Pe j aylor, C ar an signature only. Appr ved as to form and legality: 'N Heidi Ashton-Cicko 3 Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit"A"—text [15-CMP-00959] 138 PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 Page 2 of 2 3/15/17 Words underlined are added,words struck through have been deleted. PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Urban Mixed Use District [Page 37] 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (Paragraphs are re-arranged) This Subdistrict is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, consisting of approximately 47.94 acres, comprised of 33.45 acres of land for the existing area and 15.88 14.49 acres of land for the expansion area, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. The intent of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas, as well as to promote mixed-use development (residential uses over commercial uses). The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residents, assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this part of Collier County. This Subdistrict is further intended to create a neighborhood focal point and any development within this Subdistrict will be designed in a manner to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. improvement is included in the first or second year of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. permitted; gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive through lanes, and tire stores. building heighf \_ --..-. • -.•. - - ••.- . .-. - -_ •-e - -1. _ required to have e••••*- •-. . ., --- -- - z.-- - 1 Words underlined are added; words stf-L4r ems#are deleted. PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 pe To encourage mixed use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development when located in a mixed-use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre; the gross acreage of the project is used in calculating residential density. Retail uses shall be limited to single-story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three stories. A combination of these uses in a single building —financial services and/or offices over retail uses — shall be limited to three stories. Also, mixed-use buildings, containing residential uses over commercial uses, shall be limited to three stories. All principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries for each foot of building height. Development within each project or yet to be established Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall be required to have common site, signage and building architectural elements. Each project or PUD District shall provide for both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with abutting properties, where feasible. Rezonings are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district, which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with neighboring residential and institutional uses. In addition to retail uses and other uses permitted in the Plan, financial institutions, business services, and professional and medical offices shall be permitted. A total of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area is permitted within this Subdistrict as follows: Development intensity for the existing area (Mission Hills Planned Unit Development) of this Subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Within the 14.49-acre expansion area, 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial land uses is permitted. The following land uses shall not be permitted: gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores. 2 Words underlined are added; words are deleted. • c o fitxa� �i '+ � � �`,a Not' .�. 5� ,3 a � . Th'i'rd r- , Ner 21, 2017, commencing at 9;00 A.M. in the Board of County Comm ssloners Chamber, third Floor, County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO REVISE THE VANDERBILT BEACH/ COLLIERBOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ADD TIIE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES FOR THE 14.492 ACRE TRACT PER PEI111ON NO.CP-2003-1;TO ADD 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA TO THE EXISTING 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES AND THE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED 150,000 SF OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES FOR A TOTAL OF 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES;TO REMOVE A DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS;TO AMEND AND RE-ORDER THE TEXT;AND PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT SUBDISTRICT IS 47.94±ACRES AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PL201500021671 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2005=19,THE CAROLINA VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO VANDERBILT COMMONS PUD; BY ADDING 50,000.SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FORA TOTAL OF 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR COMMERCIAL USES;BY DECREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 64 TO 58 DWELLING UNITS;BY REVISING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND REDUCING THE ACREAGE OF THE PUD FROM 15.88 ACRES TO 14.49 ACRES;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 15.8+1-ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20150002166[ Ir lmmokalee RD PROJECT LOCATION CO 1-i5 , a U o cn Vanderbilt Beach RD c4 0 C J o to m c Golden Gate BLVD W c � } 0, 0 Pine Ridge RD All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S)will be made, available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800N.Horseshoe Dr., Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore,the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite#401 Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to 0 the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section of the GMD Zoning Division.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to September 21,2017,will be read and considered at the public hearing. N 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 'ensure that a v ord of the proceedings Is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence°u " which the appea is o be based.' If you are- bility who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,locatedat 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. Mark R.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission September 1,2017 ND-1729762 I.- Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict Prepared For: Vanderbilt Commons, LLC c/o Welsh Companies of Florida, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 200 — Naples, Florida 34103 and Prepared By: Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 October, 2015 Revised February, 2016 Revised November, 2016 DE PAYL9A9J LIST OF EXHIBITS Application to Amend the Growth Management Plan Exhibit A Professional Qualifications Sheet Exhibit B Proposed GMP Text Amendment Language Exhibit C Location Map Exhibit D Aerial Location Map Exhibit E Aerial Plan w/Florida Land Cover Classification System Overlay& NRCS Soils Mapping Exhibit F Potential Listed Species Table Exhibit G Surrounding Zoning Districts Map Exhibit H Surrounding Future Land Use Designations Map Exhibit I Historical/Archaeological Probability Exhibit J Proximity to Public Services Map Exhibit K Recorded Warranty Deed Exhibit L Letter of Authorization Exhibit M Alternative Site Analysis Exhibit N Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit 0 Boundary Survey Exhibit P Traffic Impact Statement Exhibit Q Comparative Level of Service Analysis Exhibit R Utility Availability Statement Exhibit S Narrative&Justification of the Proposed GMP Amendment Exhibit T Disclosure of Interest Exhibit U Planning Communities Map Exhibit V Existing Land Use Map Exhibit W Future Land Use Map Exhibit X Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE PAVNRN EXHIBIT "A" APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE October 9, 2015 DATE SUFFICIENT This application,with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient,the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application,see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant Ralph Cioffi, Manager Company Vanderbilt Commons, LLC do Welsh Companies of Florida, Inc. Address c/o Welsh Companies of Florida, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239.261.4744 Fax Number 239.403.0977 B. Name of Agent* Frederick E. Hood, AICP & R. Bruce Anderson • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Davidson Engineering, Inc. & Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. Address 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 & 821 5th Avenue South City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34104834102 Phone Number 239.434.6060/239.261.9300 Fax Number 239.434.6084/239.261.9782 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Vanderbilt Commons, LLC Address do Welsh Companies of Florida, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239.261.4744 Fax Number 239.403.0977 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL,Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). 1 Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock VANDERBILT COMMONS,LLC- Ralph Cioffi,Manager 100% Members: -VC Investor,LLC(please see Ex.U) 33.33% -SMS-USA Holdings,LLC(please see Ex.U) 33.33% -Jam Properties,Inc.(please see Ex.U) 33.33% C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals, a Corporation,Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership 2 Date of Contract: F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY OCCURED ON JANUARY 30,2015 If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST;SUBJECT TO EXISTING RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD, SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF AND THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF. B. GENERAL LOCATION IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD,APPROXIMATELY 1/4 OF A MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD. C. PLANNING COMMUNITY URBAN ESTATES D. TAZ 179 SEE EXHIBIT"V" E. SIZE IN ACRES+/-15.88 ac(EXPANSION AREA) F. ZONING CAROLINA VILLAGE MPUD-ORDINANCE 2005-19 G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN SEE EXHIBIT"0"FOR SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERNS H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S)VANDERBILT BEACH RD/COLLIER BLVD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan 3 Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) 36-37 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: SEE EXHIBIT"C"FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM TO PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE NO MAP AMENDMENTS PROPOSED D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) N/A E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE SEE EXHIBIT"H"&"W' Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. SEE EXHIBIT"0"&"E" Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. EE EXHIBITS"H"&"0" Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION SEE EXHIBITS"I"&"X" Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands,with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL SEE EXHIBIT"F" Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE:THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. SEE EXHIBIT"G" Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. 4 D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2(Copies attached). 1. INSERT"Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: NO Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-1 1.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-1 1.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5%of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. YES-See Exhibit"T" Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial,industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: EXHIBITS"R"&"S" Potable Water EXHIBITS"R"&"S" Sanitary Sewer EXHIBIT"Q" Arterial &Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS The subject property shall be served by the existing drainage system.The proposed project will provide X Drainage water management design consistent with Collier County criteria. X Solid Waste The subject property shall be served by the existing solid waste provider serving the area. N/A Parks:Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. EXHIBIT"K" Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e.water, sewer, fire protection, police protection,schools and emergency medical services. 3 EXHIBIT"R" Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. 5 F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: ZONE x Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION X $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) N/A $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) Exhibit"V Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Exhibit"M" Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Acknowledged 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed,25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 6 DE DAVNDN EXHIBIT "B" PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS SHEET Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAVIDS9N ENGINEER NG EXHIBIT "B" PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS SHEET Davidson Engineering,Inc. Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner Mr. Hood has a Bachelor's of Urban Planning from the University of Cincinnati's College of Design Architecture Art and Planning. He has been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) and has practiced land planning in Southwest Florida since 2006. During his career in urban planning, for over twelve years, Mr. Hood has managed large and small development projects while working closely with a myriad of land development professionals in the physical development and policy adoption of residential, commercial, mixed-use, institutional and industrial projects. Mr. Hood has been tendered and accepted as an expert in land planning in cities and counties throughout Florida as well as being tendered as an expert witness in the area of Urban and Land Use Planning. Mr. Hood continues to attend continuing education seminars to remain current on planning theory and methodologies in an ever-changing regulatory environment. Cheffv Passidomo, P.A. R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law Mr. Anderson has more than 30 years private and public sector experience in zoning, land use and environmental law in Southwest Florida. He represents property owners and national and regional developers of residential, commercial, industrial, mining, and mixed-use community projects, on issues and matters such as: rezoning, planned unit developments, developments of regional impact, conditional use permits, variances, environmental issues, land development code amendments, comprehensive plan amendments, public/private partnerships and other growth management permit and development order issues. Mr. Anderson is certified by the Florida Supreme Court as a Certified Circuit and County Court Mediator. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE pempp,11 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Norman J.Trebilcock,AICP, P.E. President Mr. Trebilcock has a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Miami and a Master's Degree in Engineering, with an emphasis in Public Works from the University of Florida. He is also a graduate of the US Army Engineer Officer Basic Course. Mr. Trebilcock has practiced transportation planning and engineering in Southwest Florida since 1990. Mr. Trebilcock produces plans, designs, and permitting efforts on public works and private sector projects. His primary area of expertise is in transportation engineering, including highway design, utility relocation, drainage design, street lighting, signalization, access management and permitting. He prepares and reviews traffic impact statements and related reports. In addition to being a registered Professional Engineer and holding a certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners, Mr. Trebilcock holds an FDOT Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control Certification. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA is classified as a Small Business Enterprise with the South Florida Management District and the FDOT. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC Jeremy Sterk Ecologist\Partner Jeremy has been an environmental consultant in Southwest Florida since 1994 and has worked on projects throughout Collier, Lee, Hendry, DeSoto, Glades, and Charlotte counties. Jeremy holds an active real estate license and his experience in the early stages of property due diligence studies greatly assists clients in making informed decisions. His extensive and varied experience allows him to successfully guide clients through the local,state, and federal permitting maze. This experience includes environmental land use planning, environmental resource permitting, vegetation and habitat mapping, protected species surveys, protected species management plans, environmental impact statements, property use studies, post permit compliance, and GIS \ GPS mapping. In 1998, he wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water Management District as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. Jeremy is certified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as a Gopher Tortoise Agent. In addition to authoring dozens of habitat and species management plans, in 2007, Jeremy co-authored the first habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the nation to address incidental take issues for both red cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) and Florida panther on the same property. Jeremy was a member of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee from 2009 to 2014 and is currently a member of the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC). Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAVIDSON EXHIBIT "C" Proposed GMP Text Amendment Language Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com P L20150002167/CP-2015-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Urban Mixed Use District [Page 37] 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (Paragraphs are re-arranged) This Subdistrict is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, consisting of approximately 47.94 acres. comprised of 33.45 acres of land for the existing area and -548 14.49 acres of land for the expansion area, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. The intent of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas, as well as to promote mixed-use development (residential uses over commercial uses). The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residents, assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this part of Collier County. This Subdistrict is further intended to create a neighborhood focal point and any development within this Subdistrict will be designed in a manner to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. of gross leasable floor area. Pursuant to Policy 1.1.2 of the Collier County - - - - - - - -••-- -..- - •: _ --•-- - •- - -- --- - .- _ _ . •-•*- - _- _ - s are no longer deficient--er Rezonings are encouraged to be +n the tows of a PUD zoning district, which must contain - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - -- - - . . .- ... - ' _ .. :. . - with located--in a mixed use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential over retail uses shall- - -- _- . - -- . . _-. --• __ _ - _. _ -- -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - e: e•• -- - -:_ - -boundaries-for each foot of 1 Words underlined are added; words std-through are deleted. • PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 ■ ■ _ • • pr . To encourage mixed use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development when located in a mixed-use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre; the gross acreage of the project is used in calculating residential density. Retail uses shall be limited to single-story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three stories. A combination of these uses in a single building —financial services and/or offices over retail uses — shall be limited to three stories. Also, mixed-use buildings, containing residential uses over commercial uses, shall be limited to three stories. All principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries for each foot of building height. Development within each proiect or yet to be established Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall be required to have common site, signage and building architectural elements. Each project or PUD District shall provide for both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with abutting properties, where feasible. Rezonings are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district, which must contain development and design standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with neighboring residential and institutional uses. In addition to retail uses and other uses permitted in the Plan, financial institutions, business services, and professional and medical offices shall be permitted. A total of 400,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area is permitted within this Subdistrict as follows: Development intensity for the existing area (Mission Hills Planned Unit Development) of this Subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Within the 14.49-acre expansion area, 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial land uses is permitted. The following land uses shall not be permitted: gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores. 2 Words underlined are added; words stcslc-th-Pau0 are deleted. DC DAVIDSON EXHIBIT "D" LOCATION MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Z:\Active Projects\V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\Planning\GIS\GMPA\2016-02-04 VC GM PA-EXHIBIT D(LOCATION MAP(.mxd In 1 N 1 1 I — W .1j E I s 4:7 --C,, (1-1\ \ r J I ' \ ___) l VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD MIIV— 11 ..._J� U_ a -, a_ W J �1 O M ® w GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD W J O * 1 k 1 1 I I ) LEGEND -- -SUBJECT_PROPERTY ---MAJOR ROADWAYS \ 0 0.5 11 SOURCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2016) (. MILES . tit' d + HEND PAL =EACH 'IIIIILi 'lit— KO _ • M.....m.DDADE DAVIDSONENGINEERING, INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. E4365RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NCOMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES, FL 34104 DAyrRpsm PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT D: LOCATION MAP DE PAVMDN EXHIBIT "E" AERIAL LOCATION MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Z:Wctive Projects\V\Vanderbilt CommonslOWGWlanninglGIS\GMPA\2016-02.04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT E(AERIAL EXHIBIT).mxd N x ,r, .—n•�eu.r iW % 0 ..r"t tiµ r .,,,,,t �,*1' _.R...,, - �'. I ' x • ,� .ems, ,t ti ra` i , `�. . . ,,- ' ,', ',.1:412::.'''' - -*' ' :'-'"k fit �U . 4x iiCkil . .. ,.. � _ a ,5111404 i'l rei 4- -. 111 'it, I , .1... iii 1 , l' ' :, ,,,,,, __ . _ 4 1 I''''*.'''1* ' 14; tit .., _ . . ,.,„...„,,, , _ . ,4. .,„,, . . r,'11.-t ti 1.'' ' 1 7 _ ,,, - , , ,. 17_ : .1„. . : ;C''. 41' 1.5.,,, _____trAil S*'F'. 6,R - Kp Ake , ry f S6rt". 1110 � , I�x .4 ,- . s '' s +41 - . .I ,{ Y 1p. .4 ; , ,,, ....,,,„', .-,,,,,,..e...,, , ....00...„,----,-,,,,ti., ,,,,, t,::::,...., :11,,,..„„ t ,. s� ,� � k t+� W , t t ° s i ,. x . w,$ i m - VANDERBILT BEACH RD VANDEILtk ts'y,y(.. .. - ` �et sn .. .was L ^ • � 1 { d I ,f" t , r 44 't - .t.. �..t+ ' r ,,„ , „., ,:k ...... . ..,,,, .... „..., ....., , .. ,,, .......... I i , W 4, Q.. 7. }-4144. 4t«jl O a 5A LEGEND " a x ‘h„it,, i VANDERBILT BEACH RD./COLLIER BLVD. `22 �,. . # I " I COMM.SUBDISTRICT(15.88 AC.EXP.AREA) - 1 0 600°` 1,200 irSOURCES: GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Oi - ',1 • t DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES,FL 34104 DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT E: AERIAL EXHIBIT DE DAVIDR NGN ENGINE EXHIBIT "F" Aerial Plan w/ Florida Land Cover Classification System Overlay Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com A Ed 0 N 2 Zm vpv a N Q w a v n mc a ` N T C C7 7 O • O . m" = z E0 g a E "ciim Q in a;u-,Z N O - O t F r ii O n E N v. 0 i O Iti.4/ td El I a ,.© w . . , . ,_, hi O LL Zo-o w . § > y* 0 . ... ,,,c,3 7 O w W d h.r`. tri, S 2_,rn ti. 0 M V FF W LL N at �ti ~dam p� w.-za y �m ^(et.* II r F w o d I. ilia o z. Q O 3AI Ja 3NI1SRld �a o ti t d z w o • �� � L ti U : 0 D s + ¢ z �.• . `� � . o -1-,--1.4.•404,1:-.:,....: :. t m N 0. C7 L' a. :' # .'K ` 1d :x ,g a II wo a E U g Ti g u . < c z ..�n 1 Ha ci -W u ` n � x ZN O '.1.1.,:': w N- . , e2I s� 4 r , ,r bA y f £• -. _ . : :,.: 4. -,- .•,.-: ',. 4...,,.. 4:4, -';.:': '-::::,''''' -; 1,- •1.':::: '' a A • y "ter¢€ya-. ,,,_:.,i..„....., ,-.-:-_.. 1._,4,,..,- . 15 co IW ' ' '; :- . '''''.`-,;:-;',.,-. ...,,'-,-,1". '.. # ,w 1' '1 { t `N.: 6 � w 114 J N ... 2 .,.., 1.;... ..,:k:i ..„, .„,.,...,,,,,..,....,:t.. , , ; : ) . ,T. .. „..,,„„*.l.„,,.,. . ..,, ,, , ...,,... .;.(. 1... : : . . , .--.:,,....a _,.:4; .-!.., , ,i.,:.71„:,,f.„,,,:,,„. - -, ,-..-, .,.. . 1•II cA z Z ,.k. ` 5 O w H°Li illifi Rld 3n12ld 3NI1S � J U ` F z H S" • LL W ' • (r) 3 • i. cbcl __. 41....::: DE DAYL9R9N ENGINE R NG EXHIBIT "G" POTENTIAL LISTED SPECIES TABLE Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GM PA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Exhibit"G"- Potential Listed Species Table VANDERBILT COMMONS Florida Land Use Cover&Forms Classification System(FLUCCS)habitats present on site: FLUCCS 193 FLUCCS 411-E2 FLUCCS 500 The following is a composite table that contains the names of the protected species which have the highest probability of occurring in each onsite FLUCCS community: FLUCCS Potential Listed Species Scientific Name Designated Status FWC or FWS FDA 193 NONE NONE - - 411 Beautiful Pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus E E Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia T - Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T Fakahatchee Burmannia Burmannia flava E - Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T - Florida Coontie Zamia floridana C - Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SSC - Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis T E Satinleaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme E - Southeastern American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus T - Twisted Air Plant Tillandsia flexousa E - 500 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S/A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens SSC - Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - The list of animals and birds was obtained from the FWC publication "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species&Species of Special Concern-Official Lists",Publication Date:January 2013. The list of protected plant species was obtained from the publication"Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants",Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology,Nematology&Plant Pathology-Botany Section,Contribution 38,5th Edition-2010). 1 DE DIAVNDNN EXHIBIT "H" SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Z:\Active ProjectsWVlVanderbilt Commons1DWGIPIanning\GIS1GMPA12016-02-04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT H(ZONING EXHIBIT).mxd ... I1 E MPUD - '�; ,.> RPUD , E 11I 1 r"1111, „RP.110,1111,0141-1r4--''' ''''' --'''' — - ' - •''''-' reVakil ri^'?: A ,A MPUD RPUD RPUD GL►lpp MPUD N.D MPUD G VANDERBILT CI 1 RD '.. G OC W —ILEGEND m raj VABERD. OL . !sit. . � COMM.NDERBILT SUBDISTRICTACH (15.88/CAC.EXP.LIER AREA)BLVD ZONING DISTRICTS Ot. I -A-AGRICULTURAL p I #414,'4A%1,,'. ME-ESTATES -PUD-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT _ RPUD-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - i -MPUD-MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 0 600 1,200 FEET =4.111;3•1� COER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ' �iLLI DEDAVIDSONENGINEERING,INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NCOMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES,FL 34104 DAVN E E R I N IDSONG PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT H: SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS E N G I DE EXHIBIT "I" SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND DESIGNATIONS MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Z:\Active Projects\V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\PlanningIGIS\GMPA12016-02-04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT I(FLUE EXHIBIT).mxd 1 x i W -4d� E S UR �.�. r -•-.'.µms, x 4 . .... ...... -.. VSub 41.4 VANDERBIL`i�BEACH GNU, �w Sax 0 Ii LEGEND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD/COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT (15.88 ACRE EXPANSION AREA) -ES-ESTATES DISTRICT OUR-URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT VSub-VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD/COLLIER •" xs BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT ' r� •;�„;: 00 600 NAPLES, ENGINEERING,INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. D E 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES, FL 34104 ENGYNE 9J PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT I: SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ENGINEERING DE PAYNDAN EXHIBIT "J" HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABILITY Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Exhibit"J" - Historical/Archaeological Probability , \. This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a STOP project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master \ / Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. October 14, 2015 Florida Master Jessica Harrelson Site Project Coordinator File Davidson Engineering 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: (239)434-6060 Email:jessica@davidsonengineering.com In response to your inquiry of October 14, 2015,the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in the following parcels of Collier County: Parcel#25525600520 Parcel#25525600041 Parcel#25525600546 Parcel#25525600067 Parcel#25525600562 Parcel#25525600083 Parcel#25525600588 Parcel#25525600096 When interpreting the results of this search,please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws,you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Paige Phillips Archaeological Data Analyst Florida Master Site File Paige.Phillips@dos.myflorida.com 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph I 850.245.6439 fax I SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us DE EN INE RING EXHIBIT "K" PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC SERVICES MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Z:\Active Projects 1V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWGIPIanning\GIStGMPA12016-02-04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT K(PUBLIC SERVICES MAP).mxd N 0 1 2 MILES W_�1— E 3MILES s IIII� ```• • • North Naples Fire and Rescue.Station 42 2 • MILES 11 7010 Immokalee Road IMMOKALEE RD/CR.846 ` IMMOKALEE RD/CR 846 if ' r :Gulf Coast-High School 7878 Shark Way ` I • Laurel Oak-Elementary I / 7800 Immokalee Road :Oak Ridge-Middle School V J 0 14975 Collier Boulevard It ` II I 1 MILE ii < % 1 0 1 I Golden Gai14575collierBoulevard Fire and Rescue Station 73 I ' 1 i VANDERBILT BEACH RD= JJr ' I1 Vineyards-Elementary I 6225 Arbor Boulevard W o 1 i I cn , z (-) { GOLDEN GATE BLVD P r mco ; 11 W J Big Cypress-Elementary School Golden Gate Fire d Rescue Station 42 m 3520 Golden Gate Boulevard W 95 13th Street SWC ii Q coE 0 / w f6 C -.1 W z0 I- co in 1— E o ) PINE RIDGE RD WHITE BLVD —_ _ z-M rnr Phys ans Regional Hospital (--) cc IY( 6101 Pine Ridge Road I rn u ' �•• II ° 0 0 •% o. " IY z `�EN� ..--��W"' a 16TH AVE.SW 0 GREEN BLVD H J 0 0 LEGEND W QSUBJECT PROPERTY J r J 'RADIUS RINGS Golden Gate-Elementary 0 4911!20th Place SW U j Schools CCSO_Golden.Gate Substation-Dist.2 * COLLIER COUNTY SHERRIFF FACILITY Golden.Gate.Fire and.Rescue Station 70 4707 Golden Gate Parkway �} Hospital 4741 Golden Gate Parkway II Golden Terrace North-Elementary ♦ Medical 0 I / x2711 44th Terrace SW I 0 COLLIER COUNTY FIRE STATION CR 886/GOLDEN GATE Golden Gate=Middle School Golden Terrace South-Elementary 270,1 148th Terrace SW 2965 44th Terrace SW FIRE DISTRICT Q[D Big Corkscrew Fire 0 ( I City of Naples Fire mEast Naples Fire Mike Davis-Elementary I Golden Gate Fire Gb1den•Gate High School 3215 Magnolia Pond Drive gr---2-9-2 -Titan 5 Way 1 North Naples Fire SOURCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2016) SR 93//,75 DAVIDSON CL ENGINEERING, INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. DE 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES, FL 34104 DAVIDSONG PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT K: PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC SERVICES E N G I N E E R I N DE EXHIBIT "L" RECORDED WARRANTY DEED Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com INSTR 5079958 OR 5117 PG 1288 RECORDED 2/3/2015 11:22 AM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA Doc@.70 $30,100.00 REC $35.50 CONS $4,300,000.00 Exhibit"L"-Recorded Warranty Deed This instrument was prepared by without opinion of title and after recording return to' Gregory L.Urbancic,Esq. Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 (239)435-3535 [Space Above This Line For Recording Data] Special Warranty Deed THIS SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED is 133ade gijs ay January,2015 between FLP 7205,LLC,a Florida limited liability company, whys , V lcei B 1 .O. Box 492, Alpena, MI 49707, as grantor(hereinafter referred to as"G �' nd VANDE MMONS,LLC,a Florida limited liability company, whose post oflc• . ress is 2400 9'I' Stree ., S4}ite #101, Naples, FL 34103, as grantee(hereinafter referred to a '(`Gr•• . ��\ (Whenever used hereir/the - - .,rU " •"; Jude all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, e.al pr to i •a✓• . ••. of'\individuals, and the successors and assigns of c• •'rat'• , st • • ste:`..) Witnesseth,that Grantor,for a\rr`,jp onsideration of the s`'•q of I N NO/100 DOLLARS($10.00) and other good and valuable co tions to said Grant. : d • • y Grantee,the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has gree firItargained, and sold o • .^(e7/and Grantee's heirs and assigns forever,the following described Ian s lying and beim '• County,Florida to-wit: Parcel A: SF; Cs l k(2° Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, CAROLINA COMMONS LAND CONDOMINIUM, a Condominium, according to the Declaration of Condominium as recorded in Official Records Book 4246, Page 3729, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,as subsequently amended from time to time. Parcel B: Tract 2 of CAROLINA COMMONS, as per plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 48,Page 78,of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. Parcel Identification Numbers: 25525600520,25525600546,25525600562,25525600588 and 25525600041. Subject to: real estate taxes and assessments for the year 2015 and subsequent years; covenants, restrictions and public utility easements common to the subdivision and/or condominium; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interest of record; existing zoning and governmental regulations and subject to those matters set forth on Exhibit"A"without the intent to reimpose the same. Special Warranty Deed - 1 - 1 oR 5117 PG 1289 Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. And, Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land;that Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by,through or under Grantor. In Witness Whereof, Grantor has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed,sealed and delivered in our presence: FLP 7205,LLC, a Florida limited liability company ;I •ro, ies,LLC, ,4000 - O� a Flo �•i d / b' ty co p: , its M• ! fitness •1: td, IL� Allernfir . A � I Wi ness tion •t�1C Wi r, anagen 111 • State of Florida County of Collier Q .<N The foregoing instrument was acknowledg � a • .( day of January, 2015 by Gregory C. Winter,as Manager of Maple Ridge Properties,LLC,a Florida limited liability company,the Manager of FLP 7205, L , a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of said entity, who [J is personally known or has produced a driver's license as identification. -44•;‘ MONICA JOHNSON .� [Notary Sem COMMISSION St EE187785 Not ry Public ;+ „: 4 EXPIRES April 09.2018 • (407)308-0153 vlorldeNaxfBen�ce.com Printed Name: 'V 1 0 01 CO rM n, on My Commission Expires: 4. 9-11,0 Special Warranty Deed -2- 2 OR 5117 PG 1290 Exhibit "A" PERMITTED TITLE EXCEPTIONS 1. Taxes and assessments for 2015 and thereafter which are not yet due and payable. 2. Oil, gas and mineral reservations as contained in those certain instruments recorded in Deed Book 30, Page 91 and Deed Book 34, Page 286, both of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. The right of entry for the mineral reservation has not been released. 3. Easements, restrictions, covenants, conditions and other matters as shown on plat of Carolina Commons, as recorded in Plat Book 48,Page 78,as amended by partial vacation per Resolution No. 07-269, as recorded in Official Records Book 4286,Page 1092,both of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 4. Declaration of Covenants, ::' i 4�. for Carolina Commons, and all exhibits attached thereto a&-«. 1 ed 4051, Pam amended in Official Records Book 4100, Page 1674, .: . of the Public Re of Collier County, Florida, as subsequently amendedfro.. ti o lithe.. 5. Assignment of Declar t :qtr. : '0 `t Inc\, as recorded in Official -- Records Book 4100,1P 68 i a d; i - •i` -41,- Carolina Commons Owner's Association, Inc. by;ASS , .-.J.' •ffi . _ ' -'✓• Book 4246, Page 3817, both of the Public R-•si • of Collier County, arida 6. Collier County Ordinan• • 75-20,regulating T .� = tion of any water distribution and wastewater collectio: i or part thereof<iritlfin any public right-of-way or easement recorded May 19, ',/ : •.' :ebol l Book 619, Pages 1177 to 1181, inclusive,of the Public Records o - .i.ter .Tt.-, orida. 7. Collier County Ordinance No. 75-21, protecting certain trees within Collier County recorded May 19, 1975 in Official Records Book 619,Pages 1182 to 1190, inclusive, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 8. Collier County Ordinance No. 75-24, zoning ordinance for the Coastal Area Planning District recorded May 19, 1975 in Official Records Book 619, Pages 1191 to 1381, inclusive of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 9. Final Order establishing and confirming Collier County Water Management District Number Seven dated and recorded August 12, 1968, in Official Records Book 282, Page 976,of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 10.Resolution establishing the Immokalee Area Planning District and the Coastal Arca Planning District and declaring the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to enact a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Area Planning District of Collier 3 *** OR 5117 PG 1291 *** County recorded May 6, 1976 in Official Records Book 649,Page 1239 and 1240, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 11.Construction, Maintenance and Easement Agreement regarding Loop Road, as recorded in Official Records Book 3573, Page 751, and Assignment of Cost Sharing Agreement, as recorded in Official Records Book 3797, Page 2118, both of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 12.Cost Sharing Agreement for the Development of a Shared Access Road, as recorded in Official Records Book 3635,Page 1672, and Assignment of Cost Sharing Agreement, as recorded in Official Records Book 3797, Page 2115, both of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 13,Drainage Easement granted to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,as the Governing body of .ii , • ,-.end as ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier Water-Sewer I'w• s lift . •*c ' I `•cial Records Book 4865,Page 2237,of the Public Reco •. ii 'er County,F :a , M 14.Declaration of Con. oliva` `+Coininons Lard C dominium,and all exhibits attached thereto, as o •(.:441 a ,ii •• •�6, age 3729, as subsequently amended from time • • •, . �{ 15.Assignment of D Or t•- i of it • ••...,•.•ns Land Condominium Association, Inc., as ..• • d in Official • - •• B•o i•A' •, Page 3822, of the Public Records of Collier Co ' OP, orida. C 16.The following encroachm ,s '••wn in •• ,t! survey prepared by Rhodes & Rhodes Land Surveying,Inc. ••• -• l • known as File Number 2013-438: i. Encroachment of asphalt into 10'public utility easement and 10'landscape buffer easement; ii. Encroachment of curb into 20'landscape buffer easement; iii. Encroachment of flumes into drainage easements on East and West sides of Parcel B;and iv. Encroachment of drainage easements into Units 1 and 4 of Carolina Commons Land Condominium. Sf ClientslCioffi,RaIphIFLP 7205\Permiited Title Exceptions 4 T S Rpt• }} /•-••N { COD FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Division of Corporations July 29, 2015 CORPORATE ACCESS The Articles of Incorporation for VANDERBILT COMMONS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. were filed on July 29, 2015 and assigned document number N15000007405. Please refer to this number whenever corresponding with this office regarding the above corporation. PLEASE NOTE: Compliance with the following procedures is essential to maintaining your corporate status. Failure to do so may result in dissolution of your corporation. To maintain "active" status with the Division of Corporations, an annual report must be filed yearly between January 1st and May 1st beginning in the year following the filedate or effective date indicated above. It is your responsibility to remember to file your annual report in a timely manner. A Federal Employer Identification Number (FEI/EIN) will be required when this report is filed. Apply today with the IRS online at: https://sa.www4.irs.gov/modiein/individual/index.jsp. Should your corporate mailing address change, you must notify this office in writing, to insure important mailings such as the annual report notices reach you. Should you have any questions regarding corporations, please contact this office at (850) 245-6052. Terri J Schroeder, Regulatory Specialist II New Filing Section Letter Number: 315A00015968 www.sunbiz.org Division of Corporations - P.O. BOX 6327 -Tallahassee, Florida 32314 5 ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION _v0 OF CA col rr VANDERBILT COMMONS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,INC. r— r+.) k.D The undersigned hereby executes and submits these Articles of Incorporation as oh theirDd day and year set forth hereinbelow for the purpose of forming the corporation pursuit Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, CD ARTICLE I Corporate Name 1.1 Name. The name of the corporation is Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association, Inc., hereinafter called the "Association". For convenience, these Articles of Incorporation shall be referred to herein as the"Articles", and the By-Laws of th:. Association as the"By-Laws". ARTICLE II Address 2.1 Address. The initial mailing address of'the Association shall be 2950 9th Street North, Naples, Florida 34103. The principal office of the Association shall be located at the mailing address or at such other place as may be subsequently designated by the Board of Directors of the Association from time to time. ARTICLE III Purpose and Powers of the Association 3.1 Objects and Purposes. The objects and purposes of the Association are those objects and purposes as are authorized by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Vanderbilt Commons recorded (or to be recorded) in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, as hereafter amended and/or supplemented from time to time (the "Declaration"). The further objects and purposes of the Association are to preserve the values and amenities within Vanderbilt Commons, as the same are defined in the Declaration, and to maintain the Common Area and any portions of the Property as set forth in the Declaration for the benefit of the Members of the Association. Defined terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Declaration, 3.2 Not for Profit. The Association is not organized for profit and nc part of the net earnings, if any, shall inure to the benefit of any Member or individual person, firm or corporation. Upon dissolution, all assets of the Association shall be transferred only to another not-for-profit corporation or as otherwise authorized by the Florida not-for-profit corporation statute. 3.3 Powers. The powers of the Association shall include and be governed by tlic fol lowing: 6 (a) General. The Association shall have all of the common law and statutory powers of a corporation not-for-profit under the Laws of Florida unless further restricted by the provisions of these Articles, the Declaration,or the By-Laws; and (b) Enumeration. The Association shall have the powers and duties set forth in subsection (a) above, except as limited by these Articles, the By-Laws and the Declaration, and all of the powers and duties reasonably necessary to operate the Association pursuant to the Declaration, and as more particularly described in the By-Laws, as they may he amended from time to time, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) To make and collect Assessments and other charges against Members and Owners, and to use the proceeds thereof in the exercise of its powers and duties; (ii) To buy, own, operate, lease and sell, both real and personal property; (iii) To maintain, repair, replace, reconstruct, add to and operate the Common Area, and portions of the Property as set forth in the Declaration; (iv) To purchase insurance upon the Common Area and insurance for the protection of the Association, its officers,directors and Members; (v) To make and amend reasonable rules and regulations for the maintenance, conservation and use of the Common Area and Lots and for the Health, comfort, safety and welfare of the Members as provided in the Declaration; (vi) To enforce by legal means the provisions of the Declaration, these Articles, the By-Laws, and the Rules and Regulations for the use of the Common Area and the Lots, (vii) To contract for the management and maintenance 31 the Common Area and to authorize a management agent to assist the Association in carrying out its powers and duties by performing such functions as the submission of proposals, collection of Assessments, preparation of records, enforcement of rules and maintenance, repair and replacement of the Common Area with such funds as shall be made available by the Association for such purposes. The Association and its officers shall, however, retain at all times the powers and duties granted by the Declaration, By-Laws and these Articles, including, but not limited to, the making of Assessments, promulgation of rules and execution of contracts on behalf of the Association; (viii) To employ personnel to perform the services required for be proper operation,maintenance, conservation, and use of the Common Area; v, 52 C:: r' w ,fl r3or, zctzb 7 (ix) To borrow money, and with the unanimous consent of the members entitled to vote, mortgage, pledge, deed in trust, or hypothecate any or all of its real or personal property as security for money borrowed or debts inctured; (x) To dedicate, sell or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority, or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the members; (xi) To maintain and operate any roads and streets, sewer and/or potable water facilities and the surface/stormwater management system and related appurtenances, including, but not limited to, all lakes, retention areas, swales, culverts and drainage structures in accordance with any permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District or its successor; (xii) To sue and be sued; and (xiii) To contract for services necessary to operate and maintain the surface/stormwater management system and other property (tracts and easements) dedicated to the Association, and any corresponding infrastructure. All funds and the title to all property acquired by the Association shall be held for tilt; benefit of the Members in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration, these ArticlailanCg the By-Laws. c_ 3aF 1-- ARTICLE IV r.) -911_,34P-11 .."---- MembershipNoting Rights -4 TA 4.1 Qualification. The qualification of Members, the manner of their admission the termination of membership,and voting by members shall be as follows: az) —4=- ca Farr' (a) Every Owner of a Lot shall be a Member of the Association. Each Member shall be entitled to such votes and have such a voting interest as provided and allocated pursuant ID these Articles and Section 6.5(a) of the Declaration, as calculated in accordance with the schedule of Gross Area Calculations set forth in Exhibit "D" attached thereto, all as the same may be subsequently amended from time to time. In the event a Lot is subdivided and a Sub- Association is created, the Sub-Association therefor shall be the applicable Iember of the Association. Membership in the Association shall not be assignable, except to the successor of the Owner's Lot, as the case may be, and every membership of an Owner or Sub-Association in the Association shall be appurtenant to and inseparable from ownership of the Lot. M. bership in the Association shall not be transferred,pledged or alienated in any way,except upon the sale of the Lot to which such membership is appurtenant, and then only to the purchaser of such LOL, arid, upon the sale of a Lot, the seller's membership in the Association shall terminate as to such Lot. Any purported transfer of membership in the Association to any transferee not permitted under this Article shall be null and void. Recordation of a deed to a Lot shall be the act which transfers membership in the Association. This prohibition shall not otherwise restrict an Owner from delegating its voting rights or granting proxies. 3 8 (b) Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, the Articles, the By-Laws or applicable Laws,all matters requiring the approval of the Members shall be deemed approved by one of the following methods: (i)if approved unanimously by the voting interest of the Members of the Association in writing; or (ii) if approved by a Majority of the Members w any duly called regular or special meeting of the Members at which a quorum is present, either in person or by proxy. (c) For purposes of this Article, if a Lot consists of a Sub-Association, then the votes allocated to such Lot shall be exercised by a voting representative appointed annually by the applicable Sub-Association ("Voting Representative"), an behalf of such Sub-Association, and in accordance with the governing documents and instructions of the board of directors of such Sub- Association. Upon the casting of votes by the Voting Representative of a Sub-Association, it will thereafter be conclusively presumed for all purposes that he or she acted with the authority and consent of the board of directors of such Sub-Association. (d) The interest of a Member in the funds and assets of the Association cannot be assigned, hypothecated or transferred in any manner, except as an appurtenance to the Lot owned by such member. The funds and assets of the Association shall be es.pended, held or used only for the benefit of the membership and for the purposes authorize,_i herein, in the Declaration,and in the By-Laws. ARTICLE V Liability for Debts 5.1 Debts. Neither the Members nor the officers or the directors of the Association shall be liable for the debts of the Association. ARTICLE VI Board of Directors 6.1 Number of Dirtors/Initial Directors. The affairs of this Association shall be managed and governed by a Board of Directors consisting of at least three (3) Directors, who need not be Members of the Association. The number of Directors may be changed by amendment of the By-Laws of the Association. The names and addresses of the persons who are to act in the capacity of Directors until the selection of their successor are: Name Address Ralph R. Cioffi,Jr. 2950 9th Street North, Naples,Florida 34103 `^ m Dan Smith 2950 9th Street North,Naples, Florida 34103 Fred Benoit 2950 9th Street North, Naples,Florida 3410.1 Tr, o -0ac Cr? c rt 4 9 6.2 Election/Removal. Directors of the Association shall be elected by the Members in the manner determined by the By-Laws. Directors may be removed and vacancies of the Board of Directors shall be filled in the manner provided by the By-Laws. ARTICI.F VII Officers 7.1 Officers. The affairs of the Association shall be administered by a President, a Vice President, a Secretary and a Treasurer and such other Officers as may be designated from time to time by the Directors. The Officers shall be elected or designated by the Board of Directors at its first meeting following the annual meeting of the Members of the Association. The names and addresses of the Officers who shall serve until their successors are elected or designated by the Board of Directors are as follows: President Ralph R. Cioffi,Jr. tS1 r- -I Vice President George Vuko : eich D Z3cF —a cg Secretary Fred Benoit Treasurer Dan Smith W CY e= CO ARTICLE VIII Indemnification 8.1 Indemnity. The Association shall indemnify any officer, director, or committee member who was or is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any threatened, pending. or contemplated action, suit or proceeding, whether civil. criminal, administrative, or investigative, by reason of the fact that he is or was a director, officer, or committee member of the Association, against expenses (including attorney's fees and appellate attorney's fees), judgments, fines, and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection with such action, suit, or proceeding, unless: (i) a court of competent jurisdiction finally determines, after all appeals have been exhausted or not pursued by the proposed indemnitee, that he did not act in good faith or in a manner he reasonably believed to be in or riot opposed to the best interest of the Association, and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, that he had reasonable cause to believe his conduct was unlawful; and(ii)such court also determines specifically that indemnification should be denied. The termination of any action, suit, or proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent shall not, of itself, create a presumption that the person did not act in good faith and in a manner which he reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interest of the Association, and with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had reasonable cause to believe that his conduct was unlawful. It is the intent of the Association, by the adoption of this provision, to provide the most comprehensive indemnification possible to its officers, directors, and committee members as permitted by Florida law. 5 10 8.2 Expenses, To the extent that a director, officer, employee or agent of the Association has been successful on the merits or otherwise in defense of any action, suit or proceeding referred to in Section 8.1 above, or in defense of any claim, issue or matter therein, he shall be indemnified against expenses(including attorney's fees and appellate attorney's fees) actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection therewith. Assessments may be made by the Association to cover any expenses or other amounts to be paid by the Association in connection with the indemnification provided herein. 8.3 Approval. Any indemnification under Section 8.1 above (unless ordered by a court) shall be made by the Association only as authorized in the specific case upon a reasonable determination that indemnification of the director, officer, employee, committee member or agent is proper in the circumstances because he has met the applicable standard of conduct set forth in Section 8.1 above, Such determination shall be made(a) by the Board of Directors by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of Directors who were not parties to such action, suit or proceeding, or (b) if such quorum is not obtainable, or, even if obtainable a quorum of disinterested directors so directs, by independent legal counsel in a written opinion, or (c) by a majority of the Members. 8.4 Advances. Expenses incurred in defending a civil or criminal action, suit or proceeding may be paid by the Association in advance of the final disposition of such action, suit or proceeding as authorized by the Board of Directors in the specific case upon receipt of an undertaking by or on behalf of the director, officer, employee, committee member or agent to repay such amount unless it shall ultimately be determined that he or she is entitled to be indemnified by the Association as authorized in this Article. 8.5 Miscellaneous. The indemnification provided by this Article shall not be deemed exclusive of any other rights to which those seeking indemnification may be entitled under any by-law, agreement, vote of Members or otherwise, both as to action in his official capacity while holding such office or position, or otherwise, and shall continue as to a person who has ceased to be director, officer, employee, committee member or agent and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs,executors and administrators of such person. 8.6 Insurance. The Association shall have the power to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any person who is or was a director, officer, employee, committee member or agent of the Association, or is or was serving at the request of the Association as a director, officer,employee, committee member or agent of another corporation,partnership,joint venture,trust or other enterprise, against any liability asserted against him and incurred by him in any such capacity, or arising out of his status as such, whether or not the Association would have the power to indemnify him against such liability under the provisions of this Article. 8.7 Amendment. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, the provisions of this Article may not be amended without the prior written consent of all persons whose intast would be adversely affected by such amendment. r-- xx ' n; t[3 �zo'1 r tr CA) © ;43.- 6 +h6 11 8.8 Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, all terms used in these Articles shall have the same meaning as are attributed to them in the Master Declaration and the By-Laws. ARTICLE IX By-Laws 9.1 By-Laws. The By-Laws of the Association shall be adopted by the Board of Directors and may be altered, amended or rescinded as provided therein;provided,however, that at no time shall the By-Laws conflict with these Articles of Incorporation or the Declaration. ARTICLE X Dissolution 10.1 Dissolution. The Association may be dissolved upon written assent signed by unanimous consent of the Members. Upon dissolution of the Association, other than incident to a merger or consolidation, the assets of the Association(including, without limitation,the surface water management system) shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency to be used for purposes similar to those for which this Association was created. In the event that such dedication is refused acceptance, such assets shall be granted, conveyed and assigned to any nonprofit corporation, association, trust or organization to be devoted to such similar purposes. ARTICLE XI cal LA PI Term t•- =1 11.1 Term. The term of the Association shall be perpetual. •9- +r) 2 ARTICLE XII Amendments t.4 111 Amendment Process. Amendments to these Articles shall be propose anir adopted in the following manner: • (a) Proposal. Amendments to these Articles may be proposed by a majority of the Board of Directors or upon petition by a Member,in writing, signed by them. (b) Procedure. Upon any amendment or amendments to these Articles being proposed by said Board or Member, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be submitted to a vote of the Members not later than the next annual meeting for which proper notice can be given. (c) Vote Required. Except as otherwise required for by Florida law, these Articles of Incorporation may be amended by the unanimous vote of the voting interests of the Members at any annual or special meeting, or by the unanimous approval in writing of the voting interests of the Members without a meeting. Notice of any proposed amendment shall be given 7 12 to the Members of the Association and that the notice contains a fair statement of the proposed amendment. 12.2 Effective Date. An amendment shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State and recording a certified copy in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 12.3 Limit on Amendments. No amendment shall make any changes in the qualifications for membership, or in the voting rights of Members, without approval in writing by all Members. ARTICLE XIII Incorporator The name and address of the incorporator of these Articles of Incorporation is as follows: Kevin A. Denti, Esquire 2180 Immokalee Road—Suite#316 Naples, Florida 34110 ARTICLE XIV Registered Office and Agent The street address of the initial registered office of this corporation is 2180 lnunokalee Road — Suite #316, Naples, Florida 34110, and the name of the initial registered agent of this corporation is Kevin A. Denti, Esquire of Kevin A. Denti,P.A. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the subscriber, being the undersigned , -on, named as incorporator, has hereunto set his/her hand and seal, this 4day of 1, - 2015. Kevin A. Denti,Esquire,Incorporator g r vm-+ rp jar• Lo 7511• Q 8 13 ACCEPTANCE OF DESIGNATION AS REGISTERED AGENT Having been named as registered agent to accept service of process for the above stated corporation, at the place designated in the certificate, I am familiar with and accept the appointment as registered agent and agree to act in this capacity. Kevin A. Denti,Esquire, Registered Agent Lro ifirri c._ x rn rs) %.0 -0 zsck 4-7 CD c=> S\atemslVanderbilt CornmonslAstIdes of Incorporation 9 14 N 15000cy:3740,,,„ (Requestofs Name) 11 111111 HI, (Address) 600276680496 (Address) TrA-CL-r-Fse_JA:) (City/State/Zip/Phone#) UCI/0:/15--1=110001--006 ;:*15.00 Ej PICK-UP Ej WAIT ❑ MAIL 09/08/1S--01001--011 *#15.00 (Business Entity Name) (Document Number) Certified Copies Certificates of Status Special Instructions to Filing Officer: �r� %7 ` _17;c; rJl ..-r, = z••- 'fir r •"r;r. Office Use Only �.a • At*t* to- ►" • cn' SHAD r7 0 CORPORATE J When you need ACCESS to the world ACCESS, dv` INC. 236 East 6th Avenue.Tallahassee, Florida 32303 .P.O. Box 37066(32315-7066) -- (850)222-2666 or(800)969-1666. Fax(850)222-1666 WALK IN PICK UP: /q/i..r .431 "wita ❑ CERTIFIED COPY PHOTOCOPY ❑ CUS FILING 1 i ' ' ,Crrr l. apo lr_ p ,te,0(yS Q W..$' 1?6S,c.;AuF741,►V 4, (CORPORATE NAME AND DOCUMENT#) ► 2. (CORPORATE NAME AND DOCUMENT#) (CORPORATE NAME AND DOCUMENT#) 4. (CORPORATE NAME AND DOCUMENT#) 5. (CORPORATE NAME AND DOCUMENT#) 6. (CORPORATE NAME AND DOCUMENT#) SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 16 ARTICLES OF MERGER FILED 2015 SEP -4 PM 20 The following Articles of Merger are being submitted in accordance with section 617.1105,. Florida Statutes: :'.;::;;,:, i u' S lAl E tT LL,HASSEE. FLORIDA 114 FIRST: The names and addresses of the corporations which are merging are as follows: Carolina Commons Owners' Association, Inc. 2950 9th Street North Naples, Florida 34103 Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association, Inc. 2950 9th Street North Naples, Florida 34103 SECOND: The name and address of the surviving corporation is as follows: Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association, Inc. 2950 9th Street North Naples, Florida 34103 THIRD: The Plan of Merger attached hereto meets the requirements of Section 617.1101, Florida Statutes,as the members of each corporation which is a party hereto are not entitled to vote on a Plan of Merger,and the Plan of Merger was unanimously adopted and approved by all three(3) of the members of the Board of Directors of each corporation that is a party to the merger on September 1,2015. FOURTH: The effective date of the merger shall be the date of filing of these Articles of Merger. CARLOLINA COMMONS' OWNERS' VANDERBILT COMMONS' ASSOCIATION,INC., a Florida ASSOCIATION,INC.,a Florida not-for-profit corporation not-for-profit corporation BRar9k Q, By. � P CA 4,L Ralp R. Cioffi, rent Raip R. Cioffi,J ., Pid t S:1Clients\Vanderbilt Commons\Articles of Merger 17 i • PLAN OF MERGER The following Plan of Merger has been adopted and approved by each party to the merger in accordance with Section 617.1101, Florida Statutes: FIRST: The names of the corporations which are merging are as follows: Carolina Commons Owners' Association, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, and Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association, Inc.,a Florida not-for-profit corporation. SECOND: The name of the surviving corporation is as follows: I Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association, Inc.,a Florida not-for-profit corporation. THIRD: The terms and conditions of the merger are as follows: Carolina Commons Owners' Association, Inc. shall be merged with and into Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association, Inc. The existence of Carolina Commons Owners' Association, Inc. shall cease upon the filing of this Plan of Merger. FOURTH: The Articles of Incorporation of the surviving corporation shall be affected by the merger as follows: The Articles of Incorporation of Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association,Inc.as now in force and effect shall be the Articles of Incorporation of Vanderbilt Commons Owners'Association, Inc. as it survives after the merger. FIFTH: The membership of the merging corporation shall be affected by the merger as follows: All of the members of Carolina Commons Owners'Association,Inc.shall become members of Vanderbilt Commons Owners' Association, Inc. upon the effective date of the merger. SIXTH: The following additional provisions shall apply to this Plan of Merger: All directors of Carolina Commons Owners' Association, Inc. and Vanderbilt Commons Owners'Association,Inc.have adopted and approved of the merger in accordance with Florida law. The effective date of the merger shall be the date of filing of the Articles of Merger to which this Plan of Merger is attached. CARLOLINA COMMONS' OWNERS' VANDERBILT COMMONS' OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,INC.,a Florida ASSOCIATION, INC.,a Florida not-for-profit corporation not-for-profit corporation B;ZO.e wo * lb Ralph R. Cioffi, 7,`'re ' ent Ralp R. Cioffi,Jr.' Z sib t S:1Clients\Vanderbilt CommonslPlan of Merger 18 DE DAVIDSQN FNGIHEER NG ,.., EXHIBIT "M" LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Frederick E.Hood,of Davidson Engineering, Inc.,and Bruce Anderson,of Cheffy Passidomo,P.A. I hereby authorize (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Date: a.g', C)\(p (Name of Owners o`f'Record) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true,correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant Ralph Cioffi,Manager,Vanderbilt Commons,LLC Name-Typed or Printed STATE OF ( C-k0I64-- ) COUNTY OF ( CsakeS ) p` Sworn to and subscribed before me this OAC day of ,'f��lo MY COMMIS • ' •- • Notary Public t(, �mrnK JESSICA,NARREtt1011 • • Notary Peek•State et WO CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: t• MY Com'Expires May 111.2016 commission•FF 01925,1' "id?r,4Yes Bonded Through National Notary Assn. who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE- BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 7 DE DAVHi qt EXHIBIT "N" ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DC DAVIDSON rr+c,rr.ccaie G VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD/ COLLIER BLVD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT 15.88-ACRE EXPANSION AREA ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS Prepared For: Vanderbilt Commons, LLC c/o Welsh Companies of Florida, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34103 and Prepared By: Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 October, 2015 Revised February, 2016 Revised November, 2016 Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Contents Purpose and Focus: 1 Physical Description of Subject Property: 1 Market Study and Trade Area Analysis. 2 Alternative Site Analysis: 8 Attachments: Attachment A—Vicinity Map Attachment B—County ROW Deeds and Approved Vanderbilt Commons Plat Attachment C—Vanderbilt Commons Florida Land Use Classifications System Attachment D—Vanderbilt Commons Potential Listed Species Attachment E—Census Information for Collier County Attachment F-3.5 Mile Radial Planning Communities Attachment G—0.5 Mile Radial Planning Communities Attachment H—Parcel 00190040802&00188200007 Information Attachment I—Parcel 00188040005,00187400002, &00187240000 Information Attachment J—Ordinance 05-19 Carolina Village PUD Attachment K—Ordinance 11-08 Addie's Corner MPUD Attachment L—Ordinance 07-54 Tree Farm MPUD Attachment M —HEX NO. 2015-42 Tree Farm PDI Purpose and Focus: The intention of this marketing study is to provide an analysis for a modification to the existing Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict; demonstrating a change to the existing Growth Management Plan (GMP) as warranted. The existing Subdistrict is located west of the northwest corner of the signalized intersection between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard and extends west on Vanderbilt Beach Road approximately 1,320 feet with about 525 feet of depth (see Attachment A - Vicinity Map). The Subdistrict consists of±49.33 acres of land —±33.45 acres from the originally approved Subdistrict with a ±15.88-acre expansion (Ordinance No. 2007-18 on January 25, 2007). The intent of the Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for the neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas. The Collier County GMP currently designates the aforementioned expansion area (±15.88 acres) as a mixed-use commercial land use of the Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict with development stipulations. The text excludes the following uses from being permitted within the expansion area: gas stations, convenience store with gas pumps, fast food restaurants with drive through lanes and tire stores. These prohibited uses are permitted in the rest of this Subdistrict which is mostly built out. The proposal of this amendment application is to provide clarification on allowable commercial square footage, while including self-storage as determined by the Hearing Examiner as a comparable and compatible land use, via a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for the expansion area. Upon final approval and adoption of the GMPA, the property will have its PUD zoning amended to include the proposed commercial land uses and square footage by a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) of Ordinance 2005-19. An existing Plat (Plat Book 60, Pages 31 and 32) has been approved through Collier County Development Services (PL20150000968)for±14.49 acres, an additional ±0.51 acres has been recorded via Tract A-1 within the Vanderbilt Commons Plat that has been deeded to the County through OR4577 PG3404, and the remaining ±0.88 acreage was deeded to the County under OR3573 PG0781; please refer to Attachment B. Physical Description of Subject Property: Recently, ecologist Jeremy Sterk of Earth Tech Environmental, LLC, prepared a Florida Land Use Cover Classifications System (FLUCCS) map and reviewed the potential protected species correlated with the FLUCCS map for the subject property. The FLUCCS shows±14.49 acres, known as Vanderbilt Commons, as cleared existing water management pond and pine flatwoods preserve; please refer to Attachment D. The additional ±1.39 acres have been deeded as County owned right-of-way (Pristine Drive to the west and Buckstone Drive to the east). The potential protected species report advises that there are likely no protected species on-site; please refer to Attachment D. Market Study and Trade Area Analysis: To show a need for the Future Land Use designation modification, a market study has been performed identifying data and analysis to demonstrate that change is warranted, and that more inventory of the requested uses is needed. Dependents for this analysis include demands of the local/transient populations and existing site availability all within a 3.5-mile radial distance from the identified expansion area. The 3.5-mile radial distance was selected based on service convenience for potential users/residents in the near Estates designated lands to the east, the residential developments fronting south on Immokalee to the north, east of 1-75 to the west and north of Green Boulevard to the south. The subject property will be evaluated to ensure that the existing and future demographics will support the proposed land uses based on the following: • Existing local population • Proposed population growth • Existing services (specifically Restaurants/Coffee Shops/Cafe, Childcare/Pre-School, Medical and General Office,Self-Storage, and Retail) • Property Availability Existing Local Population Demographic information is an excellent indicator of demand for proposed services that are currently in short supply. Population statistics for the market study were determined based upon a 3.5-mile radial distance from the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard (please refer to Attachment E). In order to identify an accurate depiction of the population within the area of study the AUIR 2016 based upon BEBR medium growth rate projections information obtained from Collier County has been referenced. The AUIR 2016 identifies the area of study within four planning communities; refer to Attachment F. Within these planning communities the percentage of land representative of the 3.5-mile radius boundary was calculated to obtain a more precise population within the area of study, please refer to Table 1—Planning Community Area Calculations. Table 1—Planning Community Area Calculations for 3.5-Mile Distance Golden Gate Total Area w/in Planning Community 9,539 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 1,146 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 12.01% Urban Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 22,257 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 14,941 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 67.13% Rural Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 75,188 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 6,822 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 9.07% Corkscrew Total Area w/in Planning Community 181,924 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 1720 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 0.95% Utilizing the percentage calculated within Table 1, the following projections for permanent populations has been interpreted for the four aforementioned planning communities within Table 2. Please refer to Attachment E for specific AUIR 2016 referenced data. Table 2—Calculated Permanent Population 2016 within Market Study(3.5 Mile Distance) Permanent Population in 2016 45,540 Golden Gate Planning Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 12.01% Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 5,469 Permanent Population in 2016 43,878 Urban Estates Planning Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 67.13% Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 29,455 Permanent Population in 2016 36,052 Rural Estates Planning Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 9.07% Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 3,270 Permanent Population in 2016 11,541 Corkscrew Planning o Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 0.95/ Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 110 Total Permanent Population w/in Market Study: 38,304 To interpret the Peak population, additional information from the AUIR 2016 was evaluated resulting in a calculated 16.67% increase in population during peak season. This information ultimately, results in a base permanent population of 38,304 persons and peak seasonal population of 44,689 persons. To further define the population directly impacted by the proposed services, the same analysis was performed within a 0.5-mile radius from the development site. The AUIR 2016 identifies the aforementioned area of study within two planning communities; refer to Attachment G. Using the same technique previously completed for the 3.5-mile distance,the following results were obtained. Table 3—Planning Community Area Calculations for 0.5 Mile Distance Urban Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 22,257 Acres Planning Area in Study 6,060 Acres Community Study Area w/in Community 27.23% Rural Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 75,188 Acres Planning Area in Study 67 Acres Community Study Area w/in Community 0.09% Table 4-Calculated Permanent Population 2016 within Market Study(0.5 Mile Distance) Urban Estates Population in 2016 43,878 Planning Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 27.23% Community Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 11,948 Rural Estates Population in 2016 36,052 Planning Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 0.09% Community Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 32 Total Population: 11,980 This information ultimately, results in a base permanent population of 11,980 persons and peak seasonal population of 13,977 persons. Proposed Population Growth To further define a population in need of services, an analysis of the growth patterns within Collier County has been completed based on the AUIR 2016. Table 5-Projected Populations within 3.5- Mile Distance Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 Golden Gate Planning Permanent 5,405 5,471 5,490 5,509 Community Peak 6,306 6,383 6,405 6,427 Urban Estates Permanent 26,067 29,455 34,822 39,554 Planning Community Peak 30,412 34,365 40,627 46,148 Rural Estates Permanent 3,156 3,271 3,534 3,767 Planning Community Peak 3,682 3,816 4,123 4,395 Corkscrew Planning Permanent 43 109 156 207 Community Peak 51 127 167 217 34,671 38,306 44,002 49,037 Permanent Total: 40,451 44,692 51,322 57,187 Peak Per the BEBR medium growth rate projections, the planning communities directly impacted by the development are growing at a rate of±9.0%every 5 years. As a result, placing the County within the top ten growth rates in the state of Florida; please refer to Attachment E. To verify growth within the defined limits, a review of permitted zoning rights and available properties has also been reviewed, specifically, the ±15.88 acre expansion area. This area is bordered by a large residential Planned Unit Development, Wolf Creek, to the west and north. Within Wolf Creek, 671 residential units have been permitted within the ±167.96-acre zoned property. To the south is Estates zoning with some undeveloped properties and properties developed with single family homes. To the west is a Commercial Planned Unit Development; Mission Hills. Mission Hills is currently 89% built out with approximately±3.73 acres of available commercial development with zoning restrictions. Also, to further promote growth within the area, transportation infrastructure within the vicinity has improved and has provided additional capacity on the adjacent roadways. Improvements include the widening of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard that have provided efficient alternative routes; both of which are arterial roads. Existing Services In defining a warranted use for the requested commercial services, locations of existing facilities were also identified. The services identified include the following uses: • Restaurants/Coffee Shops/Cafe • Childcare/Pre-School • Medical and General Office • Self-Storage • Retail The results are listed below, along with the respective addresses and distance from ±15.88-acre parcel measurements: Restaurants/Coffee Shops/Cafe 1. Café Blu 7550 Mission Hills Dr, Naples, FL 34120 (0.05 mi) 2. Panda Restaurant 7550 Mission Hills Dr#308, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 3. Altaville Pizza & Deli 7550 Mission Hills Dr#318, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 4. Subway 7550 Mission Hills Dr#322, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 5. Blue Monkey Bar&Grill 7550 Mission Hills Dr,#326, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 6. Dunkin Donuts 14259 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34119 (0.18 mi) 7. Ginos Trattoria Per Tutti 15215 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34119 (1.69 mi) 8. Pizza Hut 15215 Collier Blvd#305, Naples, FL 34119 (1.69 mi) 9. Coffee Cup 15215 Collier Blvd#310, Naples, FL 34119 (1.69 mi) 10. Hibachi of Japan 15215 Collier Blvd#307, Naples, FL 34119 (1.69 mi) Several restaurants, coffee shops and/or cafes are located within close proximity of the Vanderbilt Commons development. The nearest restaurants are located about 0.05 miles from the development and are within the Mission Hills Shopping Center. Access is available to the restaurants from Buckstone Drive,Vanderbilt Beach Road, Mission Hills Drive and Collier Boulevard. Childcare/Pre-School 1. St. Agnes Catholic Church: 7775 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Naples, FL 34120 (0.29 mi) 2. Nicaea Academy: 14785 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34119 (0.92 mi) 3. Vineyards Elementary School: 6225 Arbor Blvd W, Naples, FL 34119 (2.24 mi) The nearest childcare/pre-school is located about 0.29 miles to the east of the Vanderbilt Commons development and is located in a religious institution. The religious institution is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Primary access to the site is available from Vanderbilt Beach Road, however, the site can also be accessed from Collier Boulevard via local roads, Bucks Run Drive and Running Buck Court. Medical and General Office 1. New Age Dentistry of Naples: 7550 Mission Hills Dr#122, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 2. Living Word Executive Office: 7550 Mission Hills Dr#314, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 3. State Farm Insurance Office: 7550 Mission Hills Dr#304, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 4. Chiropractic Office: 7550 Mission Hills Dr#316, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 5. Mission Hills Dentistry: 7485 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Naples, FL 34119 (0.09 mi) 6. ChiroCare Express: 15205 Collier Blvd#105, Naples, FL 34119 (1.60 mi) 7. MacDonald Insurance: 15205 Collier Blvd#106, Naples, FL 3411 (1.60 mi) 8. Naples Golf Homes: 15205 Collier Blvd#201, Naples, FL 34119 (1.60 mi) 9. Management Office: 15205 Collier Blvd#207, Naples, FL 34119 (1.60 mi) 10. CPA-Tax Office: 15205 Collier Blvd#208, Naples, FL 34119 (1.60 mi) 11. Pregnancy Clinic: 15205 Collier Blvd#209, Naples, FL 34119 (1.60 mi) 12. NCH Medical Group: 15215 Collier Blvd#101, Naples, FL 3411 (1.69 mi) 13. Dentist Office: 15265 Collier Blvd Naples, FL 34119 (1.73 mi) Located to the west of Vanderbilt Commons, across Buckstone Drive, several medical and general office establishments are within the Mission Hills development. The nearest office is located about 0.05 miles from the Vanderbilt Commons Development. Access is available to the establishment through the internal driveways in the Mission Hills shopping center from Buckstone Drive, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Mission Hills Drive and Collier Boulevard. Retail 1. Winn Dixie: 7550 Mission Hills Dr, Naples, FL 34119 (0.05 mi) 2. Verizon Wireless: 15215 Collier Blvd#318, Naples, FL 34119 (1.61 mi) 3. Dagny's Spirits: 15205 Collier Blvd#103, Naples, FL 34119 (1.61 mi) 4. Publix: 15265 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34119 (1.78 mi) 5. Walgreens: 15295 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34119 (1.84 mi) 6. CVS Pharmacy: 8831 Immokalee Rd, Naples, FL 34120 (1.98 mi) 7. Mattress Firm: 8867 Immokalee Rd#102, Naples, FL 34120 (2.00 mi) The nearest retail development is located about 0.05 miles from Vanderbilt Commons and is located in the Mission Hills Shopping Center.The retail development can be accessed from Vanderbilt Beach Road, Buckstone Drive, Mission Hills Drive and Collier Boulevard through internal driveways in the Mission Hills Shopping Center. Self-Storage 1. Cypress Self Storage: 17755 Preserve Ln, Naples, FL 34119 (2.21 mi) 2. Naples Storage Units: 500 Executive Drive, Naples, 34119 (3.18 mi) As the results show,the closest self-storage is located 2.21 miles located on Immokalee Road within the Preserve Commons commercial area, directly adjacent from Gulf Coast High School/Laurel Oak Elementary. The facility has frontage on Preserve Lane (local road). Access is available to westbound and eastbound traffic via Immokalee Road. Property Availability Due to the specific nature of the land uses proposed minimum criteria controls and limits have been established for potential available sites for consideration. The key criteria for site development are as follows: • Eligible for C-4 Zoning • Minimum 10 acres in size • Located with frontage on an arterial or collector roadway In making the decision to proceed with the subject area (±15.88 acre area), all viable sites that are commercially available were reviewed and discussed. Due to the limited amount of undeveloped C-4 properties (including PUD Commercial with C-4+ intensities), few options existed. Available properties meeting the aforementioned criteria include the following: Option#1 Folio#'s: 00190040802 &00188200007 Legal: OR 1913 PG 1215 OR 5087 PG 93 Parcel Size: 17.26 Acres Zoning: Addie's Corner MPUD (Ordinance No. 11-08) The site is generally located on Immokalee Road approximately 3.13 miles east of 1-75, refer to Attachment H. Option#2 Folio#'s: 00188040005,00187400002, &00187240000 Address/Legal: 8799 Immoka lee Road/OR 4413 PGS 3836-3838 OR 4413 PG 3838 OR 4413 PG 3838 Parcel Size: 51.04 Acres Zoning: Treefarm MPUD(Ordinance No. 07-54) The site is generally located on the west site of Collier Boulevard Extension,just south of Immokalee /'� Road; refer to Attachment I. Alternative Site Analysis: To further identify a need for the designation modification to the Growth Management Plan a site analysis was completed of the existing property. The following information serves as the required data and analysis to support the GMPA for the property located on Vanderbilt Beach Road between Pristine Drive and Buckstone Drive. Within the analysis, the subject properties (15.88 acres) were evaluated in comparison with aforementioned available properties: • Eligible for C-4 Zoning and Land Uses • Minimum 10 acres in size • Located with frontage on an arterial or collector roadway These aforementioned specific criteria were chosen to provide an alternative site that will function for all proposed uses inclusive of the limited uses and the self-storage land use, as found consistent by the Hearing Examiner. For the particular uses being requested, self-storage is the limiting factor requiring a C-4 zoning with Conditional Use approval requirement. The acreage was selected in order to provide enough existing property to develop a mixture of permitted land uses; includes a minimum of 3 of the 5 proposed uses within a single development. Finally, due to the types of development being requested, frontage and accessibility is critical to endorse successful businesses. Within the following analysis the location of the subject property will meet or exceed the established aforementioned criteria that have been set forth. In making the decision to proceed with future development of the subject property, all viable sites that are commercially available were reviewed. It is assumed that all vacant/undeveloped and/or cleared properties adhere to criteria of availability. Due to the limited amount of undeveloped C-4 properties (including PUD Commercial with C-4 intensities),few options exist. Proposed Site Location Folio#'s: 79271800141,79271800044, 79271800167, 79271800183, 79271800028, 79271800086, 79271800109, 79271800125, 79271800060 Address/Legal: 7373 Vanderbilt Beach Road (per the Collier County Property Appraiser's Website) BEING ALL OF VANDERBILT COMMONS LOTS 1 —6 AND TRACTS A, B and C, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, PAGES 31 AND 32 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Parcel Size: 14.49 Acres Zoning: Carolina Village PUD (Ordinance No.05-19);Attachment J The proposed site is owned by the applicant. It is currently zoned PUD with commercial intensity ranging from C-3 to C-4 land use categories with stipulations. Currently, the site is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Upon the successful completion of this GMPA Application, the increased developable square footage for commercial land uses will be found consistent and permitted within the Subdistrict and subsequent zoning. As noted above, to develop the property commercially, to include the increased developable square footage and justify additional square footage for self-storage, the applicant is required to file a GMP Amendment and a companion PUD Amendment for the property. The GMP Amendment's intent is to codify that the proposed land uses and 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for commercial land uses are appropriate for the location based on a thorough market analysis. A rezone will be necessary to develop the site for the increase in developable square footage, with additional language specific to self-storage. This site meets all of the stated criteria and is further justified by the market study. Alternate Site Locations: Alternate Site#1: Property located on Immokalee Road approximately 3.13 miles east of 1-75 Zoning: Addie's Corner MPUD;Attachment K Folio#'s: 00190040802 &00188200007 Parcel Size: 17.26 Acres Zoned under Ordinance 11-08, these parcels are void of any development. The site has a mixed-use zoning designation and is set to accommodate 135,000 square feet of commercial development and/or a retirement community/group at a FAR of 0.60 and/or a hotel/motel at an intensity of 26 units per acre. Identified in the Future Land Use Map as a portion of the Urban Residential Subdistrict and Mixed — Use Activity Center Subdistrict,the GMP does not limit intensity. While it is certainly arguable that this location has the potential of providing more visibility it lacks viable accessibility. Its existing access locations and the future development of the C.R. 951 Extension roadway contribute to it being less attractive than the proposed site location. Furthermore, the proposed site location currently has a majority of the site infrastructure in the ground. The cost of providing "pad ready" sites with permitting and review, negatively impacts the suitability of the property. Additionally, due to the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development zoning on the site, the intensity of the property is limited; thereby inhibiting space for all of the proposed uses. When compared to the proposed site location for compatibility and consistency with the intensity of the site from a zoning standpoint, the proposed site location is more logical and better suited site than this parcel. Alternate Site#2: Property located on west side of Collier Boulevard Extension, just north of Immokalee Road Zoning: Tree Farm MPUD;Attachment L Tree Farm PDI;Attachment M Folio#'s: 00188040005, 00187400002, &00187240000 Parcel Size: 51.04 Acres Ordinance 07-54 defines the zoning and development control of this property. These parcels are void of any development. The site has mixed-use zoning and is set to accommodate an 18.69-acre commercial area with a maximum 175,000 square feet of commercial/office uses 143,500 square feet of retail;while the balance is limited to office use. A minimum of 5,000 square feet shall be developed with professional or medical office use a minimum 15% of the density generated from the Activity Center acreage shall be developed within the Commercial-mixed-use District, the balance of the density generated from the Activity Center acreage may be developed within 1/3 mile of the Activity Center boundary. No more that 50% of the allowable commercial square footage may be developed prior to the development of at least %2 of the minimum dwelling units within the Activity Center. No more than 75%of the maximum allowable commercial square footage may be developed prior to the development of the remaining 50% of the minimum required residential dwelling units within the Activity Center. A Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change (PDI) was approved by the Collier County Hearing Examiner on October 22, 2015, reducing the allowed density and intensity. This was achieved by reducing the maximum number of residential units from 425 to 281 multi-family/townhouse or 138 single family-detached and reducing the density generated from the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict from 7. 7 to 0 units/ acre; please refer to Attachment M. Identified in the Future Land Use Map as a portion of the Urban Residential Subdistrict and Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict, the GMP does not limit intensity. It can be argued that this location has the potential of providing a more visibility due to its location, although it does lack immediate accessibility. As mentioned with the previous location,this site also has no internal and external infrastructure to connect with existing county utilities and roadway infrastructure. The cost of providing those features throughout, with permitting and review, the proposed site location remains a more suitable choice for location of the proposed land uses. Additionally, due to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development zoning on the site, the intensity of the property is limited; thereby inhibiting space for all of the proposed uses. When compared to the proposed site location for compatibility and consistency with the intensity of the site from a zoning standpoint,the proposed site location is more logical and better suited site than this parcel. ATTACHMENT "A" Vicinity Map Z:1Active Projects\V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\Planning\GIS1GMPA12015-10-21 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT D(LOCATION MAP).mxd 16•74 I N w 1 C 1 0 0.5 1 ef_ MILES , 1 f VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD MIL- 1 1 1 l- I / 1 a, 1 cc jf, U 0 D_ >-.. W J m 0 m w GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD W > C<-1 1 \ • \ l '4..- ) — . LEGEND -SUBJECT_PROPERTY 1 J I - MAJOR ROADWAYS SOURCES:RCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2016) IY ' I �'�. 4-.. It+ HEND PAL EACH 41 itan eR. K0 ' �n MNf DADE -4435,;M oviorpt. .-OL'.DAVIDSONDE VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201NCOMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES, FL 34104 DAVIDSONPHONE: 239-434-6060 ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP ENGIN EER INC ATTACHMENT "B" County ROW Deeds and Approved Vanderbilt Commons Plat a L,v 3408918 OR: 3573 PG: 0780 RECORDED in OPPICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, ?L 05/26/2004 at 02:53PM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERI RIC ?II 10.50 PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO: DOC-.70 .70 THOMAS G.ECKERTY,ESQUIRE Rets: D(pRF S 12734 Kenwood Lane,Suite 89 RUDER KCCLOSIT ,'""1 Fort Myers,FL 339073638 150 210 AVE I #1700 Project Name: ST PETERSBURG PL 33701 Parcel No(s): Parent Tract Folio No: Recording:$ Documentary Stamps:$ COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED made this /V 1 day of / l 4 y ,2004,by MARK L. LINDNER,TRUSTEE UNDER LAND TRUST DATED 01104/99,with full power and authority to protect, conserve,sell,lease, encumber or to otherwise manage and dispose of the real property described herein,as provided in F.S.689.071(hereinafter referred to as AGrantora),whose post office address is 4980 Tamiami Trail, N,Suite 200,Naples, Florida 34103,to COLLIER COUNTY,A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,its successors and assigns,whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail,East, Naples,Florida 34112(hereinafter referred to as AGranteew). (Wherever used herein the terms Grantor and AGrantees indude all the parties to this instrument and their respective heirs,legal representatives,successors and assigns.) WITNESSETH: That the Grantor,for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars($10.00)and other valuable considerations,receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,hereby grants,bargains,sells,aliens, remises,releases,conveys and confirms unto the Grantee,all that certain land situate in Collier County,State of Florida,to wit: See attached Exhibit AA@ wh' ' •-•...rated herein by reference. 'R C• SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, -.'SIF •• • ' •, ,.- ,--:41- ATIONS OF RECORD. THIS PROPERTY IS NOT H OMESTEAD OF G- R. •TOGETHER with all thq ten ments, = • ents ,nd app rtertances t hereto belonging or in anywise appertaining; I TO HAVE AND TO HO • m , Q5. • eve I 4:4,, AND the Grantor hereby• - .nts with said Gran :-.t at e :tt i is lawfully seized of said land is fee simple;that the Grantor has .ht and lawful auth. •.t. ,i® . convey said land,and hereby warrants the title to said land and wi *end the same against th' -.aims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encum ,v.op+�except as not =•• - IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said 0 fg'>. = d sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Signed,sealed and delivered in the presence of: ' ( •,_ , . ,,,....e4. i 4 41.k____ 2.— l'-'4%-/i.—„...„,.. Printed name: •-1.7, / MARK L. LINDNER,Trustee under land trust ^�— dated 01/04/99,with full power and authority to —'--_i• �(-C�,- c..� protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber or to cv otherwise manage and dispose of the real property Printed name: n i..(C-( Ca(/i r--r- described herein,as provided in F.S.689.071 STATE OF FLORIDA ) `J COUNTY OF COLLIER) ,/ Ao The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/4 y of 2004,by Mark L.Lindner,Trustee under land trust dated 01104/99,Who is personally known OR who produced as identification,and who did/did not take an oath. THE$CONVEYANCE ABED BY'THE Notary Public BOARD OF COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY,FL . Commission No.: ;�: Cheryl F.Hill /"'NP TO AOEN My Commission Exp,• , =Commission MD273268 DATED;5-ii-o4 ITEM No,16('8)4- U • ,,,a... ExpifRadnadex7trmu, 2007 Ade&Reeding Co.,Inc. ATTACHMENT"B" • *** OR: 3573 PG: 0781 *** PRCFERTY DESCRIPTION A PORAOW OF 1HE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DE5OWBEO AS FOLLOWS C'ONMENCE A T THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 8859'06" NEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECT/ON 34, A 0/STANCE OF 1,322.15 FEET THENCE NORTH 0127'18"' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 145.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RICHT--OF-WAY UNE OF VANDER91L T BEACH ROAD AND THE POINT OF Beanwilvc OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIED; THENCE WORTH 8839'06" WEST, ALONG SAID NO?TIYERL Y RICHT-Or-WA Y LINE, A DISTANCE Cr 74.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0127'18" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 458.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10'57'09"EAST, A DISTANCE OF 3723 FE£T,• THENCE NORTH 0177'18" NEST, A DISTANCE OF 29.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89W.49' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 66.06 FEET TO A POINT ON 1HE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 Of THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SEC1TON 34; THENCE SOUTH 0177'18" EAST, ALONG LAST SAID LWE, A DISTANCE OF 524.03 FEET TO THE POW T OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 38,398 SQUARE FEET d+-r MORE OR LESS SUBJECT 1O EASEMENTS, RES, • r v 31 70R- -� `s' ,4 DONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON, ' TO THE S01/7N LI • E SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOu THEAST 1/4 ,OF NOR ' 8;3906" ofST (ASSUMED). 9.,(IC 0 Ga E c.UelC STP:409845:1 INSTR 4443475 OR 4577 PG 3404 RECORDED 6/18/2010 11:59 AM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $35.50 CONS $0.00 This instrument was prepared without opinion of title by: Gregory L.Urbancic,Esq. , Ooodlete,Coleman&Johnson,PA. 4001 Tandaml TYsil North,Suite 300 Naples,Florida 34103 Folio No.:Folio Nos.:00204760502,00204760706 and 00204761200 WARRANTY DEED (Parcel 10) THIS WARRANTY DEED is made on this •: of 5 0#4- \ ,2007,by CAROLINA OFFICES, INC.,a Florida co • t• 1 --.s is 3775 Airport Road, Suite B, Naples, Florida 34105 and CAROLINA COMM. 1!t :S . 7 .. bility company,whose address is 2400 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 101, Napl 4. ' 4103 (beret t*f to collectively as "Grantor"), to COLLIER COUNTY, a political sob.' :; of the State of Florida,.. sbccessors and assigns, whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail' : - F da 34112(hereinar re rred to as"Grantee). La-.. ' ----�,J�;. ; (Wherever used herein,the " • : tor"and' ,ii- "incl all the •: : to this instrument and their respect' e .>i•, u.1. . ... L rr � :; . T..assl .) -' Grantor,for and in cons'• R'f ,)� f!:, ' `•, tr Ni 1 t •ei • ($10.00)and other good and valuable consideration,the resent Tr.•an-lei . .f i.r, here: : . d�,,,e.•ged,hereby grants,bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, co ,-.,: and confirms unto the c. : -- al ` ` certain land situate in Collier County,Florida,to wit: 1? 0 (See Exhibit"A"a im fler nd_mada f) <i1 CIlC . SUBJECT'TO:real estate taxes.for the year 2007 and subsequent years;zoning,building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority;outstanding oil,gas and mineral rights of record,if any;and restrictions,reservations and easements of record. TOGETHER with all tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in otherwise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD,the same in fee simple forever. AND,Grantor hereby covenants with Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey this land;that Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to the land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. THIS CONVEYANCE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD compassioNets OOLLIEROCOUNTTM,FLORIDAS PURSUANT TOTHE - - . - OP ResoumoN No. % 0 .0- 3 g (Page 1 of 4) OR 4577 PG 3405 .,r h IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned Grantor has duly executed and delivered this instrument the day and year first above written. Signed,Sealed and delivered CAROLINA OFFICES,INC., in the presence of: a Florida corporation A14 .--- IV b'k., . By: ( 1.-742 Print ame:0 a r-�c.,c_ Hbeacr William L.Hoover,President Prin Name: 2E1A1`P _ 12- F. COO STATE OF FLORIDA C0 COUNTY OF COLLIER -‘19 THE FOREGOING INS ! i • • a+ w :, fo t e o i S qday ofa ,•+ Flofida 2007, by Willi. -��.+�; 4.-� �• •`� t o— ••` u �! A OFFICES, INC.,INC corporation,on behalf of said co + +i,who( is persona kno +r( )has produced as + cation. -4.:4F7 0 0 , ttr No . Pubitc Print Fame: 7ER:E4A 1 'STEL State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: (Notary Seal) JEREMY STERIC1 a�OAr r, Comm!DC429817J = .= ( 251 I. Florida Notary Ann..tnc • (Page 2 of 4) OR 4577 PG 3406 s i • t CAROLINA COMMONS,LLC, a Florida limited iability company By: aa'sit A Print A. .: M Jo` r I 1N, George ukobratovich,Mana•er ( t Print Name: of7 L, (', q„ t L STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER CO(TA) .f& THE FOREGOING INSTR y 11. acknowledged-be# e on this day o ,2007,by George Vuko. : ovich,Manager,of CARt3 INA COMMONS,LLC,a Florida limited liability company,on behalf of said company, its se • ally own o me or( )has produced as'len . CHERYLHILLESHEN Y'` 611rlit-7."-41-itt ji/A_V ;.-7'0;.-7'0MY COMMISSION t DO 475577 of• Pub EXPIRES;September 25,2009 Print Name: 7-` State of Florida atL< gliw:' 0 Commissi• I - 11 ji1 C I1-CU :/ as to fora 3 sufficiency �.si :itsat Comity Attorney Ellen T. Chsb&1 (Page 3 of 4) *** OR 4577 PG 3407 *** • EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract A-1, Carolina Commons, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 48,Pages 78 and 79, Public Records of Collier County,Florida. Coux (*) (170 /11"1111;1., 1/41 OS- E GIRO' is r" a 1. o a r .s g =gig 'W tem N 1 ° ;IRR �' t�=2''.;gm aR eC� lig €a� ���rs x W a i , �= la a -w,,,,orm 1 R F h"h "g i `= t s V n R° o o t ! a20.1 _9 ag.1 7..i, ; �� a , hR 4t k. 1 @ h gh$ sh z k am r 91 a ! Ela pe It z a .1 a �3 Z -41. z il ,h6 totn6V q O 0 (6 K C/) 2 Ph CDC) W R I min J y E6'c,'N°4Mn s pX U,cQ 1_ W iW��N P. G 11 R � �' E', li. --- 'llr' 04�iN glt _ N� °.-die i M` i'x h 18 1 �� UC err 4 VSNp4 c hid /- b a N�4 �I WPW-4 h 6y ;I' h s -7k ,bt � r<SHo L g kQ • ^_ ~4j = J PJ€po 1 P iw�" i iso i '� < �i � 4 Oo io_ @ 6 16 Id i 1 4 86"4E hd =Z wFVOa a t CD 000 ; g-, € g1 „ Ep` g ' tai h 177 ~ W 4< n i k V h k H 2 <Z � Y � 6 x g h o � , o Z 4 . C5 J 7 4 :til 1@ e It i w;@�iki; m i4aiii 1 ! iia �`h h : ! 1 m h a ll p4 a" € to v 1 i 6 $4 3 4n g a t'6@ . 2 . s iiki i dr : 1 Ni it f 11 q 4 /a€ g_ 1 I fill: IA : t Z �44101 m ; '' II' i� A W hg Na ny@ggilh z P o k@ g t e t � ' @ Ri @ � h t C N= a 0 i4 III 1P h & g' e� g k E 4 436:V 3 6 g N g 44 a ;1 : gni N Y r . I. �6 VA Va h @ r 6 i V $ aAhggi 1 fh 114 li r 1 , � � : E6 `t t ` : .Ltii §8� 1 r y1 II s 1 atAg4g1p 1 ' ��� V g !Wi n ii 40 ' X 411 1 "- i `I : 1 h4qyT R yy Ngkt 1!q 11 l igg y <a L"i d � �go 3 � i � �@ ��E� f � � ��3 P � A! 1 a Iyfaa� 'SRI b ai > i 8 p W a ! §hzgg � � 1 li all W g tgd 66 'g g, g 1 g g lir liar@ i E Ae , R� ' 1 a.,,I '-.11 h @ @ N8 € 1 !III aI !ii ! 9 it !ttlithh !i m k ! `i tgh ZWz, cc ! ai ! ! m i 4 i�db 6 s3 a 1 € Icli.r: 8" 1 X W �1111713111111.112111.111.1 r 41 tr 3YT3.31—I 1. § €7 ZL'a. M00090S@ESSIE0009I99099I00 L a. a" . 1 I 4 h•[ 4 2 pl is t " 4 sasRl' h N�� ,„ h x Rrarre'w wuEV RE SE O' E1KO RES�VNL SK H6nr sE lH ar.arlwv Jr cl E 1aE 0<RE N Or AE SK h O.OE SE IH a MOM Ja .S-pIS AqT.£ iK'ry(5':A"R 0R H ‘,41 0.R.ROAM SSl3 MCEs OIBO-OT: A 0.R BJM'.SS].L NfG£3: 0.R.saw JO:.R AMO 0.8"-O.'af W MN. OR R0.w OVA PACE;s: 7 7 R S t7Y703"E t.t _ I >a, sa' �.g�+ O t �h � 11 , W10. _> A i3(i'BRI�3.E406W N 1 rum' V I _ V1 W °q-11;101g� � m 1 - ice` -I., - 11 a 2 lif' 01141-64R11 04: ii ' E ..,^0 Li zt g >a �I , YZ . Cgal y 4-1.3.,.BOON_--1I- QZ� sa �Y��at �� ; L I t ;,,-E W ;IT oh/ ;',4:14L,;44.4', €6 8 7 $ 1 4 1 ,1 a: I� , A .--1--1 Ril OQQU g Y4 -,op 4 Ww K •; WI 'w § a ;• $ I 19585 L 3.iESL00 N I <u 1s .�= o I ti- T----1411 o ` itg r4 .Otp & c„T.315,..y; ' .R ` d« Ii c3 Q m h i Eaau i W x • �40 3.ig,1„ u 1 v y e' wrw tiy y w t t , VIy9 :5q E I 15 W6 3 (> r t,I g 74 IQ :C a WIftl rRl3y01yRL0pN W it 4 N _ h, -. AIr� �0 �� � -T3.K.aLW M{}�-L— ' 1 I g• ^ W .usra 11 N ii tl tl QW ! r F yr I �� % . . I Ise ilk , I et 7..4 a it ,or' /1b � ' Q. W Ceara I ' I a '1--1—I 4 I WW 1 `\3.NEaLOO N i t 4! L1----L-� " : : I N I I ' x xl y 1 It g%I' U 1R II € ,§% 8t 44 44I" 4 I CL"1:7:"'„7: I .1 211 ! i 1 i " ". N ill -9 b 0 S_..r — f=�2 zppp 3@ " �I. 1 1 I 0, W I PPP PPPPPPPPPPPP h h n 1 e 1 an 111111111g11111111 i 11 I * `l � ,e 6WWW W W y NN Qp .% y 1W • • N NN I F GW WK WLI.WJ9 •f WLT• • c`uu J ♦ 1 I 1a � I 12 a W qW .1 WW 2 m I` L----W 4 J I's 0 tl o R g_-- 79-4 = — Wl 4 -yz7aar.>uar v > 1 x ��yyy!;� PRIS;�WE�pWOE p,1�0'OE �'YJy JO'fR.'6L-4""„).2 -LV-RYY - PRA [£..P.U�E!AE. • TI N�lJ.11rK �AR.fflL'.RWE TIBC -. ���t7.� d- S. � K LNE�7IL SK I/1 0£ 0.R NOR�J^Huss JMI-JM% �Q/NE SE I%CY•SEO'IKYI J• W\ I-—-I. g p g S 3E u } d dxZ �A i '2 OF 5. W5 Wh Y e b *� 34 uy y.a r $meq wgr rI A cu.pm' 'Fury a x w n $ � o ATTACHMENT "C" Vanderbilt Commons Florida Land Use Classification Systems Map 7 ... e : N z C €- Zi D • ea cLE S ti ad Ct >EQ O Y ` ° U `°a k _. - • `ra - CID 3 O Q m = z atU g 13 in a L zN o o ,--.1 O ..i r N 0 cn 0 .. X 0 til w o 'i U 0 q Lo .a ,0 ..,,,,,, ,„N (13 M g fi h U „, ,69 I4 0 i3 aoi en g as �� v d4=it � � Q La 4 te o 04 0 al 6,- i.40,-, .7t 0S x6111-s . r. (•F i. a ; U } T en e 0 1- i�� ..... • F3,AI i3NII toa o 0 o> Z01S?d ce CI • .1,44 NaVZg? +th ,. g, oaw o. . ,•,,c.,.....-4.1 `' i; � 3k" ' v,, �O� I fn V �f , >.. ' tt i -;.,i-i7.-., a 03F . ,. . :_ , .11 „___,. ATTACHMENT "D" Vanderbilt Commons Potential Listed Species Attachment"D'- Vanderbilt Commons Potential Listed Species VANDERBILT COMMONS Florida Land Use Cover&Forms Classification System(FLUCCS)habitats present on site: FLUCCS 193 FLUCCS 411-E2 FLUCCS 500 The following is a composite table that contains the names of the protected species which have the highest probability of occurring in each onsite FLUCCS community: . ;.,z{ 7:4 l'41171777 '17,.. lt, '''', e67k °¢ to r _ '11.4 ,ate, 193 NONE NONE - - 411 Beautiful Pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus E E Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia T - Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corals couperi T T Fakahatchee Burmannia Burmannia flava E - Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T - Florida Coontie Zamia floridana C - Florida Panther Fells concolor coryi E E Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC - Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SSC - Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis T E Satinleaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme E - Southeastern American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus T - Twisted Air Plant Tillandsia flexousa E - 500 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S/A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC - Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens SSC - Roseate Spoonbill Ajaia ajaja SSC - Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC - The list of animals and birds was obtained from the FWC publication "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species&Species of Special Concern-Official Lists",Publication Date:January 2013. The list of protected plant species was obtained from the publication"Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants",Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology,Nematology&Plant Pathology-Botany Section,Contribution 38,5th Edition-2010). ATTACHMENT "E" Census Information for Collier County co C 4 I0 on n C9 a co a o • o oIa . I 0 a R e°D�) a s 9a e°0) a s N 0 m 0 CO 2 N c``�U) 'C 9 R�N. c 00) a R� t 2 r u 1.1 C o i o 10 n M a a p a M a a O 4 " N- " 0) >- c 1 c 0 P Y ca,0 c t0 2 - 2 a oR� oRep y 281, n N n M a 3 Z n M a a TCLz. .)— U — — z N r 1e) U) E , r- oRM oRa VR4O n co a zq a M a a _ zi to co A} _=: co r•- . •" c ` c la ` n 0n c.,) -5 eR�Ri O a a a M Na g O N aNtMOO ° .- h o� ImEVa',Rn eri n R'M8 M n aOn N 0,1 ti c0- 0 .2naorto sRa _ -RaRN �.a0 somaNMNaM�Oa To, u -2- et a a —a c3 — n M 10M N 1. W a co c M XON �nr �n T,no o �, mRa o N RM oRN CO a a M a a E m N O rF" 10 0 29 "�N co_tooo *' Ey co c a o RN ,0, o ,RM .k'''o 3 " ee* a a 3 m r) a s K S N m o ^ N- N 0 CD `- a N t-1 11R° oRo UR7 na ' " M a a e Z — — Z — — • K m 0▪ 2 co,M n a • M a a h P d — — U O • M N = 0 o H N t O) N c /0 o cc, u ' "0(0 9 s.,N U) 0 1D v a FW.. ? eV oN O F 7R� d ,M N 0. a° - UQ N - a - M § I _ Z EE 't$ jAAa O $� o'^ r wQN 8. M mN M r n - C J U >yy d v C o I- F , - E c C h Z Z 1 4 W0 WO WQ 0 - a j e 0 Z Z [ w Z Z iE " / .... D O O O v v a m v• v v v w COm - W W i ' v a J w m 217 Ti ✓ 1• a t0 O M 0 ) eN- a 00 Nf, A O O CO0. CO N 00 O tO et et 0N O CO N o et .19 m vav d0o v n N . i 0 o CO va N n CO rani a • N v Pq vov a N a o N 2 0) 0 N. e- M N. CO CO 'CIa to _ -m N O N F.1 M mr a a N Z 1 M 40 N 0 1. O0 00) -n h M g N to a m o co M ^R' ti n N L' M et n et 10 S CO VI N N M 100 O) 1. g et CO C Oi et t gofo M O U b 0) t0 1. `o M b s M N M N. ry st a Up Q U il et a a- O t0 1. �� M M 1. Y EH CO O N b 0 • a d M et a et N - K a 00 0 0 °' t/) o w 10 t0 m Z et N et M 00 N v M a n o U et hce ti - p w r n n m d N '7 co n O m M M n Ret et E W Q 00)) 0 0 0 V. ` o • ?,-0o N v O) 00v -o et O) R., M 00 ' M M a et et i _ 72 LU U e o` Z r U M M n e r• N O) 00 0 b N ; N 'n Y� 0 Of M E c --3 rMa) rr00j ' R a oa U - a 00. n § y o ° d E O pt 00 - G t0 •- C Q Z tti h N 0 e O) 0 'w O fl, N M 0 N N 1. d ¢ wd n a '0 'a f y o v dTV Fco to E C Z < Q :..) U D -a L 2 ti ^........^o 0) w to W at- ,� a VE0 0 to' a_ m c 0 . L7 - w a °a .o J- 0 Z LI Z ) y' 13 a C E it'' w o C O C O Y �'d m U o m U = U L c M 218 y Am t AA a ig $ - a . a grm a ...•••-•••• o « a a o a a f 1 24 t ;i3 E a � x qna a• o I imo x 3� 1 s pm s 3m s 4 , s -� a a m5. € e b RE a *m s �.t E XI� °o s e E- ppm^ Q Rnm Q Iia ii F r LI ii 1 2r 12:: a l 4 a 25-a a k^ a 2: rm E 6 mr € p g$ z .^ o e RS$ 114 i R a x ga., w g.Km M Rm6 a 2 m fi 2 m P sn � o2 v oe t E FN e N — — N _ — a; gN$ t gra o y m e M.-a . Ma S 2 n ,i „,:a E a a N oN 8 I °m o a ti' a kt'Eil o m" t - N € r?� E 0 8E a E3 n ?' E gtg e 4 �� I ! ; a g 1,-.- .1i m , oa „ a ± t2: ar m d Em € Em E m h mg: o le E R. s E v gem o Rim x 2pm r— _ sn v - `s1 o -m1 ,gym E i�g0 ��g o Rm^ a 's ' ,0"..o- _ Qpm x m.on oE " EL _� ` f _ _ S n k mn 1Q p 22. $ qn s o 2 � _ Ro _ Qm am = s "pa o .' ^p"riY m me' x o' 8 Qmm e n m P. G a vw yhm C & fg e ' ',--'5. .;,. m' tl R:m 5 A"°cm . w _ w 0-1- 2 ti R �n, R h K i nVv' W n K =.F. mg A n2 C It'-' o_ RC4N " s R o E �� 2. Ram e Le... v R 0 w 14 Ei'. w E nti$ A .oi ^o s N o y -VS x— — R E ? 1 Z `a R^a m ' ..i-i- Z m 8R v Mg- - Rnn s E."' 3 s E r i o viz a + s o s En N e E v € o N 3 w th .. c w m 3 r < w w : o w e a E yo ,noe 1g n co F w eco eco N eco �� � < o � v xz - 3 4 wm- 3m= 4 V- -- F- "- Ne$_ - �E c v O co won." O w Et §a 10 inn acne e c <nc . 0 !I!, T _ a< r„ ru ch Lu d - h .5 cn w en c,°h, ti , �w dA tp A Hwy = E .U =UA . E. o J Z e Y 2 U J F e N F- e m e m E✓, ' E E Y O E A p=E% p E m Et -1,,!18 ° PE O Oat ave. V p Z •a. 0 Z_ EtEg. 10,.. 4 <, 219 L-' 3n v m a 3e n o m N . N O 0 i0 W OOi tN•f m M N o3E N A c : m N L ` CS c° � a � + O ry m Y N N < tNG V v' N N N t4 .Q r N O n • A — mh O A.▪ m m 3bh 0 O N N O r m o V - N R 3+0 V N N d b d v' N r N : .R 434 V ° N O CO N TF-,' V m '3 mN F N mb o V CO 0 i.--, N ; : NmQia N CI) 1m N v ,c + I r 3ON N th + ' A N N 14 A r 3 _ Q Nm v i O 1 O ;t0 V 304 N Q i0 + + r r N A Y R %- N V O c ry 3h n V N m nS. m 3 n N `,.f + mo m nA ' M 4L 0Y h + NTrNE•' R + ntR 0 el N r e N + N a ,- N n m m m m m n m i.,' r m — U •n I- O., d m E'. O N 0) T + _ COm £R m 3e N r e N + + N N N - r- N a � + 0om e+ ' i'l N N m o m m a na On N m mRmmnraN . " 0r :,c4m o n m m " 3 0 N A 8 nom m - L m i0 N .- A n A 0 m InN 0 ..C, V N 0 •-. s R m 3+1 N N V N a M n r 3n £R N a t. 37 n t N m m 0 ^ N D M CO n N N W3e _ N ' m 0 an eoaR 0 + 0 n °eeC N 0) r _ o R ' N n O o m +n A o N + 2 m E g N N o 30 m .. h w 3 n 0 + a _ • M : : ;: C e R n 3h r' 33 a N ami N w 4 N - .n- N n m>, n n yy .�} d .a 3 0, O1 ill O 5 3+0 n 3^ N 304 30.1 N O _ O W V O 0 G ' R n 3h 3`i e e ti "I m N R R n L• 0 3e n 3h ^ § — e / \ fi + m a n 304 a N m + d U - � N m n � 0 N N � V O N �' O ✓ - N 3Ni r' H a v e N o 304 t: n R y rn CO Cn N CO r CO m r ' 37 n N m N �ii t # U Si m O r NV m N3 _ n V m - n 37 p o R 30 3+i r' et•'4 a a ami ' 37 n R tO N 3e n $ _ m Kii A r O A m 0 + ' Q m E 3A'1 3m0 3•i A N aE- 0 N O N d O W U - -R n 3h N a a m t N 37 oa. R 3G 3Ei M M e U 4 u _ n m R O O N N r A m A N i E M O Ft N fi T N E O Ai Cl :2m U• - R _ e E N m 3' 3N4 < V n 4 304 E o ' a- 3.1 R 0 y of m e mm3.0E < a3O F m 9 O O F N N N A m N m a_ V 30 N �y R 0 h n E E : N R g •R n ro 3N4 a s 3Ni m ii ,qm i 39nR E _ _ : Oil R „,°, r v N m + m n m N m R • _ R ; O E .- N O nI V O O N ea N m = V N N N b i e • i F n 3h 72 N V t ON'f ' m N N N m 0 .t r. t • ; •EN_ N _R• 'N o3e N 0 m aa 2 i E - �Ow4nrra - _ a " 3i ac _ , 8E gnN33a 8 M ' 2 n '1.1- E R 430sEi ` m w _ o O i _ 7 I EOONbM hO Eo0OEnN :2g48M + H E ER• iii A O 2 n n n !- 0 370303no 3o n n n ro ro o m o onw "�3�m A OD @ h 3D(O•=1� ,, m 3E 'O 3C S E a : S tI m i�jj •f N N N N N N M N ? d gJ U m f 4 1 : i E - e 6 ; w me p( E W1 5 � i i • �'' E o_ E o a I- U ` : ' 3 a a E U —\ :: 38 m W o ! • U i m 2 = f7 n B Y $ .:! Z' $ C o 0 3 ' 6 ii I . i I z 2 2 EL 0 C U• V C \ : V U E E H V e t E 1“. 5ww 933ppU `e w + R R a U U ,�. n IJ' Skl C J C N 5 Y b q N gi gg i 3 o m • n z° w° vwc� � �' �° o Em ., 03 $ d S R R . • • • 0 v S V M z w •5 M rR tV 2 N U w O 7 C f K U m W F 2 ,., n o ,n m 3r 220 A N W M N W N m N N O h W O CO N N CO N O O CD CO W CO 0 c A A 01 V V a R 07 CO. CO 10 O N A 0 O N N N _4 R V O N CO. O oR VV O N N N M NfG N N MoR W v ! 1 a V n 001 O A 3 0 W Q 2 2 N Ai r '2 L-5 N N VR V N A N W O W 011 N N 2 R V 0 W V 10 p O y O t0 N V 1p N t0' f0 OO '2 N W E N {O V N N V f0 V NNN lW7 n N N V 2 W TA 4- .-n W O N � 0 e- .0 N o r V Ol N O NN f7 O N t0' N6 N V N O N y A M N f7 o W V N V <D V N N CO a MN ..:1 V M V W N W N W W r M W O 2 W r 0 O _ N N W W h A V O1 N O N N _ O V CO M N_ CO QR fpp ON N LTVe v M NO 1 n R ' MV A V ll N pp N O pp N W 2MN h V aN2 W A N 1 D IOA .. WWMMNNM ,2 N r Ol N t7 T O N N V NN A N N CO M N N V NV NCM n AAtp 1n 0 - yCN 0cN▪< $ 7 M CO 0 03 O V m N v V f0 � G 8 N T O _ fp O v , N N O 'N O t0 a N W M N V f0 V N N N N Q N N O W co ANC-1100103 •4 _ A N M V W V 0 t0 109- 91C0 V M M N 3 N O r W N r ON I N A _ N V N M W NGmON h tri MNO N OR NpOo tMNNVV NN Mon 2. - Z CD MOA N rY NWpp 0 E V l W N eEpp03f7 r 0 r 0 0 a t. V P R M W O W A OA V •- CO N L RV V co co O o N W N- N N V y 0 M N 4 N A- o O N WV w _ z n M t0 N N O W W r yNy O t0 r Li, in cotV o .- r N T N A N N N O O h NV N o .- 4 fA7 N V W Q F d O O Mr Oi V N N 2 M Nm N e N 'N M n N ° V n .. C K C c O N W W T t� O W 3 r V O 2 N N W N0 N o O N A CO N CO .- n Ol N O V N CO 2 R N M O A _a o N O N :2N V h W N O , N N p R ' N W V cl LE >, n m M O N CO N M A W M M N V O N N A V V m0OrOW W 4W M vc/ NN V 20 ' O CO O I N M OV N V MmN :2- 0NN M0 o 'N MD CO E t M M Ej o ° _ 'Q a AN 8 W 8 pp 2 AO M V N Oc W oW WrN N1 j co A M tp At0 0MV t0NN CD VO0 ' W /..---- ' S Yd0 NNWNVrrN ' ' NTu "'OMA C r R el iE a n co c V as N _ i on NWWOOWNNA AWMW r hrN f _ rMtON V 0N01O N O _ A V CO A O o R h CM N Y V O NAMN N1 :"fNN- 0 4 ° n N .0 h CO 0 J.- moor- 0N .- CO 0 N A N A 0 O CD 1 O `o tO O Te% 7 N rN r 3 O N 8 . e 2 O 2 N KO o R ts NVM NWa N N m NM n M m ° WM o N T rMphN00, CO N d 1 IO M N W N O fA W O O V N L. V r OW 5 1 G -f5M1- NVO ^ N O O 1 R1- 1- ce A e N N V 1- NMc 0 y R 0O co WN V N- R m YN OA V V VW03 Mfr+ 'at Wn r b N n U v O W h b N oe OOhNWN N t0 - N a f7 r AlV V CI A N 0 m cs . M g u M E Z2 NO V NA } 102 8 Q ° • M N CO O O N .- 0 CO N CO M 10 N N N ✓ N O T-- N VpN ' EOV m . T ' W N i a Vry N M g W ay pp aa m a• v fel d T n N m W N O1 8 0 N7 N O OM1 CO2 N N ° ^' E' 01 N 01 M M A O N N CO A N N = N V N N N r E S . M N O a O r t7 A N N r ori E fQ 6 W co' N Y 0 tj . O •,,T, ' N d M R N - N W N O A o N A M n N O1 N V V N W M A N F' y W Q ' ' W N W A W M a O W O e i Q 2 . V Cr, 1''777 W N CO Cl h N V V N OD ° a_ - • E o N o". ED N N Oi O • N t0 O (J E S 6 6 <AiW E - N N N N V M M A- el N N y ' ' N a N _ 8 ZS _ z• " h dt WN N W 4 O N O N M M W M W V h N � E 0 p = Oco CO M Ot A I. N O 01 M N M - OV V V M co L - OE E HN NNNppMaN. N O NN rM _ C . to Q _ W O• '^ h N O n Of 10 CO N eV- 0, Cc, 0 2 g n M 0 N •Y e e 4 tE $j W O f0 V 10 fb Ol :) O §Q P Ol f") r O> R 0 Z y N V N 0 N 93 .A- q r tC r N N m c.$ .C- N ft Oh N E E Li., p rx .; .t b o d E E w A• EwNa w A : c F . P O ma m zn7 a W mi Stv o v _ z ' UO m z z c 01 ta r U .0 `U F • €' VKlJ-l = L L] Z 9 W 7. O — 1. U N ! E e V , w0iO m • ` g• .6 O O z i Y . 'C m yz0UwU7 CEm q 0 y D i EE 2> 00 VU f 'R0 ZZZZOWW LL U 0 ✓ zNUWC0CMCU _ m W 2 z Y N t7 t 0 221 E Ws us N lap d.. N 5 Y « 3 d m N �- 03 N E TC.W LLWOOU w TE. E COa r p.Z cc V£mom H UJ O U CD N Z L a,o N y¢ 5< e Z N d N QoaRce•lo m .Ldl Ca"Z— p LLC VI d Z t O O 0 O 1p 16 O Z C)U W LO.M 2 .-N M ct N CO ^2 HEND"Y COUNTY 0 999w U as�" _ Z Z • ZLr';' `r Oi CO XK UJLL rc Cg HIU core co 0 Z W W X A. co re U Z ° m t . � O` w tQ n/ o W Z a Q LL �o o W Q �o occ Krk4 o W I J Ig ' 4a NOlS`JNIAII a) _ or-- �� oa laoaaiv• Q 1_, oa 311316009 .J U � 11Na1IwVIWVl N a o IL m Cam O �� L7 ,aa 'vim/ J Q _� y og wns11111 ''' '''-'/#i?.....;* �� a 1 Ilk �tif 11. 0 U Cr) 1001,14 / LF O M�X1C0 Q o Gil ilP''' 'Z's A 222 ATTACHMENT "F" 3.5 Mile Radial Planning Communities Map Z:\Active Projects\V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\Planning\GIS\GMPA\2016-02-04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT V(PLANNING COMM.).mxd N LEGEND 1 W —417'" E VANDERBILT BEACH RD./COLLIER BLVD. COMM.SUBDISTRICT(EXP.AREA 15.88 AC) 3.5 MILE RADIUS • S -North Naples ?' -Urban Estates -Central Naples e• ,,;. -Golden Gate iim Rural Estates - ` =Corkscrew ryMIW wn x 9 Corkscre • N j`' / IMMOKALEE RD/CR 846 IMMOOLEE RD/CR 846 - I II/ • / -- ------- ` / I' `• / • ii 1 North p�aples m` --_ ___._ 0 co 0 12 Urban Estates I I I I — I I I ,� VANDERBILT BEACH R - I ___... _. I 1 I Q. Ott I I � �1 I li ( __ __ _.__.___._-. .._ 8 Rural Estates GOLDEN GATE BLVD o ___ __ I !__._____ .__,., ,r N- J CO _ r — i / _11,- z I / �= < 0 / I iw th o / I j w 1 ® PINE RIDGE RD Q WHIT=BL ,� co Nes Ili > / r I— 0 ® 03 1 , CI) CC ® W 0 Z �® M �5 GREEN BLVD U --- -__ j� a 6 A SW 0 03 e0®0i_--T+rt I(_.._-r,+I, I I 1 ����'' 033 Golden Gate t a 0 1 2 2 y- . n ! .,s .� co -: -�.... - 1 MILES LES • f COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATIOw �Ngjh "` DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. DENAPLES, FL34104COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA oAvNos9N PHONE: 239-434-6060 ATTACHMENT F: 3.5 MILE RADIUS PLANNING COMMUNITIES ATTACHMENT "G" 0.5 Mile Radial Planning Communities Map Z:\Active Projects\V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\Planning\GISIGMPA\2016-02-04 VC GMPA-ATTACHMENT H(HALF-MILE PLANNING COMM.).mxd LEGEND ,g N Al cB ./ . W�� E VANDERBILT COMM.SUBDISTRICTEACH (EXP.AREARDCOLLIER 15.86AC)BLVDfi r 11/2 MILE RADIUS S -Urban Estates ` Rural Estates 4 4 gATIMR3 .+ 8 Rural Estates • t ` / 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I VANDEFtILT BEACH RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD EXT I I I 1 12 Urban Estates CHERRY WOOD DR 17TH AVE NW /7TH AVE NW o� HICKORY WOOD DR �` 5TH AVE NW A.. 5TH AVE NW z J CD CC LU CD W CORAL WOOD DR 3RD AVE NW 3RD AVE NW TEAK WOOD DR 1ST AVENW 1ST AVE NW - GOLDEN GATE BLVD W 0 0ggr 0:5 MILES o GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION �(RI'� TAVE SW U ; DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. flE4365NAPLESRADIOFL ROAD34104, SUITE 201 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA , DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 ATTACHMENT G: 1/2 MILE RADIUS PLANNING COMMUNITIES ATTACHMENT "H" Parcel 00190040802 & 00188200007 Information Attachment"H"- Parcel 00190040802 &00188200007 Information Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial Parcel No. 00188200007 Site Adr. Year 2015 LandPa cal:1882O0007 Open a GIS Window with More Features. http://www.col lierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00188200007 10/23/2015 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 00190040802 Site Adr. Name/Address CREEKSIDE WEST INC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY City NAPLES State FL Zip 34105 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3622 000100 070 3622 22 48 26 10 Legal 22 48 26 N1/2 OF W1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SE1/4,OR 1913 PG 1215 Millage Area O 222 Millage Rates• *Calculations Sub./Condo 100-ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code O 99-ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.48 5.6427 11.1227 Latest Sales History 2015 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) "L` Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 527,380 08/06/15 5182-2213 $ 1,850,000 (+) Improved Value $0 09/24/09 4494-2443 $0 03/07/05 3746-2214 $0 (=) Market Value $ 527,380 02/10/94 1913-1215 $ (-) 10%Cap $15,462 (=) Assessed Value $511,918 (=) School Taxable Value $ 527,380 (=) Taxable Value $ 511,918 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00190040802 10/23/2015 Search Results Page 1 of 1 Collier County Tax Collector 3291 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL 34112 2014 Tax Roll Inquiry System Print this page Sian up for eBill for an electronic,paperless tax bill in 2015. OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Name:'HAPPY#4 FAMILY CORPORATION Parcel:100190040802 Acre: 10.00 Address: 270 NAPLES COVE DR APT 3504 Loc: NAPLES (Map)(GIS View) Address: Legal:122 48 26 N1/2 OF W1/2 OF SE1/4 Address: Legal: OF SEI/4,OR 1913 PG 1215 Address: Legal: Address: NAPLES,FL 34110-7674 Legal: VALUE/EXEMPTIONS TAX INFORMATION PAY TERMS PAYMENT INFO Market Value: 465,380 County: 1672.49 Nov:1.5025.97 Paid Dt• 11/19/2014 Taxable Value: 465,380 School St: 1550.65 Dec: 5078.33 Recpt: 6438 Millage Code:1222 School loc: 1046.17 Jan: 5130.68 Mach: 6 Homested Ex:10 City Tax: 0.00 Feb: 5183.04 Paymt: 5,025.97 Agricltr Ex: 0 Dependt: 333.26 Mar: 5235.39 Morn 0 Widow Exl 0 Water: 144.13 Apr: .0 STATUS INFO. Blind Ex: 0 Independ: 488.69 May: .0 Disabled: 0 Voter Appr: 0.00 Now Due: 10.00 Non Ad Va: N Installment: N Veteran Ex: 0 *Gross Tax: 5235.39 Deferred: N Wholly Ex: 0 Appr fee: .0 Bankrupt: N Civilian Ex: 0 Advertising: 0.00 TDA: 0 COMMENTS New Search Back To List 2003 Parcel Information I 2004 Parcel Information 1 2005 Parcel Information 12006 Parcel Information I 2007 Parcel Information ( 2008 Parcel Information I 2009 Parcel Information I 2010 Parcel Information 1201 1 Parcel Information 12012 Parcel Information 12013 Parcel Information Last Updated: 10/22/2015 5:00pm http://www.colliertax.com/search/view.php?ID=683925454&page=l&tc=1&tax_year=20... 10/23/2015 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial J-� Parcel No. 00190040802 Site Adr. 'Elf i 0 ° illa7 " Open a GIS Window with More Features. http://www.col lierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00190040802 10/23/2015 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 00188200007 Site Adr. '-4 Name/Address CREEKSIDE WEST INC 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY City NAPLES State FL Zip 34105 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range LL _...._ Acres *Estimated 3622 000100 026 03622 22 48 26 7.26 Legal 22 48 26 S1/2 OF W1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SE1/4, LESS R/W,OR 1514 PG 473,AND LESS R/W AS DESC IN OR 5087 PG 93 Millage Area O 222 Millage Rates• *Calculations Sub./Condo 100-ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code O 99-ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.48 5.6427 11.1227 Latest Sales History 2015 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $617, 1 08/06/15 5182-2213 $1,850,000 (+) Improved Value $0 09/24/09 4494-2443 $0 03/07/05 3746-2212 $0 (=) Market Value $617,100 03/28/90 1514473 $0 (-) 10%Cap $8,925 11/01/81 945-1493 $104,500 (=) Assessed Value $608,175 03/01/64 163-154 $0 (_) School Taxable Value $617,100 (=) Taxable Value $608,175 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00188200007 10/23/2015 Search Results Page 1 of 1 Collier County Tax Collector 3291 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL 34112 2014 Tax Roll Inquiry System Print this page Sian up for eBill for an electronic,paperless tax bill in 2015. OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Name:'HAPPY#4 FAMILY CORPORATION Parcel: 00188200007 Acre: 8.49 Address: 270 NAPLES COVE DR APT 3504 Loc:'NAPLES (Map)(GIS View) Address: Legal: 22 48 26 S1/2 OF W1/2 OF SE1/4 Address: Legal: OF SE1/4,LESS R/W,OR 1514 PG Address: Legal:1473 Address:LAPLES,FL 34110-7674 Legal: VALUE/EXEMPTIONS TAX INFORMATION PAY TERMS PAYMENT INFO Market Value: 636,750 County: 2288.36 Nov: 6876.73 Paid Dt• 11/19/2014 Taxable Value: 636,750 School St: 2121.65 Dec: 6948.36 Recpt: 6436 Millage Code: 222 School loc: 1431.41 Jan: 7019.99 Mach: 6 Homested Ex: 0 City Tax: 0.00 Feb: 7091.63 Paymt: 6,876.73 Agricltr Ex: 0 Dependt: 455.98 Mar: 7163.26 Mort: 0 Widow Ex: 0 Water: 197.21 Apr:1.0 Blind Ex: 0 Independ: 668.65 May: .0 STATUS INFO. Non Ad Va: N Disabled: 0 Voter Appr: 0.00 Now Due: 0.00 Installment: N Veteran Ex: 0 *Gross Tax: 7163.26 Deferred: N Wholly Ex: 0 Appr fee: .0 Bankrupt: N Civilian Ex: 0 Advertising: 0.00 TDA: 0 COMMENTS New Search Back To List 2003 Parcel Information 12004 Parcel Information 12005 Parcel Information 12006 Parcel Information 12007 Parcel Information 12008 Parcel Information 2009 Parcel Information 2010 Parcel Information 12011 Parcel Information 12012 Parcel Information 12013 Parcel Information Last Updated: 10/22/2015 5:00pm http://www.colliertax.com/search/view.php?ID=683925377&page=l&tc=1&taxyear=20... 10/23/2015 ATTACHMENT "I" Parcel 00188040005, 00187400002 & 00187240000 Information Attachment"I"- Parcel 00188040005,00187400002,&00187240000 Information Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial �` Parcel No. 00188040005 Site Adr. 8799 IMMOKALEE RD : I I 11 { iq 1 F ,,* I 1 i j o ,{ 01 0 Open a GIS Window with More Features. http://www.coll ierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00188040005 10/23/2015 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 00188040005 Site Adr. 8799 IMMOKALEE RD ...--4 Name/Address MONAGHAN TR,THOMAS S TREE FARM LAND TRUST 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DR City ANN ARBOR State MI Zip 48105-9484 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3822 000100 023 3822 22 48 26 14.12 Legal 22 48 26 E1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SE1/4, LESS CANAL R/W S 100FT, LESS THOSE PORTIONS AS DESC IN OR 4413 PGS 3836-3838 Millage Area• 222 Millage Rates• *Calculations Sub./Condo 100-ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code• 99-ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.48 5.6427 11.1227 Latest Sales History 2015 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) / 'l Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 1,412,( 11/16/10 4625-278 $0 (+) Improved Value $0 09/16/04 3643-3261 $0 09/16/04 3643-3259 $0 (=) Market Value $ 1,412,000 08/29/02 3099-3456 $0 (-) 10%Cap $557,740 08/29/02 3099-3453 $ 5,700,000 (=) Assessed Value $854,260 07/15/98 2441-1147 $2,663,200 (=) School Taxable Value $ 1,412,000 07/15/98 2441-1144 $0 (_) Taxable Value $854,260 04/01/88 1344-47 $ 1,293,500 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll 04/01/84 1078-1675 $0 http://www.col l ierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetai l.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00188040005 10/23/2015 Search Results Page 1 of 1 Collier County Tax Collector 3291 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL 34112 2014 Tax Roll Inquiry System Print this page Sign up for eBill for an electronic,paperless tax bill in 2015. OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Name: MONAGHAN TR,THOMAS S Parcel:100188040005 Acre: 14.12 Address: TREE FARM LAND TRUST Loc: 8799 IMMOKALEE RD NAPLES (Map)(GIS View) Address: 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DR Legal:122 48 26 E1/2 OF SE1/4 OF Address: Legal: SE1/4,LESS CANAL R/W S 100FT, Address: Legal: LESS THOSE PORTIONS AS DESC IN Address: ANN ARBOR,MI 48105-9484 Legal: OR 4413 PGS 3836-3838 VALUE/EXEMPTIONS TAX INFORMATION PAY TERMS PAYMENT INFO Market Value: 1,059,000 County: 2790.94 Nov: 9899.81 Paid Dt: 11/26/2014 Taxable Value: 776,600 School St: 3528.59 Dec: 10002.93 Recpt: 67863 Millage Code: 222 School loc: 2380.63 Jan: 10106.05 Mach: 9 Homested Ex: 0 City Tax: 0.00 Feb:[10209.18 Paymt: 9,899.81 Agricltr Ex: 0 Dependt: 556.12 Mar: 10312.30 Mort: 0 Widow Ex: 0 Water: 240.51 Apr: .0 Blind Ex: 0 Independ: 815.51 May: .0 STATUS INFO. Non Ad Va: N Disabled: 0 Voter Appr: 0.00 Now Due: 0.00 Installment: N Veteran Ex: 0 *Gross Tax: 10312.30 Deferred: N Wholly Ex: 0 Appr fee: .0 Bankrupt:IN Civilian Ex: 0 Advertising: 0.00 TDA: 0 COMMENTS New Search Back To List 2003 Parcel Information 12004 Parcel Information 12005 Parcel Information 12006 Parcel Information I 2007 Parcel Information 12008 Parcel Information 2009 Parcel Information 12010 Parcel Information 12011 Parcel Information 12012 Parcel Information 12013 Parcel Information Last Updated: 10/22/2015 5:00pm http://www.colliertax.com/search/view.php?ID=683925373&page=l&tc=1&tax_year=20... 10/23/2015 Page 1 of I Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial Parcel No. 00187400002 Site Adr. f : Z I I i i f) ,. g t a ;-:*41- _ - :1 ti t ace18_: lIM Open a GIS Window with More Features. http://www.col lierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00187400002 10/23/2015 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 00187400002 Site Adr. Name/Address MONAGHAN TR,THOMAS S TREE FARM LAND TRUST 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DR City ANN ARBOR State MI Zip 48105-9484 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3B22 000100 011 3622 22 48 26 18.46 Legal 22 48 26 E1/2 OF NE1/4 OF SE1/4, LESS THAT PORTION FOR R/W AS DESC IN OR 4413 PG 3838 Millage Area 0 222 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 100-ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Coded 99-ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.48 5.6427 11.1227 Latest Sales History 2015 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) - Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 1,846,000 11/16/10 4625-278 $0 (+) Improved Value $0 09/16/04 3643-3261 $0 09/16/04 3643-3259 $0 (=) Market Value $1,846,000 08/29/02 3099-3456 $0 (-) 10%Cap $729,170 08/29/02 3099-3453 $ 5,700,000 (_) Assessed Value $1,116,830 07/15/98 2441-1147 $2,663,200 (=) School Taxable Value $ 1,846,000 07/15/98 2441-1144 $0 (=) Taxable Value $ 1,116,830 04/01/88 1344-47 $1,293,500 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll 04/01/84 1078-1675 $0 http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00187400002 10/23/2015 Search Results Page 1 of 1 Collier County Tax Collector 3291 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL 34112 2014 Tax Roll Inquiry System Print this page Sian un for eBill for an electronic,paperless tax bill in 2015. OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Name: MONAGHAN TR,THOMAS S Parcel:100187400002 Acre: 18.46 Address: TREE FARM LAND TRUST Loc: NAPLES (Man)(GIS View) Address: 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DR Legal:122 48 26 E1/2 OF NE1/4 OF Address: Legal: SE1/4,LESS THAT PORTION FOR Address: Legal: R/W AS DESC IN OR 4413 PG Address: ANN ARBOR,MI 48105-9484 Legal:13838 VALUE/EXEMPTIONS TAX INFORMATION PAY TERMS PAYMENT INFO Market Value: 1,384,500 County: 3648.79 Nov: 12942.69 Paid Dt: 11/26/2014 Taxable Value: 1,015,300 School St: 4613.15 Dec: 13077.51 Recpt: 67864 Millage Code: 222 School loc: 3112.36 Jan: 13212.33 Mach: 9 Homested Ex: 0 City Tax: 0.00 Feb: 13347.15 Paymt: 12,942.69 Agricltr Ex: 0 Dependt: 727.06 Mar: 13481.97 Mort: 0 Widow Ex: 0 Water: 314.44 Apr: .0 STATUS INFO. Blind Ex: 0 Independ: 1,066.17 May: .0 Non Ad Va: N Disabled: 0 Voter Appr: 0.00 Now Due: 0.00 Installment: N Veteran Ex: 0 *Gross Tax: 13481.97 Deferred: N Wholly Ex: 0 Appr fee: .0 Bankrupt: N Civilian Ex: 0 Advertising: 0.00 TDA: 0 COMMENTS New Search Back To List 2003 Parcel Information 12004 Parcel Information I 2005 Parcel Information 12006 Parcel Information I 2007 Parcel Information 12008 Parcel Information I 2009 Parcel Information 12010 Parcel Information 12011 Parcel Information 12012 Parcel Information I 2013 Parcel Information Last Updated: 10/22/2015 5:00pm http://www.colliertax.com/search/view.php?ID=683925361&page=l&tc=1&tax_year=20... 10/23/2015 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Aerial 1-. Parcel No. 00187240000 Site Adr. •: Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 00187240000 Site Adr. Name/Address MONAGHAN TR,THOMAS S TREE FARM LAND TRUST 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DR City ANN ARBOR State I MI ---f- Zip-1-48105-9484 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3622 000100 007 3622 22 48 26 18.46 Legal 22 48 26 E1/2 OF SE1/4 OF NE1/4, LESS THAT PORTION FOR R/W AS DESC IN OR 4413 PG 3838 Millage Area• 222 Millage Rates i *Calculations Sub./Condo 100-ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code O 99-ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.48 5.6427 11.1227 Latest Sales History 2015 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 1,795,e4 11/16/10 4625-278 $0 (+) Improved Value $v 09/16/04 3643-3261 $0 09/16/04 3643-3259 $0 (_) Market Value $ 1,795,051 08/29/02 3099-3456 $0 (-) 10%Cap $678,221 08/29/02 3099-3453 $5,700,000 (_) Assessed Value $ 1,116,830 07/18/98 2441-1144 $0 (=) School Taxable Value $ 1,795,051 07/15/98 2441-1147 $2,663,200 (=) Taxable Value $ 1,116,830 04/01/84 1344-47 $ 1,293,500 Values shown..___ov If all shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll 04/01/84 1078-1675 $0 http://www.col l ierappraiser.com/main_search/Recorddetail.html?Map=No&FolioNum=00187240000 10/23/2015 Search Results Page 1 of 1 Collier County Tax Collector 3291 Tamiami Trail East, Naples FL 34112 2014 Tax Roll Inquiry System Print this page Sign up for eBill for an electronic,paperless tax bill in 2015. OWNER INFORMATION PROPERTY INFORMATION Name: MONAGHAN TR,THOMAS S Parcel: 00187240000 Acre: 18.46 Address: TREE FARM LAND TRUST Loc: NAPLES (Map)(GIS View) Address: 24 FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT DR Legal: 22 48 26 E1/2 OF SE1/4 OF Address: Legal: NE1/4,LESS THAT PORTION FOR Address: Legal: R/W AS DESC IN OR 4413 PG Address: ANN ARBOR,MI 48105-9484 Legal: 3838 VALUE/EXEMPTIONS TAX INFORMATION PAY TERMS PAYMENT INFO Market Value: 1,346,301 County: 3648.79 Nov: 12738.06 Paid Dt: 11/26/2014 Taxable Value: 1,015,300 School St: 4485.87 Dec: 12870.75 Recpt: 67865 Millage Code: 222 School loc: 3026.48 Jan: 13003.43 Mach: 9 Homested Ex: 0 City Tax: 0.00 Feb: 13136.12 Paymt: 12,738.06 Agricltr Ex: 0 Dependt: 727.06 Mar: 13268.81 Mort: 0 Widow Ex: 0 Water: 314.44 Apr: .0 Blind Ex: 0 Independ: 1,066.17 May: .0 STATUS INFO. Non Ad Va: N Disabled: 0 Voter Appr: 0.00 Now Due: 0.00 Installment: N Veteran Ex: 0 *Gross Tax: 13268.81 Deferred: N Wholly Ex: 0 Appr fee: .0 Bankrupt: N Civilian Ex: 0 Advertising: 0.00 TDA: 0 COMMENTS New Search Back To List 2003 Parcel Information 12004 Parcel Information I 2005 Parcel Information 12006 Parcel Information 12007 Parcel Information 12008 Parcel Information 12009 Parcel Information 12010 Parcel Information 1 201 1 Parcel Information 12012 Parcel Information 12013 Parcel Information Last Updated: 10/22/2015 5:00pm http://www.coll iertax.com/search/view.php?ID=6839253 5 5&page=2&tc=2&tax_year=20... 10/23/2015 ATTACHMENT "J" Ordinance 05-19 —Carolina Village PUD Attachment"J"-Ordinance 05-19 Carolina Village PUD 10111243 .ft V go A91-1(t.W ORDINANCE NO.2005- 19 "Cag-zogvu AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY FROM RURAL AGRICULTURAL "A" TO MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "MPUD" FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS CAROLINA VILLAGE PUD CONSISTING OF 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES AND UP TO -' 64 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED �— ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANERVILT BEACH ROAD ABOUT 1i4 MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD,IN SECTION SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 ca : EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 15.88+ACRES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE r,;, DATE. a: .• WHEREAS, William Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development Inc., representing Catalina Plaza, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the subject real property in Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-6383. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,that: SECTION ONE: The Zoning Classification of the subject real property described in Section 1.2 of the PUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by reference herein, located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "A" Rural Agricultural to "MPUD" Mixed Use Planned Unit Development in accordance with the Carolina Village PUD. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this a 6 day of A P a;I ,2005. ATTEST: •. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E$ROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA r• b3;:,'. u.)-4.4.43 A' ' tO• .•OC. BY: '1/411-ILL lij• C-irlvt *tt it-K tt N.• RK FRED W.COYLE,CHAIRMAN i#tretitreiMi11 Apprtivedas-tv.farm and sufficie 1111111Lp.,.... 4 MA, Patrick G.White Assistant County Attorney This ordinance filed with the Aesortory of tote's Offye tFjp. V day of IA' Lb and acknowledge • that fiiin. received his day. of 1*0 .. °I.-11r. By ri k ;I_ 0.0. . • ` . SECTION III MIXED USE AREA PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Mixed Use Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Mixed Use Areas on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a variety of retail uses and office uses while providing for the opportunity of having residential uses on the second and/or third floor of mixed use buildings that have commercial uses on at least the first floor. Commercial Areas are limited to a maximum gross leasable area of 150,000 square feet and residential uses are limited to a maximum of 64 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A, Permitted Commercial Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Amusement and Recreation Services (groups 7911, 7991, 7993 only for indoor video game arcade and indoor coin-operated amusement machine, 7999 only for bicycle rental, ice skating rink operation, indoor slot-car track, and miniature golf course). 2. Apparel and Accessory Stores (groups 5611 - 5699). 3. Auto Supply Stores (group 5531 only for automobile accessory dealers and automobile parts dealers. limited to retail sales without any installation). 4. Automobile Parking (group 7521). 5. Paint. Glass. and Wallpaper Stores (group 5231). 6. Business Services (groups 7311. 7313. 7322 - 7338, 7361, 7371 - 7379. 7384. 7389 only for service of interior decorating/design, mapmaking, notary public, paralegal service, and Postal Service contract stations) 7. Depository and Non-Depository Institutions (groups 6021-6199). 8. Eating Places (group 5812) and Drinking Places (group 5813 only cocktail lounges and on-premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor, in conjunction with a restaurant.) Drinking Places are subject to the locational restrictions described in Section 2.6.10 of the Land Development Code. 9. Educational Services (groups 8211 - 8231 (no regional libraries). 10. Food Stores with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure (groups 5411 - 5499). 11. General Merchandise Stores with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure (groups 5311 - 5399). 12. Health Services (groups 8011 — 8049, 8082). 13. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores (groups 5712 - 5736). 14. Insurance Carriers, Agents, Brokers, and Services with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure (groups 6311 - 6399, 6411). 15. Legal Services (group 8111). 16. Membership Organizations (groups 8611, 8621, 8641 - 8661). 17. Miscellaneous Repair (groups 7622, 7629, 7631, 7699 but only bicycle repair, camera repair, locksmiths, luggage repair, medical/ dental instrument repair, musical instrument repair, piano repair, saw/knife sharpening service, and custom picture framing). 18. Miscellaneous Retail (groups 5912, 5921, 5932 (antiques only), 5941 - 5949, 5961, 5962, 5992 - 5999 (except auction rooms, awning shops, fireworks, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, sales barns, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). (The sale of swimming pool accessories and supplies is allowable under 5999, but not the sale of swimming pools.) 19. Motion Picture Theaters and Video Tape Rental (groups 7832 and 7841). 20. Museums and Art Galleries (group 8412). O - • 21. Personal Services (group 7212 dry-cleaning and laundry pickup stations only, 7221 - 7291, 7299 (only car title and tag service, diet workshops. tuxedo rental, massage parlor, and tanning salon). 22. Professional Offices, Research, and Management Consulting Services (groups 8711 - 8743, 8748). 23. Public Administration (groups 9111 - 9199, 9229, 9311, 9411 — 9451, 9511 — 9532, 9611 — 9661, 9221). 24. Real Estate Agents and Managers (groups 6512, 6531 - 6552). 25. Security and Commodity Dealers (groups 6211 -6289). 26. Social Services (groups 8322 (only adult day care services, counseling services, and senior citizens associations), 8351). 27. Travel Agencies (group 4724). 28. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal and the accessory uses by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). B. Permitted Residential Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Multi-family dwellings. 2. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal and the accessory uses by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). C. Accessory Commercial Uses: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the Permitted Uses within this PUD Document. 2. Drinking Places (group 5813 only cocktail lounges and on-premise consumption of beer, wine, and liquor in conjunction with a restaurant.) 3, Caretaker's residences subject to Section 5.03.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code. D. Accessory Residential Uses. lu 1. Customary residential accessory uses and structures including — carports, garages, and storage buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, hot tubs, volleyball courts, children's playground areas, tot lots, walking paths, picnic areas, clubhouse, verandahs, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 3. Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and model units. 4. Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Carports are permitted within parking areas. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD. Front yard setbacks in Table I shall be measured as follows: 1. If the parcel is served by a public or setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-wayllliine.of-way, the 2. If the parcel is served by a non-platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line. TABLE I MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS COMMERCIAL USES Minimum Lot Area 10.000 Sq. Ft. RESIDENTIAF USES SCU on First For lo1 Minimum Lot Width 75' (1) Front Yard Setback SCU on First Floor Side Yard Setback (2) 20 SCU on First Floor 1 Story 2 Story 7. 5, SCU on First Floor SCU on First Floor 3 Story 10. Rear Yard Setback SCU on First Floor Principal Structure 15' Accessory Structure SCU on First Floor PUD Boundary Setback 10 10' Principal Structure BH Accessory Structure BH Lake Setback (3) 10' or buffer width 10' or buffer width Preserve Area Setback 20' or 0' 20' or 0' Principal Structure 25' Accessory Structures or Other Site 10. 25' Alterations 10' Distance Between Structures Main/Principal 1-Story to 1-Story 12' 1-Story to 2-Story12' 2-Story to 2-Story 13.5' 13.5' 15' 2-Story to 3-Story 15' 3-Story to 3-Story 120.5' 200'5 Accessory Structures 20' Same as principal structure Same as principal structure Maximum Heictu r4) Retail Building 35' and 1 story NA Office Building 42' and 3 stories Mixed-Use Building (4) 45' and 3 stories NA Accessory Building35'and 3 stories Minimum Floor Area 35' 35' 700 Sq. Ft. of principal structure 500 Sq. Ft. per dwelling unit on first habitable floor (1) May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots and lots along the inside and outside of curved streets by 25%. (2) Where fee simple lots are created for each building unit. no side yard shall be required between interior units of a unified principal structure. and the side yard shall be measured from the exterior wall(s) of the unified principal structure. (3) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Lake setbacks can be reduced from 20' to 0' where a stemwall bulkhead or pier is constructed and the requirements of Section 4.02.05 of the LDC are met. (4) Retail uses are limited to the first floor of any budding. Residential uses are limited to the second and third floors of mixed-use buildings (structures with retail or office uses on the first floor and office or residential uses on the second and third floors) Note "BH" refers to building height and "SCU" refers to same as the commercial use on the first floor of the mixed-use building the residential use is located in. • I. SECTION IV PRESERVE AREA PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan, as may be amended pursuant to Section 5.3. 4.2 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. ® ® iVil WarrUeiRTUD---------. if.E fi ! li! i l� �� ZIP P J r :f.9 f Planned Condo Project il c 3 8 x >Z I f ; .?.,i <• (The Falls o1 Portofino] I v' il ait-1)--)"--- —Ta.f •t.—.—.— — � --"•:_-, 22__ P'sFane Drive(b others) 14 E ; 4 Q Q ! P a!p 51 1 I A I Ns 4m 1 i (11 >Q R I D I 'IIH i_,,, 3. Pl 41 1 If"lv litde rn r T`$ -I > 11:' KR6 � o !ii1 -4 +9Ec Ei i I n I m 14 Cil rs t q� 03 fr m / D 1 D 1 a A p'i I Y a c * n .,. z t < ** * * o '-n I - D ga , c. S' •I . lig0 4 M REQ � � a / o ' X A • p m 1d4 Nm z I I C as A8z9I gni Q D I I > > EI 71 m 0 CO C3 s tRM a d N a i i i e i 4 7. N n n x (*n ,r� Q 2 Oa, _. - 6 N - .. I 4TN m% 1 1. 11111 8" , „< o r�+ I I Ntg zm, .. a N kJ e.3- y i s O y a z p t i i 3 m' °i ' g CC ;ap '1m r - aa°3 -i I >>� �E; o7 m L44 z-^on 2 'A' 8' _. WI i 0 . iv.Q o 3 "' y ZI 2:1 _ I XI _> D scl i I _ s a II D I �� V. I a ,` * �x 20'9ulfer'Cr _I L-2C'eu!�r�--- � z Al --_ •_ _ - . Buckstone Drive(under construction by others)EY it 44 Immommma �� a l o r - - ' 7i6'iLS 3.OL,I•LLO S -Z lq I- __11 ro 1111 _ CM., . c 3 Afalqr 1 y q i c ^' ilii. ;xz�g0441al1! li I 1111111111151 1iI �i r4g11 801145aqq [Ail 11111/11211111 6/411441g 41444 Ia 0 % � Y » � m — -" �I1I1111 � qigEE 14 I li ha;° i le # 9 t»..� ATTACHMENT "K" Ordinance 11-08—Addie's Corner MPUD Attachment"K" - Ordinance 11-08 Addie's Corner MPUD \Cti% ORDINANCE NO. 2011- 08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT rc_ DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR 5=2 DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 135,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND/OR A RETIREMENT fr COMMUNITY/GROUP HOUSING AT A FAR OF .60 AND/OR A :;i HOTEL/MOTEL AT AN INTENSITY OF 26 UNITS PER ACRE FORr,'?:: °D d"" A 23.33+/- ACRE PARCEL TO BE KNOWN AS THE ADDIE'S,-.:.-.. rn CORNER MPUD, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OI{; THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) AN s COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 t� SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Happy #4 Family Corporation, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP of Hole Montes and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Mixed Usc Planned Unit Development(MPUD)Zoning District to allow for development of up to 135,000 square feet of commercial development and/or a retirement community/group housing at a FAR of.60 and/or a hotel/motel at an intensity of 26 units per acre for a 23.33+/-acre parcel to be known as Addie's Corner MPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, Addles Corner PUDZ-2009-AR-14425 Revised 1/24/I I Page 1 of2 as described in Ordinance Number 2004-4I, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this a411 day of ttt0i', I , 2011. MVP. D� +{... :, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v[GHTt. I�f CK CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: fiu.>st..M',• o'3Chal uiy Clerk FRED W. COYLE,Chairm i l�llLl 'tise i+I Approved as to form. and legal sufficiency: Cain eidi As ton-Cicko 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 09{'YS-00951,66 This ordinance filed with the c va�ry of St te's�fff�e- tri '-ttay of_ r lOG� and acknowledgement pt that filing receivedth TL..-. day of *rl. S eddies Corner PUDZ-2009-AR-14425 Revised 1/24/1 I Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT"A" LIST OF PERMITTED USES ADDIES CORNER MPUD 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) 1 1. 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) 32. Computer Facilities Management Services (7376) 33. Computer Maintenance and Repair (7378) .-. 34. Computer Processing& Data Preparation Services (7374) 35. Computer Programming services (7371) Addles Comer MPUD PUDZ•2009-AR-14425 Last revised:03-0241 Page 1 of 12 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 (5%3) 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 (5813) are not permitted 53. Drug Stores (5912) 54. Eating Places (5812) 55. Engineering services: industrial, civil, electrical, mechanical, marine (8711) and design 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 (701 1) 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) 81. Jewelry Stores (5944) 82. Land Subdividers& Developers (6552) 83. Landscape architects,consulting& planning (0781) 84. Laundries(Coin Operated)& Dry-cleaning (7215) Addles Corner MPUD PUDZ-1009-AR-14425 Last revised:03-02-II Page 2 of 11 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) III. 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 (7991) 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) 125. Record & Prerecorded Tape Stores; adult video rental or sales (5735) prohibited 126. Religious Organizations (8661) 127. Repair Shops& Related Services, not elsewhere classified (7699) 128. Retail Nurseries, Lawn & Garden Supply Stores (5261) Addles Corner MPUD PUDZ-2009-AR-14425 Last revised:03-02-11 Page 3 of 12 129. Secretarial and Court Reporting Services (7338) 130. Security Brokers, Dealers& Flotation Companies (621 1) 131. Security and Commodity Exchanges (6231) 132. Sewing,Needlework& Piece Goods Stores (5949) 133. Services Allied with the Exchange of Securities or Commodities, not (6289) elsewhere classified 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 & 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 - Permitted Group Housing/Retirement Community/Principal Uses: 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 111. Tract A—Permitted Accessory 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. Addles Corner MPUD PUDZ-2009-AR-14425 last revised:03-02.11 Page 4 of 12 B. Water management facilities to serve the project such as lakes. C. 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. IV. 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.l.h. of the LDC, or any successor provision. V. 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. Addles Corner MPUD PUDZ-2009-AR-14425 Last revised 03-02-11 Page 5 of 12 P 0 r 1 i 1 • A. IIJ g! 1 i IP I 11 1 is Y I I f 5�' Fli t I __ (9bavow �1�/)IOW4V1 . a ��i 3 ___._.___--"'.yam-7�T'� --`--'--- T— -- ''i~'1 — _-=�'^--�'�=_sem•---� 1. = — --=-------. --_ gal ;---_= -— ,=__— - z riktfis,wAillomi 4, mai . , li i \ I 41.. VI \ ' '10' ' I .‘ 1 * 6. it q iv i 1 z < 11,,, Not,,\ , ,,, , A ,\\ _‘\_\,,' 1 , .1 CAI 6 u - kiii t4- • . Q\ \ \ L 9 le4....„0\ \\ \ \ , S Alal ,t, , \ \ \,_w c)\‘(\:Ds\c )\ ::''\ i, 1 g 1 '' " g i i II 11 :2 B 2g I I \\\\\ \\\\\\ •\\ \\\ \\\\\\\` \\ %Yii V ii: b 34g R \\ \ \ \ \ \ `\ ` \\ \\\ 7' b �� is 11 o ty! \ • bM'Nmilliakilliallillillh' il\RWRIOL mRiORKIMMIIRRM, ' I "Iii i II:I! ;; !; X ) . . , • • . • . . . . . 1 g 1 ILI 4! r. . ' 1 . t5. ad , . . 11 it' it A IFt, . ---- --- III 'r- 11510 1 1E EI 11'it 1, II IIIIII 1• lig, 6R I, M=me w ■o r „omov Q I; il. ill I I 4zd ill ATTACHMENT "L" Ordinance 07-54—Treefarm MPUD Attachment"L"-Ordinance 07-54 Treefarm MPUD /$g10111273�4 O ORDINANCE NO.07- 54 �```C J � \v\``\r co ��`v ti4ti AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY <Z9Z�ZVZ1' COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A)ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(MPUD)ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE TREE FARM MPUD CONSISTING OF A MAXIMUM OF 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES AND A MAXIMUM OF 425 RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846)AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 58.84±ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Robert Adhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc., representing the Tree Farm Land Trust, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property, known as petition PUDZ-2005-AR- 8284. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Agricultural (A)Zoning District to the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Tree Farm MPUD consisting of a maximum of 175,000 square feet of commercial uses and a maximum of 425 residential units in accordance with the Tree Farm MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein.The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 26_ day of 2007. PUDZ-2005-AR-8284/MD/sp 1 of 2 �‘q,'CO�q All ST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :.DVI LCrHT E.StOcK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA .. , •/ Ilii C,� A `,.�/ 4; By: tp Duty Clerk J ':" .COLETTA,CHAIRMAN �4ir;ewl�r. r Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ] ori .M.Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney This ordinance fid with th:: Secre ary of State's Office thr " Aday of 1 , ca-C.43--/ and acknowledgement of that fill r eived this 1 .1doy of PUDZ-2005-AR-8284/MDIsp 2 of 2 Dep ey Cl«r SECTION III COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT(C) 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as District "C", Commercial on Exhibit "A", MPUD Master Plan. The general function and purpose of this District is to provide the opportunity for diverse types of commercial activities that deliver goods and services, including entertainment and recreational attractions, to many segments of the population. 3.2 MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DEVLOPMENT The 18.69 ± acre commercial area (District "C"), is limited to a maximum of 175,000 square feet of commercial/office uses, of which a maximum of 143,500 square feet may be retail and the balance (above 143,500 square feet) is limited to office use. A minimum of 5,000 square feet shall be developed with professional or medical office use. A minimum of 15 percent of the density generated from the Activity Center acreage shall be developed within the Commercial-Mixed-Use District, and the balance of the density generated from the Activity Center acreage may be developed within 1/3 mile of the Activity Center ^ boundary. No more that 50%of the allowable commercial square footage may be developed prior to the development of at least one-half of the minimum required dwelling units within the Activity Center, and no more that 75% of the maximum allowable commercial square footage may be developed prior to the development of the remaining 50% of the minimum required residential dwelling units within the Activity Center. 3.3 PERMITTED USES 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: A. Principal Uses': 1. Group 0742 — Veterinary services for animal specialties (except outdoor kennel) 2. Establishments furnishing point-to-point communications services as outlined under Major Group 48 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual; no communication towers are permitted. 3. Group 5231 —Paint glass, and wallpaper stores; 4. Group 5251 —Hardware stores; I Reference Executive Office of the President,Office of Management and Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition. C:1Documents and Settingsksandraherreraq.ocal Settings',Tengorcry Internet Files\°LKIC9\2007.07.02 MPUD(final County attorney revisions).doc 13 of 26 5. Group 5261 —Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores; 6. Major Group 53—General merchandise stores. 7. Major Group 54 - Food stores. 8. Group 5531 — Auto and home supply stores, not including any installation facility; 9. Group 5541 —Gasoline stations,not including service facilities; 10. Group 7542—Carwashes only. 11. Industry Group 555 —Boat dealers. 12. Major Group 56—Apparel and accessory stores. 13. Major Group 57—Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores. 14. Major Group 58— Eating and drinking places. 15. Major Group 59 — Miscellaneous Retail. Industry Group Numbers: 596 — nonstore retailers; 598 —and not including retail sale of fireworks. 16. Major Groups 60, excluding 6099 check cashing agencies, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 67 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 17. Group 7011 — Hotels and motels. The maximum floor area ratio for hotels shall not exceed a factor of 0.60. 18 Establishments operating primarily to provide personal services for the following Industry groups: a. 721 — Laundry, cleaning, and garment services, only including Group 7211 —power laundries, family and commercial, Group 7215 — Coin-operated laundries and dry-cleaning, and Group 7217 — carpet and upholstery cleaning; b. 722—Photographic portrait studios; c. 723—Beauty shops d. 724—Barber shops; e. 725—Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors; f. 729 — Miscellaneous personal services, only including Group 7291 Tax return preparation services, and Group 7299 personal services, not elsewhere classified, only including car title and tag service, computer photography or portraits, costume rental, diet workshops, electrolysis (hair removal), genealogical investigation service, hair weaving or replacements service, dress suit or tuxedo rental, and tanning salons. C:1Doctunents and Setiings+sandraherrera\Local Settings\7enrporary Internet Hes\MLKIC912007-07-02 MPUI)(final County attorney revisions).doc 14 of 26 %/ OM,�- -.xo- 1g6,«Oens'Mwla s-Ja S7M„35400111131114513540011113111451, ! +t J' '0.0119W e e I MN 30474.4041441g 1 Pr g iIc. -, Itel.r #'l I i �w �� / I $1> lei 1+, j r;'i f� .f- F 11 I i;➢1 2. r _ r \�\ 3 E r 131 - ---- fillii - ,i i-....,: - - c i•- -I r sm) r ,..3 • Z >; �jr til I Stliiiii :.4 �� ♦ \ ; q@ L I of a iiihit= 49 ap. �' — .. .__ \, A CA 11 t{3331 I" l ! I 1 rLrAi8 // _,.r,. �. } ,' j JJsg# I ! I 1 �(R SSR Q ..�r � it 4 1 } a ,� i I I I F Ti ;$'''xa?£Rcdz .s4t=="i X c�g^EX1 €Ff� MN ''x y> 17,';+.7i!1!;!!!!';R i '1:1 ' R'n •' a.. A4X4X0'' ) 9S' 4- 5.4 RL 4 e l 1 ! �1 III ?, .•"- t x. Y '�1c 3 .IA z n a i 10 0A' e r A z :.� .d- e-: 1 =?d4 = M4 3 R: r,.y. I l Or , + F f 9 '�G ,:^', y a^} 4g,^.i frz e FafR 8 . A� .,G Mil1 4 R:s 1 1 I e k' - yg- g y° ,1. -0, 3$ ti3 e —� I ! I . c. v = 4,R i' 11p 4 t x: ,1 s1A Aar € ; y:2y . vRscfi_? CI —�j ..i moi, X >-. '" .ywe:%• 'S nFE:.. i 5x^ x 4" ..-.,i__ §' l'. . OP 1pc �ia.3 1 L..o -----r- k j; , '..R a ^.3 i y^ �.F; ¢l a 1 Y ^ R AR 10{ 1x- I 4x - Aes I4E1 4T10'•.- I I ' >1 eI 5 -' R '- t ;'8 - I �'', a ° :I I, 2 1- '.: 14 :; a'rP� e_ _ ,1 _ a ^ ! `` t R'q' [;§ f-,!. y to >, [y3 I ,7i_ • • _ - e $ 0 :t'I • e4 d A. . ' EXHIBIT"A" • .' . TRLL E-IRM ...:: ure •, LAND TRUST TREE FARM MPUD DIA/ .'re. m CONS DIA/ ail Engineoj -._.— ''''•:.:'a MPUD MASTER PLAN i • •A a &myna a MoirODS /// — .... . .... —,--, 440144,4010115-1V:110015:1410=341004m74141741 ; § 1 i' HI—--- ------- - : i I r.- I WON 331.00M111 - I t ' (. X 1 ' . al ' ‘` ',- --,. Ir----- 1 e - '-' r! : , - i0 4,,, —, _ i•• , . 1 ( 1 ..: .. , . 4 i -, w 1 I' . i/ I t i - I "--- --- - - • I ss--- I ,._. 1 : ..3 ;;:i liesi W,°...____ -- -- --,, , -1 N I 3 ' •••r I _ s s i 1 I . . 1 1 1 I. 1 I ! ! I i • . I l' ' ''il I .s . • 10 -I' . : I ti i 1 413 Iiiitg .: i-- -..-- , I. i I . r--.7...:4—_-:1— 1. - 1-1=--1---11 :r i .11 \ (11 1 : , ,. . .i' l'' '1 1,; 1' i ; 1 II 1— II _u_l'— ii —j- --- •. 1 . . I 11 . r , n .. C s I I p 4 ==..,.=,..- : 1. il ii, P iI - ‘\ i 1II ;1 ( \\ \ g I.. , .--.-•..,-•-' - ''-----.---...--- F ._, . , ...._./. h. - ii) i 5 omir-1 Fil ' 1 ', I I 1.1 • 1-.=,.---- ,..,-,./ 1 , j ( ‘ , • . ' ' --4-- -1 1 ' -,:----'Yf-L-------i±:-7 1 :.- ‹ Wit 1 !•;!r—='la' I - 131 4 ii 'i;,, II • , . -- , tr..tuft,tm, till IOW- IM lb .. (• )\ } 1 . • , . . . III . g . \ ,. ! 4 f,., . • ... — - , ,t ii T \ . 1 ._.,... ,- __ — I I r* 4 a tri r-4 . 1 I ii 11 1 i* * ' Z •• : ! 1 -; ' ' 1 A ' i - I J. i":.'. - 1 . . 2 e r- • . --N I 4 > Z Hi , . ,. J , .., . ,. •- _ ._ ,..____ , 44 444 4,k 9...SPt. In4444.4.ma_ — TREE FARW ..... LAND TRUST TREE FARM MPUD DIATAmv=dr. :. ... . -- CONSTING GM WPM* • CONCEPTUAL WA TER k.'. V TA. .A. Surrey*&Mc*. MANAGEMENT v ..... ..... i ..-1-7.-,..--•:•?A111 ...--- 1 1 ir....4'44''.0.,..•••4•.". ,-.".I'..J13.a r I i rr .6,..1,..,.-2....1.1...haii 1 . .1 4 ii ' 4 '4. .1 i,.. r, ...vir•r•rum. .•.1..I..r. .i.,_ _—. . r 1 7..";t,,,,,,,4V:" ' ..,,, :a -,r,a."''." 0 : ••.. . . 1 1 i , 1 ..Ck. '*-r-L. ' . 1.1. 'C . 1 , • • -- !,! • -- 1 _ I -----,7%.:zzz• -- ----11----E- _ 1 --.---",.....:::==7:—......,.....r.._. : _. ...,. . .....±_ .I 1 • A. 1 I It"NraigialgISMICIZ7 . .17k . , ...... .. r 3 OI,mho ca.-12 tjail:'.;.7. . l'./ L :;.1!1• •' . , ',• , I ci U. al Le' . 0- 'v ••••'-.- C ri n •r_a-. , .,“Iro ?,,Y.,(....1), .....,.. ci r.,1:VA,•Alr.,:o-i-ta' . • • P r• ., .'.'yz-tr.!uf. • • • r" Lii:F.:.- •• 1.-- • •I : I, 5 np7miNiFita_lt _1 i I Ist H ,ikii:=1:01VOSHicitta• mr i 1 i ' .NICIMODEMainting MD'•'ijj:OCICIA:;CaTzt g rn 1i l'< EffrernripantinDE1T.OjCIR '41'1'..'... P.inammatioacrititton4t •- lalf 7 . .... mmi > Mr1 0...0601:10130001:11:0 --. 1.4 1,..:-::mi . orrommon. mum= ....... rn it -•un-:' : a ratin031:1176 , • I ...•a n, • .' - II :1 1 r_., ,...3 SIN i 1:10wfi !/ rs_r, +.411,0titlir i ii :Ii 11 _r_____,_._____.____i ! mll ,.1:11571 dig Cifr2 r,ir7--- , ' 4 .--"•". ,----,_ rt _ I— ; nall11:93111EN - 7 i . i Cn rill 1 ! 1 .!--.1 -, • 3 • 1 1 IE Ii ge:2 • cactopagdm, i I .• i , 11 I 0 ''" =..Clre•'L.,, .14 ._ •""\ , qi i..... , 0 , z .., ....... ....... . . ..... . .. ... .1,4 '-ci I, , . ›.. r rri . ii a if 1! Z I eri 0-3 1 1. - i 1: • ... • • • ,.. . A.•_•-.7 , ,... , TREE FARM -... LAND TRUST TREE' FARM MPUD . . CONCEPTUAL WA TER < s 1 1.,igAn.-, Sutler on&Manx, ...,...... ....,... MAVVAGEMENT PLAN ..M-ili. V 11 J. -111- —....--. ,..- •-.••• ........ ..... 1 —1 i . . I I I i n . 2 G A Y x n12 ! I r I / f., I i I . 1 " I .. I i '.....,...1 1 I ''''' 7,•C rn i ;F.•1'N I i • T.5 k •,. < e1 • , I , . .., 2 .•,..) —...—....--1. , 1 I •-•1 6 L.,,,..... .i i...•••6 1 Iv) •"‘... : ,i.,c 1 . . 7.)•r. 1 . !! i 911. ' ..L.,,r . 1' I 1: 1 C ,c,,,. > 1 i :c I.; I i 4., T..iv 1.''l'c: 1 1, ,,,.1..,,, iii ilI P,77,gi I 7c' 7,, r ')r,.!'-• . I • t A ...i z!,? I . 1 I 11 i I! illr.-- r-- 1 .1. z„. I , i i ! I I I f i I t".. . .• ,*••••,', h kt tr.., TREE F 4R.W k•ii 1...i NU TRUST TREE FARM MPUD •,.5 its: 1.1.01M•,',Ill,of,ik,NV.1,p1„,} el.11,:./• I.1(N'•SEC TIONS qt.. ..1. =IL, Pl.,1•••,1....,..n rNInrug;ct. 101.MA , .,...,.....,,,,,....1,.......f.a..,.,... .4.,.."...,...•.7%11.S.10 IS ........*.00............ ... . .....--,, STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of : ORDINANCE 2007-54 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 26th day of June, 2007, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 2nd day of July, 2007 . DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex-officio to Board of County Commissioners: %ZILatg Paa-) Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk ATTACHMENT "M" Approved Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change to Ordinance 07-54— Treefarm MPUD HEX NO.2015—42 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION PETITION NO. PDI-PL20140000640 — Landquest Group, LLC requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance Number 07-54, the Tree Farm MPUD, as amended, to reduce the maximum number of residential dwelling units from 425 dwelling units to 281 multi- family/townhouse or 138 single-family detached units; to reduce the density generated from the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict from 7.7 to 0 units/acre; to correct a scrivener's error by changing the density generated from the Urban Residential Subdistrict, Density Band from 4 to 7 units/acre; to reduce the size of water management areas from 7.2 to 6.4 acres; to reduce the maximum total allowable square footage within the PUD Commercial Mixed-Use District from 175,000 to 120,000 square feet; to increase the maximum size of retail or office uses from 43,500 to 100,000 square feet; to add a deviation to permit residential components of the PUD to have a maximum wall height of 8 feet along the PUD perimeter and 12 feet along Collier Boulevard; to update various provisions to reflect the conveyance of a 7.42 acre parcel to Collier County; to amend residential development standards relating to minimum setbacks; to create a new Recreational Area section with permitted uses and development standards; to move clubhouse/recreation development standards from the Residential District section to the new Recreational Area section; to remove one transportation development commitment; to reduce the number of required raw water well easements from 2 to 1; to add a utilities development commitment relating to construction and access to the well easement site; and to amend the Master Plan to reflect existing PUD conditions and add a new Recreational Area along the northern PUD boundary, for the PUD property consisting of 58.84± acres located at the intersection of lmmokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida. DATE OF HEARING: October 22,2015 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: Based on the applicant's written petition, testimony at the hearing of the applicant and the recommendation of staff, the Hearing Examiner finds that the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13 E.1 and 10.02.13 E.2 of the Land Development Code has been met and the petition is approved. ANALYSIS: No objections were received and no members of the public attended this hearing. This request provided for a variety of reductions and changes to the previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The number of total residential dwelling units were reduced, total maximum commercial square footage was reduced, additional standards were added to the j15-CPS-0142811210738/11196 I of 3 residential/recreational component, and there was a general clean up of the PUD language to coincide with the overall changes and reflect existing conditions. Changes and clarifications were requested by the Hearing Examiner and the County Attorney's office at the meeting and are reflected in the attached Exhibit. The recreational area has been depicted on the amended Master Plan, and specific development standards for the recreational area have been added within the existing residential section of the PUD. Deviation#2 was added to allow berms and walls at various locations along the perimeter of the PUD. The applicant agreed to add a traffic maximum peak hour trip generation cap consistent with their updated Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), which is a reduction over their previous trip generation. The applicant agreed to a minimum buffer, including a six-foot masonry wall, between the recreational area and any adjacent residential units. DECISION: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves Petition Number PDI-PL20140000640. filed by Patrick Vanasse. A1CP of RWA, Inc. representing Landquest Group, LLC, with respect to the property as described in the Tree Farm MPUD, Ordinance No. 07-54, for the following insubstantial changes: • to reduce the maximum number of residential dwelling units from 425 dwelling units to 281 multi-family/townhouse or 138 single-family detached units; • to reduce the density generated from the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict from 7.7 to 0 units per acre; • to correct a scrivener's error by changing the density generated from the Urban Residential Subdistrict, Density Band from 4 to 7 units per acre; • to reduce the size of water management areas from 7.2 to 6.4 acres; • to reduce the maximum total allowable square footage within the PUD Commercial Mixed-Use District from 175.000 to 120,000 square feet; • to add a deviation to permit residential components of the PUD to have a maximum wall height of 8 feet along the PUD perimeter and 12 feet along Collier Boulevard; • to update various provisions to reflect the conveyance of a 7.42 acre parcel to Collier County; • to amend residential development standards relating to minimum setbacks; • to depict the Recreational Area on the Master Plan and add development standards specific to that area; • to modify the clubhouse/recreation development standards within the Residential section; • to remove one transportation development commitment; • to add a trip generation maximum value; • to reduce the number of required raw water well easements from 2 to 1; • to add a utilities development commitment relating to construction and access to the well easement site; and • to amend the Master Plan to reflect existing PUD conditions and add a location for the Recreational Area. Said changes are fully described in the Tree Farm MPUD amendment attached as Exhibit and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. 115-CPS-01428/1210738M196 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A—MPUD Amendment LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Ordinance No. 07-54,the Tree Farm MPUD. CONDITIONS: 1. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER: Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., 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. APPEALS: This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. /1/4,10 —21 20t G,,t, Date Mar. Strain,Hearing Examiner Appri ed as to fo i and legality: Scott A. •ne Assistant County Attorney [1 5-CPS-01428/1210738/11196 3 of 3 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 1 of 38 TREE FARM MPUD A MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE TREE FARM MPUD, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: a LANDOUEST GROUP 5150 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH NAPLES.FLORIDA 34103 PREPARED BY: pwriJW& CONSULTING ENGINEERING _. L t. V V 1 Z 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34109 and r • . a , a a • . . a • R. BRUCE ANDERSON CHEFFY PASSIDOMO,P.A. 821 51-H AVENUE SOUTH NAPLES. FLORIDA 34102 I Text underlines ta added.Text�k ix delcicd. TREE FARM MPUD K2014000040 Feb-29 October 23 23.201 l of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 2 of 38 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC: DATE REVIEWED BY BCC: ORDINANCE NUMBER: 07-54 AMENDMENTS AND APPEAL: EXHIBIT"A" TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBIT AND TABLES STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SECTION III COMMERCIAL MIXED—USE DISTRICT(C) SECTION IV RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT(R) SECTION V PRESERVE DISTRICT(P) SECTION VI DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS •icy unclaimed isadded_Icxtst�rtherihisdeleted. TREE FARM MPUD PL20140000640 Iieb40 October 23.2015 2 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 3 of 38 LIST OF EXHIBIT AND TABLES EXHIBIT"A" MPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT"C" SCHEDULE OF DEVIATIONS EXHIBIT"D" COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT TABLE IA FLUE ELIGIBLE DENSITY TABLE IB MPUD DENSITY TABLE 11 PROJECT LAND USE DISTRICTS TABLE Ill DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TABLE IV DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TABLE V DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL AREA n Text underlined is added:Text wtw4�Yroesb is deleted. TREE FARM MPUD PL20140000640 X29 October 23.2013- 3 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 4 of 38 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of±58.84 acres of property in Collier County, Florida, as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the Tree Farm MPUD, shall be in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), Land Development Code (LDC) and other applicable codes and ordinances. The commercial and residential uses and recreational facilities of the Tree Farm MPUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the GMP elements for the following reasons: I. The subject property is 58.84+1- acres in size and is designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map,with 40.15 acres located within a residential density band of the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and 18.69 acres located within Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, as identified on FLUM. Consistent with the provisions of Objective I of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), all uses contemplated are consistent with these respective designations. 2. Approximately 18.69 acres of the subject property is located within an area identified as Activity Center#3 in the FLUE of the GMP for Collier County. 3. Activity Centers are the preferred locations for concentration of commercial and mixed use development activities. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and the eture Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951)-£ tension. This strategic location will allow superior access to the site, and provide an ideal location for commercial activities. The project is a mixed use development located within, and less than one mile from, an Activity Center. Therefore, the proposed commercial uses and residential densities are consistent with the FLUE of the Collier County GMP. 4. The development will be compatible and complimentary to existing and planned surrounding land uses(Policy 5.4). 5. The project must comply with the provisions of Division 6.02.01, adequate public facilities requirements of the LDC. Therefore, it will implement, and further Objective 2 of the FLUE, Objective 8 of the Transportation Element, Objective 1.2 of the Sanity Sewer Sub- Element. 6. The maximum allowable density as set forth under the FLUE Density Rating System is as follows: Text underlined itadded.Text mwek-ih eaxh is deleted TREE FARM MPLD P1.20140000640 4111149 sober 23,2012 4 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 5 of 38 FLUE Designation Acres Eligible Base Eligible Total Eligible +/- Units/Acre Bonus Eligible Gross Density/Acre Density/Acre Density Mixed Use Activity 18.69 16 N/A 16 299.04 Center Subdistrict Urban Residential 40.15 4 3 7 281.05 Subdistrict, Density Band Total 58.84 N/A N/A 9.85 580.00* Table IA: FLUE Eligible Density (* Rounded) FLUE Designation Acres MPUD Eligible MPUD Gross +/- Density Density/Acre Density Units/Acre Mixed Use Activity 18.69 7.700.00 16 113.910.00 Center Subdistrict Urban Residential 40.15 4.997.00 7 281.05 Subdistrict, Density Band Total 58.84 7- 4.78 949.86 125281.00* T able IB: MPUD Density (*Rounded) 7. The MPUD sets forth a maximum density of 425 281 dwelling units (281 multi- family/single family attached/townhouse or 138 single-family detached units) or 7722438 dwelling units per acre. ., • - . : ..•-•-- ;. • . . . . . - • . • . ' 0 • The Activity Center shall be: developed at a human scale; pedestrian-oriented; and, interconnected with the remaining portions of the project with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 8. The MPUD has been designed to provide for future vehicular interconnectivity to the west, and has been designed to provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle interconnectivity throughout the project, including between the commercial and residential components. Text underlined is added:Text serwit-Hrettet is deleted, TREE F ARM MPUD PL:O 14000UW U ie 29 October 2.3 2015 5 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 6 of 38 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Tree Farm MPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING PART OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. PARCEL 1: THE EAST HALF (1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM THE EAST 30 FEET AND SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF AS ACCESS EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY. PARCEL 2: THE EAST HALF (1/2) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM THE EAST 30 FEET AND THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AS AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY. PARCEL 3; THE EAST HALF (1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPTING THE SOUTH 100 FEET THEREOF FOR CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF SAID SECTION 22, S. 00°51'06" E., A DISTANCE OF 1334.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE SAID EAST LINE, S. 00°51'06" E., A DISTANCE OF 1334.40 FEET TO THE EAST QUARTER(1/4)CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) OF SAID SECTION 22, S. 00°50'18" E., A DISTANCE OF 2569.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF A 100 FEET WIDE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID EAST LINE,N. 89°57'31" W., A DISTANCE OF 660.13 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID NORTH LINE, N. 00°44'25" W., A DISTANCE OF 2568.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST-WEST QUARTER (1/4) LINE OF SAID Jo.'underlined is added.Text is deleted. TREE FARM MJ'UD PL20140000640 kjy.29 October 23.2015 6 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 7 of 38 SECTION 22; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID EAST-WEST QUARTER (1/4) LINEN. 00°45'01" W., A DISTANCE OF 1334.03 FEET; THENCE N. 89°56'17" E., A DISTANCE OF 653.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. CONTAINING 2,563,283.4 SQUARE FEET OR 58.84 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by: Thomas S. Monaghan (Tree Farm Land Trust) (Folio: 00187400000, 00187400002, and 00188040005) Collier County (Folio: 00190041403, 7.42 ac property conveyed fee simple to Collier County—ORG4413 PG 3834 1.4 DEVELOPER The Tree Farm property is intended to be developed by the Tree Farm Land Trust or assignee. All reference to the "developer" as may be contained in this MPUD Document shall mean the Tree Farm Land Trust, unless, and until the subject property described and depicted in this MPUD Document is conveyed, or assigned. It is the responsibility of the Tree Farm Land Trust to notify Collier County, in writing, of the land conveyance, or assignment of the subject property described and depicted in this MPUD Document within six months from the actual conveyance, or assignment. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The development property is located in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. It consists of ±58.84 acres located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and • • . • • • oilier Boulevard (C.R. 951). The property was previously used as a tree nursery. Improvements on the property consist of a small maintenance shed and the property is generally without topographic relief, with the average elevation at approximately 13 feet above mean sea level. The water management system will consist of approximately ±7.26_4 acres of water management areas that will receive runoff from structures and parking areas. Run-off is collected by catch basins and culvert systems for conveyance to the project's internal lake system. The project outfall will be at the project's eastern boundary. Discharge will be into the Cocohatchee Canal that runs along Immokalee Road. Allowable discharge rates will be in accordance with applicable County ordinances. The water management system will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process. All rules and regulations of SFWMD will be imposed upon this project including, but not limited to: storm attenuation with a peak discharge rate per Collier County and SFWMD Rules, Tem w Jcrline4 i,jddcd.Fcct nnneL-Nh.mrylt is dcleud, TREE FARM\JED PL21)14000Q 4o jukce.Dsider 23.3UIS 7 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 8 of 38 minimum roadway centerline, perimeter berm and finished floor elevations, and water quality pre-treatment. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Tree Farm MPUD shall be a mixed-use development. The southern ±l8.65-69 acres of the property, located within Activity Center#3, shall allow for a variety of commercial ad residential uses. The remainder of the property shall be used for residential development. The commercial land uses within the Activity Center portion of the property are those typically associated with major intersections, including, but not limited to, convenience stores with gas pumps, restaurants, banks, and shopping centers anchored by a major grocery or retail store(s). The commercial uses and signage will be designed to be harmonious with one another and will be compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses. In addition to compliance with all applicable provisions of the LDC, except where deviations are authorized, compatibility and harmony will be achieved by using common architectural elements and common entryway signage and landscape design themes. The amenities proposed to be provided as part of the residential and recreational portion of the project include, but are not limited to structures (clubhouse), and complimentary areas (swimming pool, children's playground, and tennis facilities) to provide social and recreational space, lakes, natural and landscaped open spaces, and a variety of passive (native preserves)and active recreational opportunities. i'"\ Access to the property will be fromCollier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and will include an access point off Immokalee Road, when a shared access agreement with the adjacent property to the west is negotiated. The access from Immokalee Road will be aligned with the access to the Pebblebrooke Subdivision located south of Immokalee Road, and across from and to the west of subject property. Access from Collier Boulevard is depicted on the MPUD Master Plan as follows: a right in/right out access at approximately 660 feet from the Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road intersection; a directional median opening at approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile from Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road intersection; and-a full median opening at approximately one- half(1/2) mile from the Collier Boulevard, Immokalee Road intersection; and an optional right in/right out access at approximately three quarter (3/4) mile from the Collier Boulevard/lmmokalee Road intersection. The directional and full median openings will be aligned with the access points approved for the Heritage Bay DRI, and all access points are subject to review and approval of Collier County Transportation Services Division. Additionally, this project has provided adequate land to accommodate the widening of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, including intersection improvements and the reconfiguration of the lmmokalee canal to facilitate such improvements. Additi a -the • . ' • . . .. .. . . i.. - .. . The Tree Farm MPUD will be served with centrally provided potable water. sanitary sewer, Tc 'underlined is added.Text It�u dcletcd TRU.FARM b1PL D P1.20140(3006-10 4t,R- 9Octobcr 23.2011 8 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 9 of 38 electric power, and telephone facilities. Additional services will be provided as deemed appropriate. • text underlined i r K t X i.bI MPUC) PI 20140000640 Asb44 October 23 2011 9 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 10 of 38 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Tree Farm Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)Ordinance". THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 ext underlined it.yt1dt11,.Text ytreeit-Oweesh is deleted TREE FARM MPUD PL29102QUd4o October 10 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 11 of 38 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land use districts within the Tree Farm MPUD,as well as other project relationships. 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE DISTRICTS The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land is graphically illustrated by Exhibit"A",MPUD Master Plan. There shall be tree-Four land use districts,portions of which may include water management lakes or facilities, and private rights-of-way or drive aisles. A breakdown of the Tree Farm MPUD land use districts and their respective acreages is presented in Table 1. TABLE II PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS "C/MU" COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE ±l8.69* RESIDENTIAL ±39.6439.19 `'RA" RECREATIONAL AREA ±0.45 41),, PRESERVE ±0.51 TOTAL 58.84 * Note: the MPUD provides for a total of 7.42 acres of right-of-way n conveyance for,- Collier Boulevard, expansion of Immo/cake Road , and improvements to the intersection of these two arterial roadways. This right-of-way reservation conveyance includes 4.34 acres within the "C/MU" Commercial Mixed-Use Tract (Activity Center) and 3.08 acres within the "R"Residential Tract 2.3 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY AND INTENSITY A. The Commercial Mixed-Use District will be limited to ±18.69 acres within the designated Activity Center. The Residential District will be limited to ±39.6439.19 acres. B. Intensity: A maximum of+ ,000120.000 square feet of commercial uses may be constructed within the Commercial Mixed-Use District, of which a maximum of 100.000430 square feet may be retail or office and the balance (above 4.43,300100.000 square feet) is limited to office use, as set forth in Section 3.3 of this MPUD. Text tmderiinedis ackicd.'rem aawMihroggRistickled TREE FARM MPLD PL20 1 40000640 Iubr29°sober23.2015 1 l of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 12 of 38 C. Approved Density: A maximum of 42-3-281 multi-family/single-family attached/townhouse units or 138 single-family detached residential dwelling units may be constructed in the total project area. The gross project area is 58.84± acres. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 7.22t78 dwelling units per acre. pfejeet—wit e The Activity Center shall be developed at a human scale, be pedestrian-oriented, and be interconnected with the remaining portion of the project with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 2.4 EXISTING STRUCTURES The existing principal structures within the MPUD boundaries may be retained and utilized through the construction and platting phases of the development. 2.5 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS A. A minimum of 0.51 acres (25% of the 2.02 acres of native vegetation on site) is required to be retained or replanted. The Tracts identified as "P," contain 0.51 +1- P-\ acres;and fully satisfyi+g the native vegetation requirements. B. This MPUD is subject to a Compliance Agreement entered into and made on June 6, 2005 by and between Collier County and the Tree Farm Land Trust, with respect to vegetation removal on the subject property. This Agreement establishes that 0.51 acres of native preserve shall be provided within the MPUD. A copy of this Compliance Agreement is attached as Exhibit"D". 2.6 RIGHTS-OF-WAY At the discretion of the developer, the minimum right-of-way width to be utilized for all internal project streets may be fifty feet (50'). Deviation #1 from Section 6.06.01(0) of the LDC Utilization of lands within all project rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entranceways, and signage may be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by { the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, or his designee, for engineering and safety considerations prior to installation. 2.7 FENCES AND WALLS Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.0, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts and residential components of a PUD, to allow a maximum wall height of 8' along the perimeter of the PUD. and allow a 12' wall/berm combination within residential portions of the PUD along Collier Boulevard. The berm portion of the 12' wall/berm shall be a minimum of 3' in height. TV M liadgrIUKI i 4J..S LT531 aStiA3laA 14(14014 _BEE FARM MPUD PL2U14Q000 r402Olf fvEY-29 O�ober 27. 12of30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 13 of 38 2772.8 SIGNAGE A. General All signs will be provided in accordance with Chapter 5.06.00 of the LDC except in the following instances. 1. Boundary marker monuments containing project identification signs designed to identify the project, or any major use within the project, shall be permitted in locations depicted on the MPUD Master Plan (Exhibit -A"). Said boundary marker monument shall not exceed 6 feet in height as measured from finished grade at the location of the boundary marker monument. The sign face area for such boundary markers shall not exceed 64 square feet in area and shall not exceed the height or length of the monument on which it is located. If the sign is two-sided, each sign shall not exceed 64 square feet in area. Each sign shall only contain the main project name, insignia or motto of the entire development, and the developer's name and logo. Boundary marker monuments shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from any MPUD perimeter property line. DEVIATION #23 2. One off-premises sign may be located to the west of the Tree Farm MPUD generally located near the access to Collier Boulevard from the property immediately adjacent to the west of Tree Farm MPUD. The off-premise sign may deviate from the maximum 12 square foot size set forth in Section 5.06.04.C.15.b.i., but may not exceed 16 square feet in size, and may also deviate from Section 5.06.04.C.I5.b.v., which requires such off-site signs to be located within 1000 feet of the intersection of the arterial roadway serving the building, structure or use. DEVIATION #24 3 • : - : - ' , •-: • : •: • ••• •- • : - : •: • : • • : : . - • • • : : , • •• ! :: • - • -: . :. •- • . •- : •: • • : •. - " - -: -: . •: ICU uncleelmed 1$added Text 11M104-threltlit i EMMA TREE FARM MPU PL21)100M/640 ir4f-Z9 Umber 23.21)15 13 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 14of38 SECTION III COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT(C/MU) 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as District "C/MU", Commercial on Exhibit "A", MPUD Master Plan. The general function and purpose of this District is to provide the opportunity for diverse types of commercial activities that deliver goods and services, including entertainment and recreational attractions,to many segments of the population. 3.2 MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DEVLOPMENT The 18.69 ± acre commercial area (District "C"), is limited to a maximum of x.008120.000 square feet of commercial/office uses, of which a maximum of .437500100 000 square feet may be retail or office and the balance (above -43340100,000 square feet) is limited to office use. • • • . . .. ... - . • 3.3 PERMITTED USES 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: A. Principal Uses': 1. Group 0742 — Veterinary services for animal specialties (except outdoor kennel) 2. Establishments furnishing point-to-point communications services as outlined under Major Group 48 in the Standard industrial Classification Manual; no communication towers are permitted. 3. Group 5231 —Paint glass, and wallpaper stores; 4. Group 5251 —Hardware stores; Reference Executive Office of the President.Office of Management and Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition. ( TM underlined ri eddcd.Tear is delctaI TREE FARM MPI D PL20I4t OQO640 46440 October 23.2015 14 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 15 of 38 5. Group 5261 —Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores; 6. Major Group 53—General merchandise stores. 7. Major Group 54-Food stores. 8. Group 5531 — Auto and home supply stores, not including any installation facility; 9. Group 5541 —Gasoline stations, not including service facilities; 10. Group 7542—Carwashes only. 11. Industry Group 555—Boat dealers. 12. Major Group 56—Apparel and accessory stores. 13. Major Group 57—Home furniture,furnishings,and equipment stores. 14. Major Group 58—Eating and drinking places. 15. Major Group 59 Miscellaneous Retail. Industry Group Numbers: 596 — nonstore retailers;598—and not including retail sale of fireworks. 16. Major Groups 60, excluding 6099 check cashing agencies, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 67 in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 17. Group 7011 — Hotels and motels. The maximum floor area ratio for hotels shall not exceed a factor of 0.60. - 18 Establishments operating primarily to provide personal services for the following Industry groups: a. 721 — Laundry, cleaning, and garment services, only including Group 7211 —power laundries, family and commercial, Group 7215 — Coin-operated laundries and dry-cleaning, and Group 7217 — carpet and upholstery cleaning; b. 722—Photographic portrait studios; c. 723—Beauty shops d. 724—Barber shops; e. 725—Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors; f. 729 — Miscellaneous personal services, only including Group 7291 Tax return preparation services, and Group 7299 personal services, not elsewhere classified, only including car title and tag service, computer photography or portraits, costume rental, diet workshops, electrolysis (hair removal), genealogical investigation service, hair weaving or replacements service, dress suit or tuxedo rental, and tanning salons. Is underlined is added_Tent sYerirelr.jia deleted TREE FARM MPUD PL20140000640-.wh.-44 October 23.2015 5 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 16 of 38 19. Establishments operating primarily to provide business services for the following Industry Groups: a. 731 — Advertising, not including Group 7312 outdoor advertising services agencies; b. 733 — Mailing, reproduction, commercial art and photography, and stenographic services; c. 735—Group 7352—medical equipment rental and leasing; d. 737 — Computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services, not including Group 7371 — computer programming services. 20. Establishments primarily engaged in developing film and in making photographic prints and enlargements for the trade or for the general public, only including Group 7384,photofinishing laboratories. 21. Group 7513 — Truck rental and leasing, without drivers; Group 7514 — passenger car rental; Group 7515 —passenger car leasing; and Group 7519 — utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental. 22. Group 7631 — Watch, clock, and jewelry repair, and Group 7699 — repair shops and related services, not elsewhere classified. 23. Group 7832 — Motion picture theaters, except drive-in, and Group 7841 — video tape rental. 24. Major Group 79 — Amusement and recreation services, for the following industry numbers: a. Group 7911 —Dance studios, schools and halls b. Group 7922 — Theatrical producers (except motion picture) and Group miscellaneous theatrical services c. Group 7941 —Professional sports clubs and promoters,only including managers of individual professional athletes, and promoters of sports events. d. Group 7991 —Physical fitness facilities e. Group 7999 — Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, to include moped rental, motorcycle rental, rental of bicycles, schools and camps-sports instructional, scuba and skin diving instruction, sporting goods rental only. 25. Major Group 80—Health services for the following industry groups: a. 801 —Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine; b. 802—Offices and clinics of dentists; c. 803—Offices and clinics of doctors of osteopathy; d. 804—Offices and clinics of other health practitioners. 26. Major Group 807 — Medical and dental laboratories for the following industry numbers: a. Group 8071 —Medical laboratories; b. Group 8072—Dental laboratories. Tcm underhued aajggigatmeertrokiheesodos deleted TREE FARM MPUI P1.20140000(40 1u1r 29 October 23.2015 16 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 17 of 38 27. Establishments operating primarily to provide legal services as defined under Major Group 81. 28. Group 8231 —Libraries. 29. Membership organizations engaged in promoting the interests of their member as defined under Major Group 86. 30. Establishment operating primarily to provide engineering, accounting, research, and management for the following Industry Numbers: a. Group 8711 —Engineering services b. Group 8712—Architectural services c. Group 8713—Surveying services d. Group 8721 —Accounting,auditing and bookkeeping services e. Group 8732 — Commercial economic, sociological, and educational research f. Group 8741 —Management services g. Group 8742—Management consulting services h. Group 8743—Public relations services i. Group 8748—Business consulting services. 31. Offices of government as defined under Major Group 91 — Executive, legislative,and general government,except finance. 32. Residential multi-family dwelling units, whether in a free standing residential building or located in a mixed commercial and residential building. Mixed use buildings shall adhere to the development standards set forth in Table 111 below. Residential units shall not be located on the first floor of a mixed use building, and shall be subject to a minimum per unit floor area of 1,000 square feet. Residential buildings with no commercial component shall adhere to the development standards set forth in Table IV. B. Accessory Uses Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Parking facilities and signage. 2. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the permitted uses within this MPUD Document. 3. One caretaker's residence. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table Ill below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Tree Farm MPUD Commercial District. Standards not specified herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Text uoderlreed 15 added.Text.rnrdr-t r is deleted: 7AEE FARM MPU© PI40140000640 hira9October 23.2015 17 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 18 of 38 TABLE III DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 sq.ft. N/A AVERAGE LOT WIDTH 100 ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS(External) From lmmokalee Road Canal ROW 25 ft. SPS From Future Extension of Collier Blvd. 25 ft. SPS From Western Project Boundary 25 ft. 15 ft. 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.* Preserves 25 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. or 1/2 the sum of 10 ft MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES building heights** MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings(with or without residential uses) 50 ft. 62 ft.*** 35 ft. Office Buildings(with or without residential uses) 65 ft. 77 ft.*** 35 ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 sq.ft.**** N/A MAX.GROSS LEASABLE COMMERCIAL AREA + 900120.000 sq.ft.***** 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). ** Whichever is greater. *** _ . -.. **** 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 4-7-54)00120,000 square feet; however no more than 143.500100.000 may be retail or office and the balance,above 443,500100.000 square feet,if developed, shall be office. SECTION IV 18 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 19 of 38 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R) 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to identify specific development standards for areas designated as "R" on the MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit `'A". Residential uses, infrastructure, perimeter land use buffers, and signage, : : • •••• • •- • • • • will occur within this District. 4.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed within the MPUD shall be established at the time of development plan review, but shall not exceed 42-5-281 multi- family/single-family attached/townhouse residential dwelling units or 138 single-family detached units. • - ' . . • • - • . . - • - • • .•. -. For the purpose of calculating the project density, 4 assisted living facilities (ALF) units shall constitute I residential dwelling unit and the maximum number of ALF units shall not exceed 150 units. 4.3 USES PERMITTED 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: A. Principal Uses: I. Single-family attached dwellings (including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance); 2. Zero lot line dwellings; 3. Single-family detached dwellings; 4. Duplexes, two-family dwellings; 5. Multiple-family dwellings; 6. ALF with ancillary medical uses and personal services for residents and their guests, including but not limited to. beauty salon, bank, pharmacy and convenience store. (Such ancillary medical or personal service uses shall only be accessed from inside the ALF (no exterior access), : • : • • • : !! aggregate. No external signage or advertising shall be permitted in support of these ancillary medical or personal service uses. tem underlined i•added.I c.i Ah+wkfhrcn4h i9 deleted TRF[FARM MPUD PL20140000640 intriT9 October 23,2015 19of30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 20 of 38 B. Accessory Uses: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including, but not limited to private garages, swimming pools and screened enclosures, • •• .. . • .. . . . - . - #accilhies. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. • THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE IV RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS lc'j tdcdtn t 7cxi,tro 4.-tyrnstsh is deictcJ IRE!.FARM Mpl:A P1 2Qt4OO(NIWO y-29Octobet 23.200 20 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 21 of 38 ,--.. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE- TWO-FAMILY, SINGLE- FAMILY PATIO.'& €4441401ASEi FAMILY ATTACHED& ZERO LOT MULTI 14.6 GRIgA-T-ION DETACHED TOWNHOUSE LINE FAMILY •FRAWINGS4 PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 2250SF. 2,250 S F 2,250SF, 10,000SF. 46440 .41.44.- PER UNIT PER UNIT PER UNIT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 35 FEET 20 FEET 35 FEET 100 FEET VA MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000SF. 1,000 S F_ 1,000 S.F, 1,000 S.F/D.U. WA MIN FRONT YARD" 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET WA MIN SIDE YARD 56 FEET 0 FEET or 0 FEET or +5,-.1.11FEET WA 65 FEET Ilik FEET MIN REAR YARD 44-21.FEET 4-5-2FEET 43-1,5JEET 20 FEET WA MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET MIN,DIST. BETWEEN STRUCTURES 411-ELFEET 42-ELFEET 4.141FEET 20 FEET or WA !A ZONEDBH, WHICIHEVER IS GREATER I MAX ZONED HEIGHT 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE 1 STORIES NTE a-S-TORIEEI-NfE - 42 FEET 42 FEET 42 FEET 50 FEET 341-PEE:r ...----N I ACTUAL HEIGHT' 54 FEET 54 FEET 54 FEET 62 FEET 62 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FRONT 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET WA SIDE 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET WA REAR S FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET WA PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET WA I MAX.BLDG.HT. NOT TO EXCEED SPS SPS SPS 3 STORIES NTE 2-STORIES-NTE 42 FEET 12 FEET S.P.S.:Same as Principal Structures. NTE:Not To Exceed BH:Building Height „......., Text underlined is added.ism is deleted. TREE FARM MPUD PL,2Q 000(1¢40 41.1y-.19 October 23_2QJ 5 21 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 22 of 38 General Notes: Front yards shall be measured as follows: if the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (f curbed)or edge of pavement (if not curbed). Setback from lake easements for all accessory uses and structures may be zero feet(0'). No structure, other than those permitted within the LDC to be located within a required landscape buffer tract or easement,shall encroach into a required landscape buffer tract or easement. Footnotes I) A patio home is a detached or semi-detached single-family unit from ground to roof wherein each dwelling unit lot is enclosed by a wall located at the lot line, thus creating a private yard between the house and the wall. 2) Setback may be either zero feet (0) on one side and s+ix-feet-(6')five feet (5') on the other side in order to provide a minimum separation between principal structures of twelve ten feet (4.210 At the time of application for subdivision plat approval for each tract, a lot layout depicting minimum yard setbacks and building footprint shall be submitted 3) Front loading garages shall have a minimum front yard setback of twenty-three feet(23), as measured from the back of sidewalk. Side loaded garages may be located less than twenty-three feet (23)feet from the back of sidewalk provided that the driveway design allows for parking of vehicles so as not to interfere with or block the sidewalk. These provisions apply to a garage whether attached to the principal structure or detached 4) For corner lots, only one (I)front yard setback shall be required The yard that does not contain the driveway shall provide a 10'setback. Tv'+I unclaimed t5 added.Text stroett4Ittottsh t deleted. TREE r ARM MPUp PI 20140000640 4u47-29 October 23.2415 22 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 23 of 38 4.5 PERMITTED USES FOR RECREATIONAL AREA, LABELED "RA" ON MASTER PLAN A. Principal Uses: I. Clubhouse, gazebo, or other structures intended to provide social and recreational space for the private use of the residents and their guests. 2. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, and water features. 3. Passive open space uses and structures, such as but not limited to landscaped areas,gazebos, and park benches. 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in the nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or Hearing Examiner,as applicable. B. Accessory Uses: I. Community maintenance areas, and maintenance structures. 2. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")or Hearing Examiner, as applicable. THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Text underlined IA 44dcd strock-tivexetii is deleted TRF[FARM M pup Fl 2O14(1000440 itth49 Octobsi 23.2(,)15 23 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 24 of 38 TABLE V RECREATIONAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEI'ELOPMFNTSTANDARDS RECREATIONAL ,4 RE.{ PRINCIPAL,STUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10.000 S.F. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH NSA MINIMUM FLOOR AREA MIN.FRONT YARD MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET MIN.SIDE YARD 25' MIN.REAR YARD MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES MAX. ZONED HEIGHT 2 STORIES NTE 50 FEET MAX.ACTUAL HEIGHT 62 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN.FRONT YARD 15. MIN.SIDE YARD 15' MIN.REAR YARD 15' PRESERVE SETBACK 25' MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 2 STORIES NI NOT TO EXCEED 42 FEET NTE: Not to exceed Note: Where the Recreational Area abuts residential lots,the required 15' Tyne B buffer shall include a 6' %all. 1 c t underlined],added ['euwlrthrequh 15 deleted. TREE FARM MPUI? PL20140000&40 kip-49 Uctober 23.2015 24 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 25 of 38 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK j al •dderl..cd iy added.Text sei..L.. ii deleted. TREE FARM MPIJ© P120140000640 My-i9 October 23.2015 25 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 26 of 38 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA(P) 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the development plan for areas designated as District "P", Preserve Area on Exhibit "A", MPUD Master Plan. The primary function and purpose of this District is to preserve and protect vegetation and naturally functioning habitats,such as wetlands, including upland buffers, in their natural,and/or enhanced state. 5.2 USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses; 1. Open spaces/nature preserves. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Water management structures. 2. Mitigation areas. 3. Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks shall be allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. For the purpose of this Section, passive recreational uses are those uses that would allow limited access to the preserve in a manner that will not cause any negative impacts to the preserve, such as pervious pathways,benches and educational signs. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserve to provide protection of the preserve in accordance with the applicable requirements set forth in the LDC. Fences and walls shall not be permitted within the preserve area. Perimeter berms and swales shall be located outside preserve boundaries. C. The .51 acre preserve tract depicted on the MPUD Master Plan shall be re-vegetated in compliance with MPUD Exhibit "D", Compliance Agreement, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the LDC. Text underlined i,added.Text stmeit-ebratents is deleted. TREE FARM MPID PL2014U00440 Me-t14 October 23.20 II 26 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 27 of 38 SECTION VI DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 6.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with SDP, subdivision plans (if required), and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this MPUD. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the LDC shall apply to this project, even if the land within the MPUD is not to be platted. The developer, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The developer, its successors or assignee, shall follow the Master Development Plan and the regulations of the MPUD, as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successors or assignee in title to the developer are bound by any commitments within this Document. These commitments may be assigned or delegated to a condominium/ homeowners' association to be created by the developer. Upon assignment or delegation, the developer shall be released from responsibility for the commitments. 6.3 TRANSPORTATION The development of this MPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: saeh taci l+t+e . A43. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County rights-of- way or easements, compensating right-of-way shall be provided without cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement. QB. If. in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the fair share cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer. Tei underlined i)added.Teal throrlri js deleted. TREE FARM MPL:L) PL 20 14000 640 iub-24 Vctuber;:3_2&1! 27 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 28 of 38 DC. The applicant shall reserve rights-of-way for the-future-Collier Boulevard.tittension and Immokalee Road expansion and intersection improvements as depicted on the MPUD Master Plan(Right-of-way Reservations Tracts A, B,and C,totaling 7.42+/- acres). The applicant shall receive impact fee credits in exchange for Right-of-way Reservation Tract B (0.47 acres), but shall not receive impact fee credits for the reservation and eventual dedication of Right-of-way Reservation Tracts A and C. The applicant shall convey by deed, in fee simple, at no cost to the County (other than the aforementioned impact fee credits for Tract B)all lands reserved as depicted on the MPUD Master Plan (as noted herein) within 90 days of written request of the County. ED. The applicant shall construct a twelve foot (12) asphalt greenway within the Immokalee Road canal right-of-way, or within the adjacent right-of-way reservation area, at the discretion of the Collier County Transportation Services Division. The greenway shall be located on the north side of the canal and shall connect to the greenway that Collier County is constructing to the west of the Tree Farm MPUD property. The developer shall provide five (5) parking spaces for public use in close proximity to and accessible from the greenway. These parking spaces may be located within the Commercial Tract, and may be located within the Right-of-way Reservation Tract "A" on a temporary or permanent basis, with approval from Collier County Transportation Services Division. The greenway shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy(CO)within the MPUD. EI". The applicant shall design the project stormwater management system so as to accept and treat stormwater from fifty percent (50%) of the impervious area of proposed extension of Collier Boulevard adjacent to the Tree Farm MPUD,in accordance with South Florida Water Management District permitting requirements. GI'. The applicant shall be responsible for fair share costs of improvements to the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard intersection, including bridge replacement and/or widening as may be necessary to construct a minimum of two north and two southbound through lanes as well as necessary turn lanes 44G. The applicant shall ensure that any easements necessary to facilitate interconnections to properties to the west as shown on the MPUD Master Plan shall be granted by the appropriate instrument(s) at the time of submittal of the first development order application. IN. No certificate of occupancy (CO) for development within the Tree Farm MPUD will be issued until 6 laning of the following roadway segments has been substantially completed(that is fully open to traffic): I. lmmokalee Road from Collier Boulevard west to 1-75 2. lmmokalee Road from Collier Boulevard East to 43' it Well Road 3. Collier Boulevard from lmmokalee Road south to Golden Gate Boulevard. Jest underlined is added.Text stinelt-dtreyr6 is deleted TREE FARM MPUD PL20140000640 414)-29 October 23.201 i 28 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 29 of 38 Should it become necessary or desirable to construct a wall to mitigate the impacts of noise from Collier Boulevard or Immokalee Road,the developerownersuccessor or assignee shall be responsible for the costs of designing and installing said wall or walls for the portion adjacent to the project boundary. The Tree Farm MPUD TIS was based on a development scenario that assumed a variety of commercial uses and a maximum of 281 multi-family units. The total trip generation was estimated in the TIS to be 580 PM peak hour two-way external trips to adjacent streets based on ITE trip generation rates. The development scenario analyzed in the TIS may change. However. the Project's estimated trip generation will not exceed a maximum of 580 PM peak hour two-way external trips to adjacent streets. 6.4 UTILITIES The development of this MPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. The developer shall reserve twe—one (1) areas to be granted as an easements to Collier County for a raw water wells. The dimensions of these this well easements •: - • ••• : . '- • ; he at a maximum 80 feet by 50 feet. The approximate location of thisthese well easements is depicted on the MPUD Master Plan. The doftherly—FeW—water well easement site is located at the northeastern corner of the MPUD, and can be accessed from -- • ' : • *: -Collier Boulevard Extension. - • - . - - - • - : : • - • : - •-- - •, 9 ; • • ; • :••• : . • • • ..,'. ' •• :• : -: • : • •• • : • ••• •„ • • • •- • • • - -- : : •• . • • • •• - 1.1 ; • ; : . - - : -; - ; : -: • ::•: , • : I . - : - • : - • : •: .., : •: .: - ;• : •• •- : : t• •: -. The grant of these-this easements shall occur at the time of site development plan or final plat approval for the area within the development phase that contains the respective well easement sites. At the time of the site development plan and/or final plat submittal, the developer shall provide the well site easement that meets the standard setback requirements for water wells. -- • • : • • • : : •• •: • — • - • • : : • - : • : . • : • - 6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL A. The development shall comply with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to "listed species". A Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plan shall be submitted to Environmental 1 irkt underlined is added.Test girepele-drawah r deleted. TREF.FARM MPUD PL20 14000064 u #1*-29 October 23.20 29 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 30 of 38 Services Staff for review and approval prior to site plan/construction plan approval. Where protected species are observed on site, a Habitat Management Plan for those protected species, or their habitats shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to site plan/construction plan approval. 6.6 AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING: A. The applicant shall provide 15% of the total units built in the project in the affordable housing price range or workforce housing, i.e., for those who earn up to 150% of the median income as calculated annually using the Collier County median income figure for a family of four as determined by the United States Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD). The applicant will use the most current median income figure as defined above at the time of sale to determine if that unit falls into the 150% median income or below. Currently, that would allow a sales price of up to $321,000. The applicant will provide verification of the sales prices to Collier County's Housing and Human Services Department. The form of verification shall be determined between the applicant and the Collier County Housing and Human Services Division. ... t • THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Text mtdarltned is added.Text strteadt-threggh is detaed TREE FARM MPLJD PL20140000640 July 29 October 23 2015 30 of 30 Exhibit A to HEX No, 2015-42 Page 31 of 38 _.... ; 1 ig11 ° S 1 '.:. : r: '• E ! r_A: L 1 1. i ir.i ,40 IL: .,:= .1 i 5 2 f, 3 ri sc 2 ... .11 a .4..„. i • , ii) I 0 ril z .4' ' 0-181 z , cr) i INTI T5,...' r..n A t"" eucri ri r—t- 1 dy,E t-D t 0 ,r41,..„., wan illiit P.. 1 t> tj cr er, Seem swift Ix 1 4 -.11 cel .1, -It4.0,2 .4111Mikiklpill .0 s‘...2v .•:,. .T.... I I 1 1"Cl W con 4 I ......1 0.--i . -1,. • -1- { i I, \ \OS i a pw ilI: ! lc:0A 7"11°F ii •‘. , te:?, Iift 1 I f .._,...,_ Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 (Note: this page illegible in the originally recorded Ordinance No. 07-54)Pa•e 32 of 38 r: } ` 4.„ ' r R.- ,� v f l• i till ;. • •A • f i d \ , :„.; b..., •„.. ' , ,.„ r . • .---....w.pu.nw sousut [ tacGJ.' *C ...nf* (*tr . SS On t! +o . . .. TREE - "' L.4hD TRUSRUS TREE FARM MPUD "►' .1. I'Le r.„PromLnpm d 1f:ffl.1L PHOTOGRAPH _., ten. I Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 (Note: This page is deleted, and replaced by the two pages that follow) Page 33 of 38 NOR"m""'"y°"° 11"m."" 00/11011 011.1 i - 11 1 1. (-� i i ! .. _ ..Y, w,..F R.t_ 4Y_ ---"'0 i 1 ' 1 4 t I �.�i 101111 /.; 1~ [ 1! 1• ! t { Ts f `�• � i ilii i' A 1' ' t , ' { -4*, =-----°,' ; ii i 11 C .p 1 0-3 '-`) \ 016 I 1< 1 , l IT ‘---. '4. , I i I Pini;.0..2., v .1 /77',71'.?://it 5 1 .. 4 ..1. , , ?PP . ' 11 . ,1:1 , il I II . r . a j I ' ' yeit tit Ot f! 4*' .l tSRtat l�l+" 'sA a; ata Rc? s •r. jY f sls € x^ ^cye ti I C [ a . 9 i4�g sK c_ S €,1 °a ¢ ��*a $ i t 0 I I I it x ',--I is"t F R Ai,_ii Ill ( # R t " PI, �I - yts� -4AyjkEp 'S; j 1 4. it t+ f Ili 3 i 'e Fla; a III! €F tii i i l ±: : a li {jsti 1. i 1 . a , . Sale-f iiii iR 9 "14 11 11"; I ;7 F f ± jai. Mt rY 1 .1•11 tin ir.1 y 1'Ii. 1 ) 1!:i : 1 . i. �:t- I gig id?; '-Y' ii I , , ° r L 41 Y 111 ';;;1 ;y, ti 14411! rr: jy, s R'S .a P. x ,�, ; 2 -v r ; 1 i; . 1 lTil, t111Fs = ;1;0,44 i '.1!.• .!. � ,..+� a r .• 40i i ff t ' R '1014 ',IIV t..:>1 �- I 2 ..g QE to 1 4 75S 44 'r d 1 ' 'r !.di. .j 2L } } '� S$:4 i RZ v to TT _4,.. # t 4 ; :, , • CY a ,—..,,, "� €► EXHIBIT..A" 7`RLEl.lflbf arc L•AtillTRL�T •TREE FARM MPUD171A4 - -.. MPUD MASTER PLAN ..,.. ��..- 1 Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 # X40.!,1' ------------P. - . Page 34 • 38 1 :1-----.1 -1 I . I , li (----i- -L -7 p I1) ' I I f E II I c I h I r un.�o r O k. I Lail . 1/2 loi g ' I 1 It — a , � / gAg t. ' s i Q I I S 5 1 El "44 ;I ,AP Is I c y I * [ Igb " Pi 4 , 1 A 4 ,,, 4,,- : 00 t "§ ' 4gn i V tZI IF ,. II 7°, � ) 1 1 $ �,1 fl�;41 1:h( Il _ '`; c 8II Cli i lig ' i , „ , ,; 1 4 i ( , 2 d / ii 1 , , il °"m3 i 226&\V. _ . _•_,.1 T- 4 __.i _ {{ ))�" ro , - CL. • _ lam, ► . C \ I�_ I I 1 >o Z li r---- --^� i ( Z /11 : i �}� i lie n y 1.1.! f t i o i Po r , s f Lifilir . , , „„ 2,... P ' dlz • I i 1 i 27, lI 1 I I P g_ � .__. `..;,' 481, ',- 41..,i 4.4.,44511447 � i ‘.. t I , 1 CZ O fix.._ 0bZ) E Zo 5 t I ovg 1 O82 NI G i 8 F V± DUD MIRASOL` F ZONING PUD•MIMSOl iligrY� CURRENT USE RESIDENTIAL ESPLANADE hgT .1 II•1411ltr1.. LANOQUESTGROUP -- 1i �w ItEl� ' II,__ 0'" TREE fARN MDUD MINIMINI r� t - __ ryyrq.r..,.,0....000"143 LII •1I-- LS'I '"T _ 1_ 1r'-��©I= 1 B IMIST MASTER PLAN wawmw...e..s,..6.r11`/..arw nl-..-_- _- r=--.1�r�WAR sM g.mews r.onssrasn - _ t icm 1 ...Flwlwa. Rf -r-r•-Zr-� 1 Exhibit A to HEX No. 201. 5-42 Page 35 • 38 441IIIjP S J1PJH! 7i !'Pli'J E RAI g E r m �y O� w�� ' IRI.Ea m to 144:1,10M O(y�rr mz py T i Em-LZ=m; 2 2�42i "� ?S-1 oqmo m Er,,z2v1hgr.vA 57t 7N� IIfiZ1 i I R22Will0 m -4 sa z 2 gil-.2 pw,g0 Ils m yT�T40O c���A c <�. � ��� oN7KC flPIfl ui TIP IItI21;I flu1IIliI =�>Ow mpo����N6�oo s Gj� �x��no fT�l C NO DOi N ♦ W N .; KI K° -I-4'' Cl m p o m MX EX a� rr=j ,g 8 S W r 1 ,11E m (l1 m A m N �� 0 rill W 2'. Ni fld01 OFA I,mAD,pZ ;�� I ? i M- I < m`nm PJ ' 'Q'�m N �n 5 NC N H O m �N z z n 1Z m'� Zpmp�i m C 2g O � me cl0 "m ; > �op 8i pa• S$ m W N,� v2 gm 5 .; /I Q KKjjv O vmi N7f7 ' E› Lc i i mg pRj�q fn >v E 1 m m m O o 0 N m c 1 c EC i p � g i 3n P 70 r "� p rn C Z �^ , g 7n N A — 4 p; '0 p m G Z act E/ �L z n K n < A E L1 T O N z • . Irr sT GROUP 1 C �� I I• ..�TREE FARM MA70 x�YMYRMi O u ram ©® _.tir W*....M1b0L.r b 76I U 017 pG- -1::: "si':rr©==3 w YD MM.210597 /...'.ZOO ab.5 4.1" 117= 1=..>^ ...i..�l•:i® • I pMIpT A MASTER PLAN awa:�srrRx r..clto s,7.�7s 111=L-37=-:. od...,..,e..... n f7[:.II.7, Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 36 of 38 " ' ........ -- ; * .' - i ; - ri 44 iri r __._.__ t/ g� . r 1 r + l+1� _ ; iqiit IMO _ T� _ all , , 1 ,'_ I I 1 I. _, z i g ii I= \ ' � _ 3 1,i' Jtri , 1 J _ =_ .---7-_-:-.....-7-_4 E.-.1 E 1 .1 ; _.:1 • ic: , -._ , g--) „:-..,/ ,:i.-'.-- i---- ..ti------.1,--„; ,,,„ , iir._,:v.E. 1 1 �� D �_ � �r iii j4��- ILL i I Iiii ilf (---1,.--- , I I, ',-, t II- ....., v i l'i; . ____ 0 IV t tri I IIII , 1 # i a *d -- lootm r _(�i-#—aew it,.1.,+v. A De TREE iR�Rsr TREE FARM MPUD limit • 4 I• WNCEPWAL WATEREri,-.. . MANAGEMENT P1.d.1 1,-=';:."--:=7.:•*'"= +;.::* --: " " :. Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 37 of 38 It • .., .�.,w»..4.,,....; , . �+ 1 1i a. t Y M 1 '4 i A `ir7t I ., �'� .Via""' ,- % ;�=t R t , moinicatatram:23Dclomcc:%:":cs, Id -‹ a :Ca0� 4 II s:ar" J- , _, ---t-' is i•" 6 s,007an0aJ09nt7`iir . .?l_res 1 tia P . . , 1. tri !tattoo a a I 1 : , h.i OR 111/ "'!""H" Zs' , I oil I i ' : 0 I Il ! !a I a 1ZrIrrii....i 6 1 l h 1 i x . 1 4;, t7,. a J ! [. -, TREE FARM LANDTRLsr TRLL FARM MPLJI) ERT AL'WATER JL. * +i,, . Nora Exhibit A to HEX No. 2015-42 Page 38 of 38 ! Ti li # 1 115 ....._„..... .... , 1,--- - -- - " 1 1 i 1 I la 4g to. ' 1 I 1 I r. 1 i 1 • fir 1 i .,1i 1 I ill w 1 i ".15. g 1 i ',2ti is 7! c , 11 1. i t• , W:r 7.s /."'• N , li 5 1 1 §"1 `... '2 V' I li I li r —I. I ..4 Is JD i- II 1 1 ts,..17 f-# it A" ; ,4 1 :5. illfl e.- -,A; '''-; 2 •7.: . e..0 ;...4 .,...f l'a 'i- , i ! 1 i L 1 .:.:-.4.... 1 7,4', „ ''' f-- I—TREE FARM MPUD .. • ..... .„, I CR(t'i Sit TIONS 1 ( ... ,_ • i 1.0.,1....or-onet Mappkn • t I Va. ii-,I., 1',..i.tt*Aga> .1404.1,11•.•01.r........ . ,w,... .• DEDAVIDSONEI1N,G EXHIBIT "0" CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com M.N.. >w 40.1 eNdldM31SHW ,•.�.:0 c. 5fHS03•E.00 KM 'WAINIIPKii d. TM 5nns 1WILd30N00:0 1191)1X3 .°B w•BSM, "NIHONON3N15 KM WZ 3Lll y''g Zgi 1�33NI�J�./N3 AB 0.030 VINO. \ �IOSaIAVa BBNIBaBoa MEM OM l�RllS109f1S Td1�213WW0�On19 .Ier r.I MM.Wu MIMS.,,m.3..IoaI 1IwwI '�H. on �a 1 MOW/.Mal w A�wm nl,Im m,Noway•Nrngl :,,8 'SNOWwoa 1Ix3a30xrA 2131110')I ns 1VION 11100'a e U U U U U U I _ i 1 4— La co Q Q Q tSQOp Q CO o=�rc O_ N .- 0/ 30 C O a O i E 0 O V U 4- O .- r O! 4 < 2-g ff J, I�1 a « « « 11 +1 - y wa rd �s F wU OI-(w'1R Wp _" 1- Sr 14`2-$o W�rc H Q CO E w 0 1 < r/] U Z N v O 4— ti Q' 0 j=V 0 >- 1 < co W Rigg �- U � t, LL w Et a M D 14 6 awl F ZOODITTI Z ‹Q d Q W. < IX M .0 !SI % 3r s,vt�loa.Ir.-sni y� W L 0 0 WWN JJ 4. — Q02FQ - ^ --T� 2 N K g - W Q I rreBaae.�g 3 a E 0 1- 11 w4 l x 1� ill I Q _ J_ - 1 Leo I Q —IF AV o 11 J iFL A - 1w ;14IFt (i W !1 LL yw � al ! o w' ce •1< .I o I w WF" 11; QO OJ' 3e, 11 oz gl I L.L1 WS < l 0] w <g OI -- 1 I 1 o 11 I l o i ain 13 J > w JUW = LL0 I I �3� jjIII i; jla F hi — w I I 0 J1__ O o� II I ' F- §: i! � wJ� o Iwo I 33 i to II !ill 1` Ww i ��� m CC i .��. I J __ 1 J I ___�__—� — — ii I— — LLZ tr.m.movrarmne Mel Waled wzw (1vI1N301s3a — 03d0I3A3ONN )1331:13 410M a (lrI1N3OIS3a) Oflda w /"\)13380 f1OM 0 OMAN W ONj K O 1 w4 z LL (lrLLN301S3a) w )133140 dIOM (7 --Onda� z C.7-3 ...sat.-LIK ZZ n^m w.((....o es3)...Ivan).aa Wwao 3.lZ Io(I.L\..:u..a\.w\.0 41 dHHIAA' 'd r' •2 DE PAVRACMEXHIBIT "P" BOUNDARY SURVEY Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com a it n in I !! !.t 4 �11a1i!�ili! slid Is l < 1 a m ��dna IN O "s �N i !! c a i ,' 'zi. / 41 e'a 16` ak 1141 22§ 1 ill 1 , .,-.,t n ilf L,.... u .• ,.., ,i e ..Nina N.i�s ,-,a r_____) , ,r�r.Nor..N�rr N� .oao-.. �I ' i n p } p ..tea umai-,Ma r n R 7�1 "3 3+34 41 4 __ v��_ -., S I.. E • 7n 1 Q 44 Gil V 1 Y i Y Y � Q Q F ik I ♦ l ` 1 1 Q ipO i g1 t lin 11 ji' e JI 41i eII" 11 3 !! i-Iiie e , I '1 � 1g 1 . p Y * =aim. ! !Ell . dd "k Rl !i ii� i`...'•'ii I !i a ' 4' ll rf K Q! 1 a ! e[ Zi A 9 I II 4I I` .... .g 9 .n, !l � e• i� l gg 1 11 1 Zlg -- z� - 1I I,� e . ' OW/j " i �� I I /1 �''i0 , i lit = 143. a yt 4?: to Pi Ifg I g1 It . i 1 i 41 1 ;11416. i -1.� —G•. 1 tl1,gi 1 1.1, f # 4! 3 i S . X\` J 3 `-' • ,i III r -r!t . ''±!!! F1 1 I .•ei, l y m 1 11 III — ice.. 41€ il do. 1,,, ;fie, ' Li cg L �f • eele? I Al IR i!7 I.. 1 i 11 �• ` illi 1.4 .it ♦ ! on kM _ o .. malh --- '-AST " ..-Fa n-- !s 11!! 11 S,, -_ �pa ,., ;. ,,. 111 i ;1 - I I L ,•s& ya y a P@ Rq. 33 DE PA Y!,9P0N EXHIBIT "Q" TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com TrebHcock plannin0•enuineerinu Traffic Impact Statement Vanderbilt Commons (fka Carolina Village) Planned Unit Development (PUDA) and Growth Management Plan (GMPA) Amendments Collier County, FL 11/01/2016 Prepared for: Prepared by: Davidson Engineering, Inc. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34104 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-434-6060 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee—$ 500.00 Collier County Transportation Review Fee—Small Scale Study— No Fee Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. GEN1:, •c: No 47116 •• *� * •'* ' ' CC (Th :13.• STATE OF 6N/ON �, Norman, FL Registration Trebilcock, 7116P, P E This item has been electronically signed and Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA sealed by Norman J.Trebilcock,PE using a SHA-1 authentication code. 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Printed copies of this document are not considered Naples, FL 34110 signed and sealed,and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 12 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Table of Contents Project Description 4 Trip Generation 6 Background Traffic 9 Existing and Future Roadway Network 10 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis 11 Site Access and Intersection Turn Lane Analysis 12 Improvement Analysis 15 Mitigation of Impact 15 APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan 16 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) 18 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition 27 Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits 32 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 13 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Project Description The Vanderbilt Commons (fka Carolina Village) development is an approved Mixed Use Planned Use Development (MPUD) located in northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), about % mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The project is approximately 15.88 acres in size and it is located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Refer to Fig. 1 — Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Fig. 1—Project Location Map c Y ta+.... ) nl..*.w<. tl.N ..a..v q ,� . i . • 7 1 i 1 V i r. '''''' 14 ,, : `.,...' ••IN•III 14......... PROJECT ,,—„ ,,._» ..“, '..,«.�. �Y..... LOCATION l } t The approved MPUD currently allows the site (consisting of approximately 15.88 acres) to be developed with up to 150,000sf of commercial uses and up to 64 residential units. The Vanderbilt Commons Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) — Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) proposes to reduce the overall acreage of the PUD to 14.92 acres. The maximum allowed development under proposed zoning application is illustrated in Table 1A. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 14 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Table 1A Maximum Allowed Development Program Development Land Use ITE Land Use* ITE LUC Total Size Commercial Office Park 750 60,000sf Commercial Shopping Center 820 90,000sf Residential Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 64 dwelling units Note(s): *ITE land uses illustrated in agreement with approved Major Traffic Study for Carolina Village PUD,dated 08-07-2004. Under the proposed rezone petition, the Vanderbilt Commons PUDA — GMPA project will continue to be developed as a mixed-use project by proposing a potential development scenario as shown in Table 1B. Table 1B Proposed Development Program—Scenario 1 Development Land Use ITE Land Use ITE LUC Total Size Self-Storage Mini-Warehouse 151 95,550sf General Office General Office Building 710 10,000sf Medical Office Medical-Dental Office 720 10,000sf Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) Day Care Center* 565 160 students Retail Shopping Center 820 71,650sf Residential Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 58 dwelling units Note(s): *per ITE description,"a day care center is a facility where care for pre-school age-children is provided". For the purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2021 planning horizon. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on October 26, 2015, via email, as illustrated in Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist. Please note that although the proposed land use scenarios have changed from the initial methodology application, the existing approved methodology concepts are still applicable and are reflected in this report. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 15 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Connections to the site are currently provided via one full movement access on Pristine Drive and one full movement access on Buckstone Drive. No new connections are proposed as part of this application. Trip Generation The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition and the software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most current version). The ITE rates and equations are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE — OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition. The residential associated common recreation amenities are considered passive incidental to residential use, and are not included in the trip generation analysis. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. Per Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. Based on the multi-use nature of this development and in agreement with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures and coordination with Collier County Transportation staff, a 10% internal capture rate is assumed for the overall project traffic. The pass-by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational-access analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, shopping center pass-by rates should not exceed 25% for the peak hour and the daily capture rates are assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis calculates Shopping Center LUC 820 pass-by daily rates at 15%and AM and PM peak hour rates at 25%. The new proposed PUDA — GMPA project trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A — 1 (and detailed in Table 2A—2). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 16 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 r--, Table 2A- 1 Trip Generation—Proposed GMPA Conditions—Average Weekday* PM Peak Hour Development Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA 338 389 727 Total Internal 33 39 72 Total External 305 350 655 Total Pass-By 52 56 108 Total Non-Pass-By 253 294 547 Note(s): *Trip generation details—refer to Appendix C. Table 2A-2 Trip Generation—Proposed GMPA Conditions—Average Weekday—PM Peak Hour Trips* Development ITE Land Use Unadjusted Internal Total Pass-By Total Non- Land Use Code Size Entry-Exit Capture External Capture Pass-By Entry-Exit Entry-Exit Entry-Exit Entry-Exit Self-Storage LUC 151 13-12 1-1 12-11 0-0 12-11 95,550sf General LUC 710 Office 10,OOOsf 6-28 1-3 5-25 0-0 5-25 Medical- LUC 720 ,"-.. Dental Office 10,000sf 10-27 1-3 9-24 0-0 9-24 Day Care LUC 565 54-60 5-6 49-54 0-0 49-54 Center 160 students Shopping LUC 820 230-249 23-25 207-224 52-56 155-168 Center 71,650sf LUC 230 Residential 58 du 25- 13 2- 1 23-12 0-0 23-12 Total 338-389 33-39 305-350 52-56 253—294 1 Note(s): *Trip generation details—refer to Appendix C. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 17 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 The trip generation analysis based on currently approved zoning conditions is shown in Table 2B– 1 (and detailed in Table 2B–2). Table 2B–1 Trip Generation–Approved MPUD Conditions–Average Weekday* PM Peak Hour Development — Enter Exit Total Approved MPUD 320 449 769 Total Internal 32 44 76 Total External 288 405 693 Total Pass-By 60 66 126 Total Non-Pass-By 228 339 567 Note(s): *Trip generation details—refer to Appendix C. Table 2B-2 Trip Generation–Approved MPUD Conditions–Average Weekday–PM Peak Hour Trips* Development ITE Land Use Unadjusted Internal Total Pass-By Total Non- Land Use Code Size Entry-Exit Capture External Capture Pass-By Entry-Exit Entry-Exit Entry-Exit Entry-Exit Residential LUC 230 28- 14 3- 1 25- 13 0-0 25- 13 64 du Shopping LUC 820 268-290 27-29 241-261 60-66 181–195 Center 90,000sf Office Park LUC 750 24- 145 2- 14 22-131 0-0 22–131 60,000sf Total 320-449 32-44 288-405 60-66 228–339 Note(s): *Trip generation details—refer to Appendix C. The projected net new trip generation is illustrated in Table 2C which shows total proposed conditions versus existing approved (the difference between Table 2A–1 and Table 2B–1). In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for adjacent roadway network is PM. For the purpose of this TIS, the potential project's traffic impact is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour non-pass-by trips generated as a result of the proposed PUDA-GMPA (as shown in Table 2C). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 1 8 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Pass-by trips are not deducted for traffic operational analysis. As such, the total external generated traffic (PM Peak Hour 305 —350 illustrated in Table 2A — 2) is computed for the site access turn lane analysis. The projected net new trip generation for project is illustrated in Table 2C. Table 2C Trip Generation (Projected Net New Traffic)—Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Development Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA* 253 294 547 Total Non-Pass-By Trips Approved MPUD** 228 339 567 Total Non-Pass-By Trips Proposed Net New Traffic Total Non-Pass-By Trips 25 (45) (20) Net Increase/(Net Decrease) Note(s): *Refer to Table 2A—1. **Refer to Table 2B—1. As illustrated in Table 2C, from a traffic stand point, the proposed rezone development scenario is less intensive when compared to the maximum allowed under current zoning conditions. Background Traffic Future projected background traffic volumes are calculated based on approved growth rates and trip bank volumes for the segments of the roadway network in the study area, as shown in Collier County 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The higher of the two determinations, is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Based on Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance, a minimum of 2% growth rate is considered. Table 3, on the next page, illustrates the projected background peak hour peak direction traffic volume (without project) for the future build-out year 2021. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 19 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Table 3 Background Traffic without Project(2015-2021) 2015 AUIR Projected 2021 Projected 2021 Projected CC Pk Hr,Pk Dir Traffic Pk Hr,Peak Dir Pk Hr,Peak Dir Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Annual Growth Background Trip Background Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Link Link Location Traffic Growth Factor Bank ID# Volume Rate w/out Project w/out Project (trips/hr) (%/yr)* (trips/hr) (trips/hr) Growth Factor** Trip Bank*** Vanderbilt Beach Rd 112.0 West of Collier Blvd 1,250 4.0% 1.2653 1,582 189 1,439 (CR 862) Collier Blvd. 30.1 North of Vanderbilt 1,480 4.0% 1.2653 1,873 461 1,941 (CR 951) Beach Rd Collier Blvd. 30 2 South of Vanderbilt 1,120 2.0% 1.1262 1,262 166 1,286 (CR 951) Beach Rd Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate—estimated for 2009-2014 peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes,or 2%minimum. **Growth Factor= (1+Annual Growth Rate)^6.2021 Projected Volume=2015 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2021 Projected Volume=2015 AUIR Volume+Trip Bank.The projected 2021 Peak Hour—Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation,which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Future projected roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5- Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements are identified in the Collier County 2015 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and projected future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 4, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 110 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Table 4 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions l Min. Exist Peak Dir, Future Roadway Link CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist Standard Peak Hr Project Link ID# Location Roadway LOS Capacity Build out Volume Roadway Vanderbilt Beach 112.0 West of Collier Blvd. 6D E 3,000(EB) 6D Rd(CR 862) Collier Blvd. 30.1 North of Vanderbilt 6D E 3,000(NB) 6D (CR 951) Beach Road Collier Blvd. 30 2 South of Vanderbilt 6D E 3,000(SB) 6D (CR 951) Beach Road Note(s): 2U=2-lane undivided roadway;4D,6D,8D=4-lane,6-lane,8-lane divided roadway,respectively;LOS=Level of Service. Project Impacts to Area RoadwayNetwork Link Analysis P Y The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links, and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at year 2021 future conditions. Table 5, Roadway Link Level of Service, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the studied roadway network. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 111 Vanderbilt Commons-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-November 2016 Table 5 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS)—With Project in the Year 2021 2015 Peak Roadway 2021 Peak %Vol. Min LOS Min LOS Link,Peak CC AUIR Dir,Peak Dir,Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway Roadway Link Dir,Peak Hr Link ID Hr Hr Volume Impact without with Link Location (Project Capacity Volume w/Project By Project? Project? Volume Added)* ** Project Yes/No Yes/No Vanderbilt Beach Rd 112.0 West of Collier Blvd. 3,000(EB) N/A 1.582 0.0% No No (CR 862) Collier Blvd. 30.1 North of Vanderbilt 3,000(NB) N/A 1,941 0.0% No No (CR 951) Beach Road Collier Blvd. 30 2 South of Vanderbilt 3,000(SB) N LA 1.286 0.0% No No (CR 951) Beach Road Note(s): *Not applicable as proposed project has negative net new traffic. **2021 Projected Volume=2021 background(refer to Table 3)+Project Volume Added. Site Access and Intersection Turn Lane Analysis No changes to the approved project accesses and no new connections are proposed with this GMPA application. The project accesses are evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook: (a) two-lane roadways — 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided roadways — right turn lanes shall always be provided; when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two-minute period for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. For more details refer to Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits. Pristine Drive—Western Access Pristine Drive is a two-lane undivided local roadway and has a posted legal speed limit of 30 mph in the vicinity of the project. A southbound left-turn lane is not warranted as the project does not meet the traffic volume criterion. The existing northbound right-turn lane is approximately 195 feet long. At the minimum, the right-turn lane should be 195 feet long (145 feet deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage), as the project is expected to generate 76vph inbound right-turning movements during Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 112 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 the PM peak hour. As such, the existing turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic. Eastern Access—Buckstone Drive Buckstone Drive is a two-lane undivided local roadway and has a posted legal speed limit of 30 mph in the vicinity of the project. The existing southbound right-turn lane is approximately 210 feet long. A right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the traffic volume criteria. The project is expected to generate 61vph inbound right-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the southbound right-turn lane should be 170 feet long (145 feet deceleration lane with taper and 25 feet of storage). As such, the existing turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic at build-out conditions. The existing northbound left-turn lane is approximately 250 feet long. A dedicated left-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the traffic volume criteria. The project is expected to generate 153vph inbound left-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the northbound left-turn lane should provide 150 feet of storage. Due to low speeds expected on this segment, the existing turn lane is considered adequate as it accommodates traffic storage at build-out conditions. Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862)—Existing Conditions Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) is under Collier County Department of Transportation jurisdiction. This roadway is an east-west six-lane divided arterial roadway to the south of the subject parcel. This roadway has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of project. Based on FDOT Construction Standards Index #301, the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 feet taper) plus required queue. CR 862 & Pristine Drive Intersection — Right-in/Right-out Connection: A right-turn lane on CR 862 is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The project is expected to generate 76vph inbound right-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the westbound right-turn lane should be 235 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage). CR 862 & Buckstone Drive Intersection — Full median Opening Connection: The existing westbound right-turn lane is approximately 350 feet long. The project is expected to generate 122vph inbound right-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the westbound right-turn lane should be 260 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 75 feet of storage). As such, the existing turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic at build-out conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 113 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 The existing eastbound U/left-turn lane is approximately 400 feet long. The project is expected to generate 92vph inbound U/left-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the eastbound left-turn lane should be 285 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 100 feet of storage). As such, the existing turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic at build-out conditions. Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862)—Potential Future Conditions To enhance safety operations on Vanderbilt Beach Road, a potential future modification on CR 862 is analyzed as follows: a full median opening on CR 862 at Pristine Drive intersection, and replacement of the existing full median opening with a directional opening for left-turns from two directions at Buckstone Drive intersection. CR 862 & Pristine Drive Intersection — Full median Opening Connection: A right-turn lane on CR 862 is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The project is expected to generate 61vph inbound right-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the westbound right-turn lane should be 235 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage). A left-turn lane on CR 862 is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. The project is expected to generate 61vph inbound left-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the eastbound left-turn lane should be 260 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 75 feet of storage). A U/left-turn lane on westbound CR 862 is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. This turn lane would provide for safe U-turns for potential background trips wanting to go eastbound on CR 862. At the minimum, the eastbound left-turn lane should be 285 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 100 feet of storage). CR 862 & Buckstone Drive Intersection — Right in/Right-out/Left-in Connection: The existing westbound right-turn lane is approximately 350 feet long. The project is expected to generate 76vph inbound right-turning movements during the PM peak hour, under this scenario. At the minimum, the westbound right-turn lane should be 235 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage). As such, the existing turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic at build-out conditions. The existing eastbound left-turn lane is approximately 400 feet long. The project is expected to generate 31vph inbound left-turning movements during the PM peak hour. At the minimum, the eastbound left-turn lane should be 235 feet long (185 feet deceleration lane with taper and 50 feet of storage). As such, the existing turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic at build-out conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 114 Vanderbilt Commons-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-November 2016 A more detailed evaluation of applicable access points and intersection connections for various scenarios will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available, to determine turn lane requirements and signalization, as they are warranted, as applicable. Improvement Analysis Based on the results of the trip generation analysis, the proposed development shall be limited to 727 unadjusted two-way PM peak hour trips, allowing for unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway network. It is our recommendation that for the purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour trips for this project, the most current ITE Trip Generation Manual be utilized. The proposed project traffic generation is less intensive compared to the Approved MPUD Development Program resulting in negative net new traffic. The proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network traffic at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate proposed development generated trips without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. Based on the turn lane analysis performed as part of this report, turn lanes improvements are recommended at the Vanderbilt Beach Road analyzed intersections. A more detailed evaluation of applicable access points and intersection connections and nearby intersections will be performed at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP)/Construction Plans and Plat (PPL) submittals, as applicable. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 115 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan (1 Sheet) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 116 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 I � iii _NM„I rM.V. at JIM WI t NM VIP MO INNOWN '.L" j 6001.0,110.1411. 1si1IrYMYMMWtR , ____ r ______ t g 11 * 1, it J � �I I1+ • ' ' I I I c --1I Iii J 101151- 111ESI, ; I lel , -G I 4 1;I p 11 P tlI: . s i 11,7 1711 11 ►I 1l 11It I;I I ISI 1111i g 11 "A i ,I 1 1; ,11 II , 'I I 7 il1 I i I II III, , 1 Di f E : L.7,r2 I€ .J' uatwn�swalnoo.�arur� ....[ff4"' j� �swr ill MIIIIINIIIIWPFIMO MIN A liYII 1117! I cratr(308a >1331K.!KW 541a0 41061ono ons I "„... ..,, 11 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 117 j Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) (8 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 18 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply,or N/A(not applicable). Date: October 26,2015 Time: N/A Location:N/A—Via Email People Attending: Name.Organization,and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Sawyer,Collier County Growth Mgmt.Division 2) Norman Trebilcock,TCS 3) Cinrian Malaescu,TCS Study Preoarer: Preparer's Name and Title:Norman Trebilcock,AICP,PE Organization:Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Address &Telephone Number: 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202,Naples,Fl 34110;ph 239-566-9551 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name&Title:Michael Sawyer,Project Manager Organization:Collier County Transportation Planning Department Address &Telephone Number: 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive,Naples, FL, 34104;ph. 239- 252-2926 Applicant: Applicant's Name:Davidson Engineering.Inc. Address:4365 Radio Road,Suite#201.Naples FL 34104 Telephone Number:239-434-6060 Proposed Development: Name: Vanderbilt Commons PUD(fka Carolina Village PUD)—Growth Management Plan Amendment(GMPA) Location:northwest quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road(CR 862)and Collier Boulevard(CR 951)- refer to Fie.I ITE Land Use Type:Existing/Proposed—refer to Attachment I ITE Code#: Existing/Proposed—refer to Attachment 1 Description: Pursuant to adopted Collier County Ordinance No. 2005-19, the subiect parcel is allowed for development of up to 150,000sf of commercial development and up to 64 residential dwelling units located on the second and/ or third floor of mixed use buildings that have commercial uses on at least the first floor. Page I of 8 • Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 119 Vanderbilt Commons-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-November 2016 Vanderbilt Commons GMPA proposes 20,000sf Shopping Center(to include 4,000sf Sit Down Restaurant and 16,000sf Retail and/ or Office), 6.000sf Convenience Store with Fuel Pumps, 4,500sf Fast Food Restaurant. 13,000sf Office(to include 2,600sf Medical Office and 10,400sf General Office). 10,000sf Daycare and 95,000sf of Self-Storage. Fig.1-Project Location Map a I • 12 A Zoning;Approved Carolina Village PUD per Collier County Ordinance No.2005-19 Comprehensive plan recommendation:N/A Requested:To allow proposed commercial development. Findings of the Preliminary Study: Since estimated net new project traffic is less than 100 peak hour trips, this study qualifies for a Minor Scale TIS - no significant operational impacts with minimal roadway impacts and work within the county right-of-way. The TIS will include PM peak hour trip generation,traffic distribution and assignments significance test,roadway link analysis and site access points turn lane analysis. Existing allowed ITE land uses are consistent with the approved Major Impact Study for Carolina Village PUD.dated August 7,2004. Internal Capture-estimate conservative 10%assumed for project. Pass-By Rates -consistent with ITE Guidelines and capped in agreement with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures - 25% Shopping Center; 5096 Fast-Food Restaurant and 50%for Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps. Roadway concurrency analysis-based on Total Non-Pass-By PM Pk Hr trip generation -2%'2%/3%criterion. Operational Site Access Analysis-based on Total External PM Pk Hr trip generation. No changes to the existing access improvements onto Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collie Blvd.are requested. Page 2 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 20 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Transportation requirements per Ordinance No. 2005-19 will be address in the GMPA application by others. Study Type: (if not net increase,operational study) Small Scale TIS 0 Minor TIS Major TIS ❑ Study Area: Adjacent roadways:west—Pristine Drive:east—Buckstone Drive Additional intersections to be analyzed:NIA Horizon Year(s):2021 Analysis Time Period(s):PM Pk Hr Future Off-Site Developments:N/A Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE 9th Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None:N/A • Pass-by trips:per ITE and Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures Internal trips(PUD): 10%max estimate Transit use: /A Other:N/A Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements:2021 Methodology&Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates:Collier County traffic counts and 2015 AUIR Site-trip generation:OTTIS Software--ITE 9a'Edition Trip distribution method:engineer's estimate,refer to Fie.2 Traffic assignment method:project trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate:historical growth rate or 2%minimum Turning movements:Engineer's estimate--refer to Fie.3. Page 3 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 121 Vanderbilt Commons-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-November 2016 Fig.2-Project Trip Distribution by Percentage ,� ' PROJECT TRIP 1 :. I a `ti DISTRIBUTION MAP } 2 I 1 ► *� I! ; v: ••`'':-'--'. BY PERCENTAGE UK 221 i .�, ...., . G�gee ...... -- >,._ /...-\ Fig.3-Project Turning Movements Map by Percentage 2004:10 0380 1 �._ .tlo%� PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENTS BY '0% 200% - ^--• " PERCENTAGE tt )5%) +G(10%) ' (10% (20%) -.).tA-AA A I:= )20% 50 0% INBOUND' (20% JL i65 .1 50% ) 25.0% i ' • (20%)I0UTBOUNC! �'7 .._,•,. 10 0% (25%} =1 100% (10%) (20%)", Goc gIe Page 4 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 122 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Special Features:(from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations:N/A Sight distance: Imo/ Queuing: d/ Access location&configuration:N/A Traffic control:jv1UTCD Signal system location&progression needs:lia On-site parking needs:Per CC LDC Data Sources:1TE Trio Generation 9"'Edition Base maps:N/A Prior study reports:N/A Access policy and jurisdiction:Nak Review process:WA Requirements:N/A Miscellaneous: 1 g Small Scale Study—No Fee Minor Study-S750.00 x +Methodology-$500.00=$1,250.00 Major Study-$1500.00 Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections-$500.00 each Alljaswill be agreed to daring She Ne&eglology me tag seldom&be paid to re liaa p for so our dn-ofos the eppliea6we. SIGNATURES Normals,TYt bLLGnak Study Preparer —Norman Trebilcock Reviewer(s) Applicant Page 5ofS Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 123 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review, Analysis Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. Methodology Review-$500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement,including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s), distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re-submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County,if needed. "Small Scale Study"Review-No Additional Fee(Includes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation,distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review"-$750 Fee(Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes:optional field visit to site,confirmation of trip generation,distribution, and assignment,concurrency determination,confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off-site improvements within the right-of-way,review of site access and circulation,and preparation and review of"sufficiency"comments/questions. /—"N "Maior Study Review"-$1.500 Fee(Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements,review of traffic volume data collected/assembled,review of traffic growth analysis,review of off-site roadway operations and capacity analysis,review of site access and circulation,neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates,and preparation and review of up to two rounds of"sufficiency" comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review"-$500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the"Major Study Review"and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the"Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews"-$500 Fee) Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Page 6 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 124 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 ATTACHMENT—1 Pm.d Nm.: Vands0111 Commons•Exlstsg Appreed No: Gate: 10/2312015 elty: ftalrrnsvince, Zip/Post/Cede: Counry Ckw*Nan.: Analyst's Nano: Edition: ITE.T1a'Id 9171 Edison PIA'War Land Use SOS angry 11* 230.Rasldernul Condonhu,dTownhouse 64^' -. 28 14.... Ibduc on 3 1 Nemo 0 0 Pass-by 0 0 NO1 psss-oy 25 13 Rp•11sp/M/CerAn SP1 204 221 IIs01K/00 20 22 NNW 0 0 ►lss•Oy 46 00 Non omay 138 149 706.0111141P616 29 177 1Mtlndlon 3 16 Mr* 0 0 pM►4y 0 0 Nen pdfi by 26 160 Total 261 412 Total Re00c0on 26 41 Total infernal 0 0 Total Pass4y 46 50 i Total Nonyass4y 169 321 t'\ AI61irM` Page 7 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 125 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 MOW Nrte. Vsnerbrt Lbrr.m,•01,0001,0 N.: ' Orr. 10 7616 Cly: fYMPr..lma 27449a4141Carr Ce49148: COW Mir ANNyies Name'. &Won: 099.7049 99"Mien • PMP%IN L. I/.. • SW BM* di. 161.MMNrNw.. 961a 13 73 RaruUan t 1 Nrrrptyi 0 8 {{g PauOy 0 0 NM6Na99. 77 II M•D,8 Ow.tare 10'" 60 66 • 1l9P dem 6 8 ' 48A4141 0 0 PMsby 0 0 Nwrpassq 67 69 Ti0.Omani 0111418181011.08 149 n' 17 r6 A11uo11n I 7 wrrw 0 0 Passey 0 U No..9.,Fr 8 O6 728-61.41.41-Dwa 0040.6uuud,1 2C I e R.Oacann - 0 I • ra 01 0 0 Pm.. 0 0 NN+passb, 3 7 @0.Shopping Cesar 70.' 94 101 0111110011.1 10 11 arw+et 0 0 Pnsay 2: 74 1.00.001,0, 61 7I .34-Fa.tf.ar Mwoos r.w.a Om.-TTr..9F Window 96°1 70 11 R9buQ.aa 8 7 P.." f .1.,010 0 0 Patsy 34 32 i N9nbalsbr 31 37 499•Crownlrte.Uwe wiN O»Nat.P.wp. 6'+ 163 166. man 10 /8 WNW 0 ¢, OW8.br 00 0a Norw+ssbl 09 60 TOM ... *0* 496 Twa/Mr.rF.n 41 48 794.10wn9I 0 8 M.1144.80 126 176 TaWMNNNve ssey 90 111t or 0T70s9 AIN a8vrmwPr tb rnreior&r..Me * iw. Page 8 of 8 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 126 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition (4 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 127 Vanderbilt Commons-PUD and eem-TIS-November 2016 • S 7 „ c. ; Km ® , ! « 7. © . e # 4 © 2 « 1 # 3 ! a ! ¥ E ■ - 001t1 ■ 08; 4:i3 • 0 © 1:4) 2 © se ! . tail k a s 8 . . I I 1 V § ; \ ›$ I % i ! ]| I ! 4. II a ! ! . &k « • » 1111 ## ! } ka3I§ ia ƒ , 2 / 2 $ i®®■ I! If k B 0 11111 m■ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 128 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 PERIOD SETTING s DATA PROVIDED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable,Time Period,and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis.To record any notes,click - Add Notes above. PROJECT NAME VARDERB+L T COMMO S-MA.IWL i ALLCINED ANALYSIS NAME (Pm Pk(.(r LAND USE INDEPENDENT SIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE 0, 230-Residential (Dweleng Units Ell 64 Weekday,Peek HoC But Fli(LOG) jI e 28 14 42 CondominlumrTownhouse t r— Ln(1)=0.82Ln(X)+0.32 ( 820-Shopping Center 1000 Sq.Feel Gros: , 90 [-weekday.Peak Ho v Ftl(LOG) 8 V 268 290 558 l Ln(T)=0.67Ln(X)+��3--.3111 750-Office Park 1000 ff(( kday,P.M.Pee QBON FM(LIN) + 24 145 169 Sq.Fast Gros:�v 60 we T=1.22(X)+95.83 f The lime periods do not match. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS • Specify a percentage by which the Entry Trip and Exit Trip will be reduced for each Land Use.This reduction is applied to the Entry Trip and Exit Trip from the previous section.To record any notes,click 'Add Notes above. LAND USE ENTRY REDUCTION ADJUSTED ENTRY EXIT REDUCTION ADJUSTED EXIT 230-Residential Condominium/Townhouse (to )l6 25 110_jtb 13 820-Shopping Center (10 )96 241 10 )16 261 750-Office Park (10 22 10 131 INTERNAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass-by Trips for each Land Use.The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section To record any notes,click • Add Notes above. The icon preceding the Pass-by%value indicates data provided by ITE.Clicking the icon changes a custom Pass- by%value to data provided by ITE. LAND USE EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS-BY% PASS-BY TRIPS NON-PASS-BY TRIPS 230-Residential Condominium/Townhouse 38 K)% 0 s8 820-Shopping Center 502 0[25 )% 126 376 750-Office Park 153 ( 19fo 0 153 . m Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page I 29 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Project Name: Vent1eRdkCOMMont:.-ScaRade1 No: Date: 101?51. 116 City: StateiProvince: ZlpiPostal Code Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: ITE-TOM 601Eddien, FM PEAK 41O1JR• LFjL+ut-t tuZE Entry Exit: 161-Mini-Warehouse 95,551- i 13 12' Reducton 1 I. Internal a a Pass-by '6 0 Non-passny 12 11 710-General Office Building 10" 8 20 Reikicnno 1 4 Internal 0 0 Pass-by a Non-pass-oy 5 25 720-Medical-Dental Office Building 10" 10 2.1 Reduction 1 3 Internal 0 0 Pastry 0 0 Non-passdiy 0 24 666-Day Care Center 100,44 54 60 Redact'n S 6 Internal g a Pass-by 0 0 NO).pass.:,y •46 54 820-Shopping Center 7165(r1 230 MQ Reddriton 23 '26 intsrnsi 0 a �� aria-try .62 611 Non-pass-oy 155 230-Resideretal CondominiumlTownhouse 5.$Po 26 13 Redtetnvi 2' 1' Internal -0 0 Pass-by 0 0 Nor,-pass by 23 10 Total 336 40 Total Reduction 3 39 Total Internal ti 6` Total Pass-by `52 50 Total Non-pass-by 253204. tV 1008r Fee(Grass ft ifAtAsk al um. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 130 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 PERIOD SETTING .0 DATA PROVIDED BY ITE f Specify the Independent Variable,Time Period,and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis.To record any notes,dick - Add Notes above. PROJECT NAME VANCERBILI CO4MONS-SCENAPO r ANALYSIS NAME (Pti Peek Hour J LAND USE ItJDEPENDENT SIZE TINE PERIOD METHOD ENTRY ENI IOTAL. VARIABLE 4 151-Nem-Warehouse [1000 Sq.Feet Groa 95.55 Weekday,Peek FbtvI,AYe a it 13 12 25 0.26 4 710-General Office Budding 1000 Sq.Feet Gros 0 10 Weekday,P.M Pe v Custom Rate 6 26 34 Rate ri44 0 720-Medical-Dania Office 1000 Sq Feat Gross v 10 Weekday,Peak Hot[3 Best Ft(LOG) v It Building i eY.. ® 10 27 37 �yy LW)=O gLMX)•r1-.q513 4 565-Day Care Center [Students EJJ 160 Weekday,Peak Hor.Q,t Beat Ft(LOG) E1}® 54 60 114 Ln(T)=0.88L n(X)•0 27 4 820-Seeping Center t 1000 Sq Feet Grose 71.65 [Weekday,Peak rwutvt tBest Ft(LOG) El 230 249 479 +—+t Ln(T)=0 67L n(X)•r-3-3t1 Q 230-Residential1 Dwelling Units 58 Weekday,Peak Hor.�v i Best Ft(LOG) r--t• 25 13 38 Condominium/townhouse 0Ln(T)=0821n(X)+0.32 *The lime periods d,,,J„match TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS Specify a percentage by which the Entry Trip and Exit Trip will be reduced for each Land Use.This reduction is applied to the Entry Trip and Exit Trip from the previous section.To record any notes,dick '- Add Notes above. LAND USE ENTRY REDUCTION ADJUSTED ENTRY EXIT REDUCTION ADJUSTED E)JT 151-Mm-Warehouse C-31‘ 12 [10 1% 11 /"\ 710-General Othce Belding 10 5 E:15‘ 25 720-Medical-Dental Office Building Flit. 9 C=i9624 565-Day(ire Center 10 49 E3% SI 820-Shopping Center (10 Iffh 207 10 224 230-Residenfel Condomnium'Townhwse (10 Jut 23 iD 12 ` INTERNAL TRIPS . EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass-by Trips for each Land Use.The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section.To record any notes,click • Add Notes above. The a icon preceding the Pass-by%value indicates data provided by ITE.Clicking the icon changes a custom Pass-by%value to data provided by ITE. L4E.. _ EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS-BYE. PASS-BY TRI PS NON-PASS-BY TRIPS 151-Mini-Warehouse 23 {o Jp 0 23 710-General Office Building 30 (p ay, 0 30 720-Medical-Dente Office Bwkhng 33 t=J' 0 33 565-Day Care Center 103 DI 0 103 820-Shopping Center 431 0 25 108 323 230-Residential CondominluntTdenhouse 35 CI 0 35 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 131 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits (4 Sheets) tT Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 132 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 Y a 1 t I ` I �S, O E O O 1 O O c V M uo O ` T� -a i t$u � G +tuw > ,, •.'' .. s O O a u) U) O V V .1..06 s. I S 1i • I 1 a ' o 0 -0-- . o to 4C-.--- in ci- • " oCQ; ��i �� � , o • g o 0 •O f n ■ O If) I , ,..7...- fir+/ ■ . to ▪ to ■ o ■ C■ O p o N • N \ vU,■ p tY CV L x O o i visommommir Z >' W ' 1: Z m V z , c pZm Wm W U O g oA g t noo ' a. . 0 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 133 Vanderbilt Commons—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—November 2016 f • II 1 El„ { I ¢.3 S f I I i , N M eL u_ r c— :' 1 q 1 , : v.)-- r.,.. . ,, 2 9.y a441 N a ' II ili a 1 a ^w o a ; a N. • C- ' . ( M N a a il.4._i....71,:b 0- ) I-- f Z a az m H s Vz 0 W Yn p COZ D c:�es. = Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 134 Vanderbilt Commons-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-November 2016 ----... 1 t 1 k ( 14 ; 'f Imm•I ti:. ...• * } o 0 Os- ci c, 0 'N 0 ,-.. AL C. (= 1/4, (r) LI) 0 -- %--- ). .......„3,,,1*.1 c '--- -,--\ r..... ,...„...." .......,1 „, i g ii ...._ / ___ ---, 0 g a 2 oin 14-) (7) c) v- / c) (N (N (N - /1111=0.16 41 0 1 f I ' ri,.; • ,.......... i t 2 I i 1 8, 0 CNI (,.. ., -(--- d'g i 6) c> 0 .• „ . ..71 ,_ ' CP C) 1=•=1, ....... 11 0 ...---., a cp. 0 a a> 0 c) o I --- T-- ...... • , ___, _.:.: . g-.. Lo c; I .4- vi ....... Ilc,..1 ...- •i#J— , telt\ * 1 kr) 1 -.... ;. i. • , S....... — 9 . i'. -R LI) e.-- • .., i c, " c9 ,.. „., .i, ••••- csi ... -.! a IA Ce 0 Ce Z I Z >- 0 ° 0 C.) — CO lil CD Z 15 CD 41 E 0 (4 Z 8 c ' LL. Z CO D 1.-- 2> co X t 1_, t•-• uj Z CD I— P ca ai mu w u — o zzce — > te --9 -3 0 (5, k Z ci. I ....."''', . , 410 o Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 135 • Vanderbilt Commons-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-November 2016 . . . . • .. i . Et .t, ,..• ...1 Iv. 4 ... , . .. ,...,. , .c,..„,..,N. ; •.-.0..=ow. . ..; k 1 II s I I II I 6 j. II ' ! i ..$ t 4 ' 14 1 volem•'i ..._,. , )1 6 1 (ID r- i I ° <--- '',..''.!...% a. a. "? . a. .1... 77, no in so , . w•1 ,. CX •:., 0 _ • (N.) 0.) - f f''4 • ....L. 1 N Q. 2 • -0 CL e . .„.... -...... - ,„ I . • — ri (N , (0— ,.. . (N co , ,-... * ,-- .e 2 C•4 I a_ 'be'- N. ---1 i___A__. •- • , s CL ? C5 ... .1. LUI Z CL , ....., Z Z Z ii-ayi- m 15 < pt •-•;"..• 0 — z ce D w 111 o 0 a: 2 . „ — ' - - Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 136 DE EN INE R{NG EXHIBIT "R" LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DC WRAP.N EXHIBIT"R" COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS The proposed development known as Vanderbilt Commons is a 14.49 acre commercial property located in Section 34, Township 48 South, and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The property is bounded by Vanderbilt Beach Road to the south, Pristine Drive to the west, and Buckstone Drive to the east. The subject property has a mixed-use designation under the current Carolina Village Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning; Ordinance #05-19. The property is platted with an existing 60-foot private right-of-way (Vanderbilt Way) and six proposed lots. For this analysis, the site will be conceptually developed to the maximum standards using the current project zoning and the proposed zoning amendment. Currently, the site contains an existing gravity sanitary system servicing the six proposed site development lots and 8' diameter lift station with ultimate discharge into the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) via a 16" force main via C.R. 951. All proposed lots will gravity flow to the lift station where is will be conveyed through low pressure pipe to the aforementioned NCWRF. Fire and potable water utilities will be provided through an existing on-site 8-inch water main within Vanderbilt Way right-of-way. The previously proposed MPUD (current zoning) lots consist of the following residential and non-residential uses at build-out: Office Park 60,000 sf Total: 60,000 sf Shopping Center 90,000 sf Total: 90,000 sf Residential Condominium/Townhouse 64 Dwelling Units Total: 64 Dwelling Units Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis January 2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DC DAVIDSpANONG ENGINEE The newly proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (proposed zoning amendment) consists of the following at build-out: Self-Storage 95,550 sf Total: 95,550 sf Daycare Building 12,800 sf Total: 12,800 sf General Office 10,000 sf Medical Office 10,000 sf Total: 20,000 sf Shopping Center Retail/Restaurant 71,650 sf Total: 71,650 sf Residential Condominium/Townhouse 58 Dwelling Units Total: 58 Dwelling Units The Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan establishes Levels of Service for the following: Arterial and Collector Roads Surface Water Management Systems Potable Water Systems Sanitary Sewer Systems Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Parks and Recreation Facilities Public School Facilities Each of the areas will be examined for the proposed developments in this summary report. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis January 2017 www.davidsonengineering.com IE DD ENGINEERING Arterial and Collector Roads Based on the roadway network link analysis result, the proposed development at build-out is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network traffic at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate proposed development generated trips without adversely affecting the adjacent roadway network level of service. Table 1-Project Trip Generation (Net New)—Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Development Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA 253 294 547 (Total non-Pass-By Trips) Approved MPUD 228 339 567 (Total Non-Pass-By Trips) Proposed Net New Traffic (Total Non-Pass-By Trips) 25 (45) (20) Net Increase/(Net Decrease) Surface Water Management Systems Currently the site's surface water management system is designed with two stormwater management basins. Basin #1 consists of the Pristine Drive right-of-way allocated within the cost sharing agreement (OR 3,635 Page 1,672)–this basin consists of±1.00 acres. Basin #2 will consist of ±14.35 acres (the proposed Vanderbilt Commons development), with the omission ±0.14 acres that are included within Basin#1 due to stormwater management locations. Basin#1 The proposed water management system will utilize existing inlets to convey storm water volume to detention areas. The off-site water management improvements within Basin #1 will provide water quality volumes and attenuate the 25-year storm event within its designated basin (±1.00 acres). Outfall for the basin will be directly into the Vanderbilt Canal. Basin#2 The interconnected stormwater management system will provide 0.50-inch dry pre-treatment system and outfall via two control structures into the on-site existing lake where the remaining water quality volume and attenuation of the 25-year 3-day storm event will be provided. The stormwater management system for the site has been approved by Collier County under PL201500014563. Therefore, no level of service issues is created by either of the proposed site build-out conditions with respect to surface water management. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis January 2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems The proposed build-outs will be served by Collier County Public Utilities; the same operating entity for the existing site. Build-out conditions are shown in each table of calculations below. Although the previously approved mixed-use development is less than the potable demand created by the maximum conceptually proposed commercially developed site, the increase is insignificant and will not create an adverse effect on the existing system. The Florida Administrative Code 64E-6 was used to identify level of service for each type of development. Table 2—Previously Approved Mixed Use Level of Service Peak Daily Average Daily Demand,GPD* Description Unit Type GPD/Unit #Units Demand,GPD General Office 60,000 sf 100 sf 15 600 9,000 40,500 Shopping Center 90,000 sf 1 sf 0.1 90,000 9,000 40,500 Residential 64 Units Units 200 64 12,800 57,600 Total(GPD): 30,800 gpd 138,600 gpd *Factor of 4.5 was used to determine Peak Daily Demand Table 3—Proposed Conceptual Development Level of Service Average Daily Peak Daily Description Unit Type GPD/Unit #Units Demand,GPD Demand,GPD* Unit/Every 2 Units Self-Storage 478 Units over 200 1 1 200 139 339 1,526 160 students/ Student/ Daycare Facility 28 staff Staff 10 15 160 28 4,630 20,835 General Office 10,000 sf 100 sf 15 100 1,500 6,750 1 Doctors/4 Doctor/ Medical Office Employees Employee 250 15 1 4 310 1,395 Shopping Center 61,650 sf 1 sf 0.1 61,650 6,165 27,743 Restaurant 155 Seats Seats 40 155 6,200 27,900 Fast Food 50 Seats Seats 20 50 1,000 4,500 Residential 58 Units Units 200 58 11,600 52,200 Total(GPD): 31,744 gpd 142,848 gpd *Factor of 4.5 was used to determine Peak Daily Demand Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Solid waste is provided by Waste Management, a private contract provider. Commercial accounts are charged by the service provider directly with rates set by the Board of County Commissioners through contract negotiation with the provider. As previously mentioned, the Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GM PA Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis January 2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DE PAVIDSQN - NGINEER NG proposed zoning will decrease the intensity of the development and thereby will not negatively impacts the existing implemented systems. Parks and Recreation Facilities None of the proposed build-outs will create a negative impact on Parks and Recreation Facilities. The level of service is not significantly or adversely impacted by either of the proposed build- outs. Public School Facilities None of the proposed build-outs will create a negative impact on Public School Facilities. The uses will not impact school attendance. The level of service is not significantly or adversely impacted by either of the proposed build-outs. Fire and EMS Facilities The proposed build-outs have no measurable impact on Fire and EMS Facilities. It should be assumed that newer buildings will be constructed to current NFPA and building code standards which may reduce the likelihood of related calls. The level of service is not significantly or adversely impacted by either of the proposed build-outs. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis January 2017 www.davidsonengineering.com ZZ 0e OW all if311 0 ail 'o c m eu * O "' 1O m 0 V 0 0 00 Q N Ol N W N N' 0 Ol 00 > a I6 m V) O N N 'f1 N m4. ~ N V1 N N 07 Oc0 d mc N a Nm S. 0 a C .0 CO VI I E C d L 0 isO 0 O O Ol Om O m O O a 'gyp a N •--, m 0 'D , O N .4 m m v ti .-i a -o 0 (D . mii iss m m o 0.1 m a CI `6 To c o cn 00 ate+ .--i N O A CU C O 00 OLn C 7 O Lr, ti M " -, S o Lo s H N .-i p m;; "O c O C • ti .ti o C C 9 O ti C. y ~a O O • O O 17 C 0 OO N 0 O U I .--1 •-1 O UI 0 O 0 O w (5 0 I N O N d y 7 0 O '° 3 C o C _a v N q O d T Y a C E m O j C O a > - E 3 m v, v, Y O w ..= C . is is N O c v _ ti v w U m j `o N a .� v t 3 en co ++ 3 u a o v %1 -00 y L O > v el 9 m C O L M e2> 0) W ko v . 3 a cu c 3 tl o c O w c ty '= Otn N co m w N m O V ut O LO N 1 L — `J o- 0 a aci `L^ U oo ti E v r c m a d ` °° 40 00 L., y `o a ° 'o m c o v0 - > v i v m0. c CO pi .v_ O Yc U 0.0 o E ya v o ' o C a .� t ! C m CN = O 7D. d u O c 83 E �' oC 0 > 3O0 'O CH - a NO c1 NO O - 0 0 u O m am0 y ,n pNdm N t N `- a 'C y Q. d r u+ N 1ao T j 7 3 T N c I- ` u o N `3 ,-IH4 $ O ° m a E ti a v o3 c .. u, 11 —•,OW . W c ,,_ �v 7 mwo W $ c cUod °N a !' >- c a ,5 ° Oa a . °' 1 VI a p c o c c a O cc 3mo i, m .44. ZN aa Li .1 2a e , vcoE aw 0 u ac - w r ' v ° 0 a T Q O ut iaamFdEE0 0 v at Oe W m ._ 0. l0 Em •m p7 m 73ZCo vaa - a `Oo ` c o` a 2a ° c a o mN a a o ° 0 v G O v>` h O h ha N 'S" `9 Z' a -a cup u � Yv a 0. u 'a 0 O 0 i m w -0 H t T 'a V1 75 40 mN 7 oz 5, ,2k, ..2 m .LL as H0C i aa3Qro � CLCCn a Q O D 0 H vi H o Q DE DAVNDISSON EXHIBIT "S" UTILITY AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Exhibit "S" August 12, 2015 Jessica Harrelson, Project Coordinator Davidson Engineering 4365 Davis Blvd., Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 VIA: E-MAIL Subject: Vanderbilt Commons (fka Carolina Commons) Parcels#: 25525600520, 25525600546, 25525600562, 25525600588, 25525600041, 25525600067, 25525600083, 25525600096, and 25525600025 Water& Wastewater Availability Dear Ms. Harrelson: Wastewater service is available for the above referenced parcels via an existing 10" wastewater force main adjacent to the property along Pristine Drive. Water service is available for the above referenced parcels via an existing 10" water main stub out adjacent to the property along Pristine Drive. Specific connection points for the system tie-ins to wastewater lines may be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by the Planning and Project Management Division, validating that the up/downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in flow. This letter implies no guarantee that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of sewage treatment and disposal capacity available to this property until the project has received a commitment for service. Should sewage treatment and disposal capacity not be available, the Developer would be required to provide an interim means to provide these services until the District's facilities have the adequate capacity to serve the project. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252-2583. Sincerely, , /1///,'/C- Nathan Beals, PMP, Project Manager Planning and Project Management Division cc: Aaron Cromer, Principal Project Manager Eric Fey, Engineering Review DE DAVNEPN EXHIBIT "T" NARRATIVE & JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED GMPA Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE EN INEEA NC Narrative & Justification of the Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) EXHIBIT "T" Introduction In coordination with Collier County staff regarding the 15.88-acre expansion area, it was discovered that the allowable 150,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area was not added to the original GMPA text language along with a proposed 60/40 square footage split(90,000 square feet of retail and 60,000 square feet of office).The previously approved square footage(without the original proposed split contemplated in 2001), along with an additional 50,000 square feet for commercial land uses is now being requested to the Subdistrict's expansion area. The proposed total of 200,000 square feet, in the amended 15.88-acre expansion area, and the proposed Vanderbilt Commons MPUD (formerly known as the Carolina Village MPUD), will be available for all of the previously permitted land uses along with the approved air conditioned, enclosed mini-and self-storage warehousing(Group 4225) per HEX NO. 2014-38. Growth Management Plan Policy Adherence The proposed GMPA also furthers the vision of the Collier County's Future Land Use Element. The following Objectives and Policies have been considered in this application: Policy 5.3: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any changes to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County's Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Response: The proposed GMPA does not contribute to urban sprawl. The subject property is within the existing urban service area and will not require any special or additional costs to provide necessary services. The property has been contemplated for mixed- residential and or commercial land uses per the existing Subdistrict language. The permitted land uses will place no greater burden on community facilities than did prior uses of the property. Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code(Ordinance 91-102,adopted October 30, 1991, as amended. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DC ENGINEER NG Response: The subject property is compatible with and complimentary to its surrounding land uses. The Subdistrict is bordered to the west and north by residential land uses and PUD zoning. To the south lies Vanderbilt Beach Road and across its right-of-way, the land is designated Estates Zoning with residential homes present. The expansion area is bound to the east by the commercial PUD-Mission Hills; which is also within the Vanderbilt Beach Road / Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict without restriction. Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Response: The proposed GMPA will be a companion petition to a PUD amendment that will continue to provide appropriate connections and interconnections. Additionally, the platted Vanderbilt Way right-of- way furthers the intent of Policy 7.3. State Statutory Criteria:Chapter 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 8 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Response(s): a. The amount of land being considered for this request remains the same and will accommodate the land uses as defined and proposed. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population—Please see Attachment D c. The land is still mostly undeveloped. There is an SDP in approval for the self-storage use. There is also an approved plat that has set the site up for future commercial development. d. County water and sewer utilities facilities are currently available in the Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way and will not be significantly impacted by development of the subject property as identified by Exhibit R(the Level of Service report) Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAVIDSQN ENGINEER NG e.As this site had previously never been developed, it does not rise to the level of redevelopment. This criteria is not applicable. f.As this site is not near any military installation, this criteria is not applicable. q.As this site is not near any airport, this criteria is not applicable. h.As this site has already been zoned for mixed-use development and has gone through a previous growth management plan amendment, this request does not add to the problem of urban sprawl. The request is in keeping with the existing plan of commercial development in Collier County. i. As noted above, his site has already been zoned for mixed-use development and has gone through a previous growth management plan amendment. By virtue of its previous land use and zoning entitlements, the subject property will continue to advance the job creation, capital investment, and economic development goals within Collier County. j. As noted above, his site has already been zoned for mixed-use development and has gone through a previous growth management plan amendment. The request to increase and define square footage within this request,continues in line with the planned development pattern for this portion of Collier County. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land,soils,topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Response(s): a. County water and sewer utilities facilities are currently available in the Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way and will not be significantly impacted by development of the subject property as identified by Exhibit R (the Level of Service report). Additionally, other County resources such as emergency services are available and show no significant impacts to service by the proposed and existing land uses already deemed appropriate by Collier County. b. The land is still mostly undeveloped. There is a Site Development Plan approval for the proposed self-storage use. There is also an approved plat that has set the site up for future commercial development.As noted above, his site has already been zoned for mixed-use development and has gone through a previous growth management plan amendment. The request to increase and define square footage within this request, continues in line with the planned development pattern for this portion of Collier County. c. The amount of land being considered for this request remains the same and will accommodate the land uses as defined and proposed. P"'\ Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DDE AVIDSON fNGINFF kIN[. BACK-UP INFORMATION FROM ORIGINAL GMPA APPLICATION (CP-2003-1) DE DAVNDSRQN ATTACHMENT "A" CCPC Transmittal Hearing Minutes, held on May 20, 2004 (from original GMPA Application CP-2003-1) Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com May 20,2004 Second by Mr. Adelstein. Motion fails with 4 yes—4 no. (Those voting affirmative not provided for the record) This will move forward to the Board of Commissioners without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. E. CP-2003-1, Petition requesting amendment to Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to expand Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Sub-district, and to restrict some of the uses in this expansion area to include+/-15.88 acres located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and ' mile west of CR-951. Mr. Budd stepped out for a few minutes in which Mr. Strain presided over the meeting. PETITIONER Rich Yovano i — . 'e ione ey a . - . i : . - d the existing Vanderbilt Be h/Colli B •. Co , erci. dist t to add an al lox. 15 acre parcel to the west. showe• e • • alizer A • - 'm- .. - is Mis in Hills. (Shopping Center) Prope is at , e .f V. - b' •oad flier Blvd. •• •uesting to add approx. 150,0 . e fee .f retail .. . .ffice— ..,0. J square feet . retail,90,000 square feet of office. Located next to the Wolf Creek PUD, the Nagel Craig Business Park has not yet been adopted,but shown on map. Across the street from the Mission Church, a PUD and Vanderbilt County Club. Going through the process they held meeting with Vanderbilt County Club representatives and Island Walk to let them know what they are requesting to do. They were favorably impressed so far with the Comp Plan Amendment knowing a more specific PUD will be presented in the future. No opposition from those major communities. The Wolf Creek PUD is not yet developed with similar people involved in this particular request to go to commercial use. Obviously they will not put a commercial use next to a residential development which would in any way hurt that proposed development. The staff report is recommending approval and made a couple of clarifications. One provision in the district stating uses limited to single story—they want to clarify that retail is limited to the first floor only in that multi-level building. If they wanted to do retail with one or two floors above that, wanted to clarify it is consistent with the language in the District— Second—Don Scott has no concerns with 951 north of Golden Gate Blvd, scheduled to begin construction early next year and no issues with Vanderbilt Road. He knows they meet concurrency management rules. Not deficient from a concurrency standpoint. Mr. Weeks and he have discussed how the concurrency management provisions of the Comp 27 May 20,2004 Plan work with Policy 1.1.2 in a Capital Improvement Element. Agreed to discuss beyond the meeting to figure out if there is an inconsistency. Need to work on language. Mr. Murray asked about the loop road-was a requirement of the Mission Hills PUD and is still valid. Mr. Strain asked Mr. Weeks if he had any concerns of the clarifications Mr. Yovanovich is asking for. Mr. Weeks did not—they will discuss further at a later date. The second thing in which it may be mute is staff wants to look at the traffic information submitted. As he said earlier,the significant impact threshold of 3% is only applicable if an affected segment of the roadway is deficient. Staff may have misread some of the information submitted by the applicant in which the deficient segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road may not be significantly impacted. Mr. Bill Hoover—Hoover Planning—held meetings with the neighbors -Island Walk. They have a committee of 12 he has met with. He had met at the Vanderbilt County Club with Commissioner Coletta, Mr. Feder and members of Development Services staff of what they were doing in the neighborhood. Both neighborhoods know what is being proposed. Mr. Strain as • o ,ey of a a: egati . he q s ion was an ere due to a different own= hip. All of the corn uniti-- ill - inte ed wi h op road tha ill be there. Wolf Creek will ha . s to it. STAFF Glenn Heath—staff's recommended language is a bit different than that submitted by the petitioner but discussed the disagreement on the transportation language which is the primary difference between the two. Other than that they are shown with strike through and underlines. Mr.Yovanovich stated they need to clarify the stories and David and he need to work, before the Board meeting, about the double underlined language in pursuant to Policy 1.1.2. (How the concurrency management system works) They don't agree to the underlined language. Mr. Richardson asked if it would be appropriate to add language to make mixed use permissive. Mr. Heath said it would be hard to put residential on this particular parcel and have commercial because of size. Mr. Richardson suggested some incentives be added. Discussion followed on the Growth Management, the density allowed, guidance on units per acre and height. They should all be in the plan amendment. Hearing was closed for motion and discussion. 28 May 20, 2004 Mr. Richardson moved to recommend this Growth Management Plan Amendment 2003-1 be transmitted with the following additions: Those already covered between the applicant and staff concerning traffic,definition of stories, and further recommend to put some wheels underneath the direction the CCPC and BCC had on their discussion on including mixed use and Growth Management Plan changes. Give direction to staff that mixed use be permitted, residential and commercial in this property, and appropriate, in order to have an incentive to permit that,that the density is allowed to go up to 16 units to the acre,which he would say would include raising the number of stories that would be permitted up to 4 stories. Second by Brad Schiffer. Mr. Murray recognizes the density is required in order to motivate but thinking two things. When getting to the 4th story it becomes an issue with elevators and cost rise etc. What are the permitted uses in the area that are to be developed and are they compatible with residential. He asked how they would envision it. Mr. Richardson said they are trying to provide incentives to the development community to have residences mixed in with an opportunity with Commercials. An appropriate densit is to get something more .ffordabl- • I le in housing stock and sup. • .re mak Mr. Murray . ed ab• p -y d; ' : they • • •e there 1 day trying to plan the proje. Mr. Schiffer . at le. two o oors a r idential; ma it a 4 story element. Mr. Richardson accepted the change. Mr. Strain was concerned that they went to the neighborhood and if they make changes those neighbors are not aware of what those changes are. Mr. Yovanovich reminded them they still have to go through a PUD. Many of the issues will be dealt with at the adoption hearing. Mr. Adelstein stated now they could create something that is very, very bad and would like to take out the number of units per acre and let it be decided at a future date. Marjorie Student stated they need some kind of guidance and the density and intensities need to be in the plan. Comp Plan is supposed to be like a constitution and set general parameters and already expressed her concerns in the past years of getting as specific as they are. It is not supposed to be that way. She has a concern about every time they want to change it they get to a long drawn out amendment process and if DCA has a problem, and then the County has to defend a lawsuit. Not a land development. Mr.Abernathy said the County has had zero success with mixed use residential over commercial and fanciful thinking that someone 10 miles from downtown is going to want to be on the 4th floor. They are talking about what is doable in Collier County. 29 May 20, 2004 Motion carried unanimously 8-0. BREAK—2:13 PM RECONVENED—2:25 PM CP-2003-2, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map to establish Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Sub-district, allowing commercial uses in the C-3 district with a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for a+/- acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Livingston/Radio Road. PETITIONER Robert Duane—Hole Montes & Assoc.—property is located at Radio Road and Livingston Road and 5 acres zoned industrial. Demonstrated a need for alternate uses in the location, e •eciall retail uses. There are no compatibilit issues and a•preciate their support. Mb Mr. Strain w. ed to -•tifica .av esiden of Maplewood, Briarwood, F• ire . • .0 erwo Mr. Duane res.. . . e ha. of giv- notific. o ecause it is .• industrial corner surrounded by industrial development surrounded by two arterial roadways and did not provide any other specific notice. No sign was put on the property. The area is now vacant. Mr. Richardson wondered if he would support the discussion they had on the previous Growth Management Plan adding residential components to this project. Mr. Duane had no problem adding that to the mix—not a requirement, surrounded by industrial buildings, an arterial roadway will carry up to 60,000 vehicles a day, a small site of 5 acres,not lending itself to mixed use,but for his support, if he wanted to add similar language that it is a permitted residential development and is a permitted use up to 16 units per acre, and increase the height of the building from 35 feet to 45 feet, they will take it into consideration when they come in for their PUD. Mr. Strain asked who Radio Joint Venture was—response was John Walklin— 85% interest and Roderick LeeWynn of Naples has a 15% interest with a general limited partnership. The issue is the ownership of Radio Joint Venture is; persons could be someone that the Commissioners know or have done or do business with. Mr. Weeks apologized that they did not catch the information. The staff will work with the petition to gather that information. 30 DIE f AYIRP.I N'G ATTACHMENT "B" ORIGINAL GMPA- APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GMP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER C-P-AD°3-1 DATE RECEIVED Ci I-1-Li PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 941-403-2300 (Fax 941-643-6968), The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 (attached). if you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 941- 403-2300. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant William L. Hoover,Manager Company Catalina Plaza,LLC. Address 3785 Airport Road N., Suite B-1 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239-403-8899 Fax Number 239-403-9009 B. Name of Agent Richard D. Yovanovich Company Goodlette, Coleman&Johnson,P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North. Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239-435-3535 Fax Number 239-435-1218 and Name of Agent William L. Hoover,AICP Company Hoover Planning& Dev.,Inc. Address 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B-1 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34105 Phone Number 239-403-8899 Fax Number 239-403-9009 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record Vanderbilt Beach Road Land Trust, c/o Mark L. Lindner, Trustee,Naples Realty Services Address 4099 N. Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 262-4333 Fax Number 262-7811 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of Persons Working on Petition: Jeff L. Davidson, P.E.,Davidson Engineering, Inc., 2154 Trade Center '^ Way, Suite#3, Naples, FL 34109 Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering, Univ. of S. Florida,Tampa, FL William L. Hoover,AICP, Hoover Planning& Dev., Inc., 3785 Airport Road N., Suite B-1,Naples, FL 34105 Associate's Degree in Real Estate, Bachelor's Degree in Business Services,and Master's Degree in Geography and Urban Planning,all from the University of Toledo,Toledo, OH Richard D. Yovanovich,Goodlette, Coleman& Johnson,P.A.,4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300,Naples, FL 34013 Bachelor's Degree in Business and Economics from Furman University. Law Degree from University of South Carolina. Jeremy Sterk,Hoover Planning&Dev.,Inc., 3785 Airport Road N., Suite B-1,Naples, FL 34105 Bachelor's Degree in Biology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN Nicola Weston,Hoover Planning&Dev.,Inc., 3785 Airport Road N., Suite B-1,Naples, FL 34105 Bachelor's Degree in Marketing, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL Peter Schoenauer, P.E.,Davidson Engineering,Inc., 2154 Trade Center Way, Suite#3, Naples, FL 34109 Bachelor's Degree in Civil &Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam,NY I-A II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock Not Applicable C. If the property is owned by a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Stock Vanderbilt Beach Road Land Trust Mark L. Lindner,Trustee,Naples Realty Services 4099 N. Tamiami Trail,2nd Floor Naples, Florida, 34103 The Vanderbilt Beach Road Land Trust has the following beneficiaries: See the Page 2-A. D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Stock Not Applicable Vanderbilt Beach Road Land Trust Breakdown of Beneficiaries Name Address Ownership Philip Duff Trust 6 Regency Circle Lake,St.Louis,MO 2.5% Sole Beneficiary of the Philip Duff Trust: Betty Ann Duff (Same address as Trust) Betty Ann Duff Trust 6 Regency Circle Lake,St.Louis,MO 2.5% Sole Beneficiary of the Betty Ann Duff Trust: Philip Duff (Same address as Trust) Charles&Helen Marie Zell Trust 12183 Bluebird Circle,Coon Rapids,MN 2.5% Beneficiaries of the Charles&Helen Marie Zell Trust: Charles Zell,(Same address as Trust) Helen Marie Zell(Same address as Trust) Dean Lind IRA 1930 Princess Court,Naples,FL 5% Ronald Plassman 7024 Woodcroft Lane,Ft.Wayne,IN 20% Mark Plassman 2882 Brookside Bend Drive,Carmel,IN 15% Anne Plassman Trust 2882 Brookside Bend Drive,Carmel,IN 15% Sole Beneficiary of the Anne Plassman Trust: Anne Plassman (Same address as Trust) William Rapps 6580 Sable Ridge Lane,Naples,FL 2.5% Raymond Eschelman 13101 Pond Apple Drive,Naples,FL 5% Edwin F. Boynton Trust 13342 Rosewood Lane,Naples,FL 7.5% Sole Beneficiary of the Edwin F.Boynton Trust: Edwin F.Boynton (Same address as Trust) Robert F.Reynolds IRA 4423 Silver Fox Drive,Naples,FL 5% Robert J.McCracken 9362 Gulfshore Drive,Naples,FL 1.25% Joyce L. McCracken 9362 Gulfshore Drive,Naples,FL 1.25% Don P. Knopke Trust 14208 Canterbury Court,Leawood,KS 5% Beneficiaries of the Don P. Knopke Trust: Don P.Knopke(Same address as Trust) Carolyn Knopke(Same address as Trust) George Riebesell 6883 Redbay Park Road,Naples,FL 2.5% John Saltsman 194 14th Avenue South,Naples,FL 2.5% Mark Lindner 2206 Majestic Court,Naples,FL 2.5% LI Smith 5170 10 Avenue SW,Naples,FL 2.5% 2-A E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership William L. Hoover,Manager See Breakdown on Page 3-A Catalina Plaza LLC. 3785 Airport Road N., Suite B-I Naples,FL 34105 Date of Contract: February 2003 F. if any contingency clause of contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address Not Applicable G. Date subject property( )acquired leased( ): NA Term of lease yrs/mos. lf, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing date H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant,or agent on his behalf,to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 3 BREAKDOWN OF MEMBERSHIP IN CATALINA PLAZA,LLC Percentage Owned Members'Names/Addresses 5% Thomas Beaver,345 Esther Street,Naples,FL 34104 13% Q.Grady&Nancy Minor,3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs, FL 34134 3% Peter Schoenauer,2154 Trade Center Way,Naples,FL 34109 2.5% Jeffrey&Leaetta Davidson,2154 Trade Center Way,Naples, FL 34109 5% Richard&Catherine Shanahan,427 Barcelona Court,Marco Island, FL 34145 5% Randy Rose,3775 Airport Road N., Suite A,Naples,FL 34105 3.5% William&Charlene Hoover,5690 Wax Myrtle Way,Naples,FL 34109 15% Jeremy Sterk&Rita Bhaduri-Sterk,2875 Garland Road,Naples,FL 34117 20% Thomas&Julie Hoover,4025 Hillman Road,Morral,OH 43337 30% Morning Glorys,Inc* 9225 Gulfshore Drive N.,Naples,FL 34108 6.5% Robert&Kay Hartman,21109 Pargillis Road,Bowling Green,OH 43402 5% Donald Rife,616 Brook Run Drive,Westerville,OH 43081 100% Total *Peter Tiemey is President and Michael Moore is Vice-President and own all of the stock of Morning Glorys, Inc. and their office is at this same address. Catalina Land Group, Inc. is the manager of Catalina Plaza, LLC. William and Charlene Hoover own 100% of the stock in Catalina Land Group, Inc. William Hoover is President, Charlene Hoover is Secretary/Treasurer, Jeremy Sterk is a Vice-President, and Q. Grady Minor is a Vice-President of Catalina Land Group, Inc. 3-A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE SOUTH Vi OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST;SUBJECT TO EXISTING RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD,SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF AND THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY SKETCH LABELED ITEM 111.A B. GENERAL LOCATION Immediately north of Vanderbilt Beach Road,approximately 1/4 of a mile west of Collier Boulevard. C. PLANNING COMMUNITY Urban Estates D. TAZ 51 F. SIZE IN ACRES 15.88 Acres F. ZONING Agricultural G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Being Developed as Residential FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION (S)_Urban Residential Sub-district of the Urban- Mixed Use District IV. TYPE OF REQUEST A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT(S)TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE(S) 24&25 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use-Cfess—i-hrearks-to identify language to be deleted;Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: The revised language is attached as Item IV.B. C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S)DESIGNATION FROM Urban Residential Subdistrict TO Additional Acreage in the Vanderbilt Beach\Collier Blvd.Sub-district D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S)AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) MAP 5B OF PAGE 29 of the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. A revised map is attached as Item 1V.D1 Also propose to amend the FUTURE LAND USE MAP. A revised FUTURE LAND USE MAP is attached as Item IV.D2. F. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Not Applicable 4 V. REQUIRED INFORMATION NOTE:ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I"=400'.At least one copy reduced to 8 1/2x II shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE XX Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI'S, existing zoning)with subject property outlined. XX Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source,and date. XX Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION XX Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s)of subject property and adjacent lands,with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL XX Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE,COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM(FLUCCS CODE).NOTE: ails MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN"A"ABOVE. XX Provide a summary table of Federal(US Fish&Wildlife Service) and State(Florida Game&Freshwater Fish Commission)listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site(e.g.panther or black bear range,avian rookery,bird migratory route,etc,). XX , Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9.1-11,006,F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT"Y"FOR YES OR"N"FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 91-11.006(1)(a)(5),F.A.C.). If so,identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380,F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a) 7.a,F.A.C.) N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1)(c),F.S.? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b,F.A.C.)Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2).If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the Additional Area uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified to Sub—District (commercial, industrial, etc.)or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district?(Reference Rule 91-5.006(5)F.A.C.).If so,provide See attached data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use,and Marketing Study compatibility of use with surrounding land uses, and as it concerns protection V.D. 4 of environmentally sensitive land,ground water and natural resources, (Reference Rule 91-1 1.007,F.A.C.) 5 E PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Leveof Service Standard (LOS)and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: XX Potable Water XX Sanitary Sewer XX Arterial & Collector Roads: Name specific road and LOS Vanderbilt Etgaoh Road- LOS B Collier Blvd.. (C,B.951 )-LOS F See attached Traffic Impact Study (item V.E 1C) XX Drainage XX Solid Waste XX Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amend- ment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.5) 2. XX Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (Le. water, oewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. XX 3. Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider,and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire --- rotection and emergency medical services. |� OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: `lood Zone "Xn xx Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). NA Location of wellflelds and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) 0A Traffic Congestion 8oundary, if applicable NA Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable NA High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher)surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (|denUfiedonCollier County Zoning k4apo). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION XX $3,000 non-refundable filing fee, plus $30/acre for each affected acre for Future Land Use map amendments, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal, NA $1,500 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal xx Proof of ownership (Copy of deed) XX Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) XX 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal, After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. 'Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at ascale mf1"=4O0'o,at a scale as determined during the pre-appllcation meeting. 6 • Y gg 14% F÷ Ttc14g I CD !• '-'14- s,-. 3 , tt,404 "27-- ) elPtiqvi02� ,0m 1 T > , -ten,, a J It. R 2 1 t, 1 ^.IEr.)enrapaeKa 1 1y 111010091,14 I I Mil 0 1 ir i I NI 113 I ii III rl i N a qa ini;1411r1 i M ..$., 111111141:i i k 41 iRl i I w v I. 4- 4- L 4, L. . 4- 4- Lt. t. 4- L. • °tI{ 04I Mfg. :> r• rkll E CI g I S Item IV.B (V)10. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict This Subdistrict is located on the nertit-side northwest quadrant of the intersection between the two (2) major roadways of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, consisting of approximately 33.45 acres of land for the existing area and 15.88 acres of land for the expansion area as depicted on Map 5-B. The intent of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas. The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for neighboring residents and Golden Gate Estates residents, assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this part of Collier County. This sSubdistrict is further intended to create a neighborhood focal point and any development within this Subdistrict will be designed in a manner to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. Development intensity for this Subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum of 200,000 350,000 square feet of gross floor area. Rezonings are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD zoning district which must contain • development standards to ensure that all commercial uses will be compatible with neighboring residential and institutional uses. In addition to retail uses and other uses permitted in the Plan, financial institutions, business services, and professional and medical offices shall be permitted. Exclusive of the 33.45 acres within the previously approved Mission Hills PUD, the following land uses shall not be permitted: gas stations, convenience stores with Ras pumps, fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and tire stores. Retail uses shall be limited to a single-story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three stories. All principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries for each foot of building height. Development within each project or PUD Rezoning the--Sebdistriot shall be required to have common site, signage and building architectural elements. The property Each project or PUD Rezoning shall provide for potential both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with adjacent properties. Item IV.DI MAP 58 '� VANDERBILT BEACH / COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA I t _� I 3 s re'rE s s e i :�' `: . 1411.111211 I ! ; ..-r\ 4Egial I I �ililffli bririvaar rra.ri1 iJ€l ,4.. O F QIP .. lr . ��, � ., ala ,..5. 6 Ellinu..y 4 �`f\ I6 jM• �I W� �'h Y - /t t t E $ q -- Nil, Vit( l•+ U t Mllfll 1g J�c i 1 �+_( Ii._ tlll4 ,,,rR111 , :` rlUy�` 1 w ail T :,$.,,,k 1,t �c' j/ `( 15 h li 4 a c1111111111 -, _ 14_111111 : 1 1--I I; 1 �. it I . , , .... ..... i , , II . , I , f---- . , 111 ,, 1 _�r� . .. _ _- 1 IIiUiI!I ' .L.' iIiiiNIIiLiiAI . . Hi ; —�_ ]_i lid��_�.....i !II sc..x 1 LEGEND 1. Pliflnv.rm .~WS NO 41 mall/2t11.1O ,00T rT. ma V T suers spa cl re. tg CAYMTT tnproplt•41CSOMC!m,a, OB !// IT t Vu.NOM- Existing Vanderbilt Beach Rd. / Collier Blvd, Commercial Subdistrict Proposed Additional Area for Subdistrict -- 29 I T5$(7(gS I [$ T52S[ 1 T5tS 1 T66S 1 T41S I T 46 1 T 47 S I T 46 5 fil 441111111111118 F _. FDP 9 81 i pr if i " 1116 ,.1 z r---a7A, ;_ ; § i ,.. 56�.;�ggAvgst, :a4 _ " ij 03. l; .�*y,,•r r_� „ / m l 8 6 i, .. i t J "/'... a ft +.f r' ■ i t �^v if, ti C11 M F� if. f ip c:.: `/ i .+760' i ▪ , f°" _ liriff m { W �%Y3'' .i40, 7t� fl"� j lj al �sr fI�, 5p'. i r.—.. _ ▪ _ 'S Q m - �," t' ; l Ai•w _I ,— lki = - tie - N A. h� { li,V/ r - y 11 3. r, 471-1 -,...1 il g•. ,.4.40.,t...)--.-al - i :, 1 V '-'-'. �y x g w �,, k- _,• l-,-x_, /! Y1�eflf ic�ll it "�F 3'ts •iitr •'' K ,-:` . r .,-.4,- ,-."`,+ �,, _.. E `r [...iy[{ {p� t!1 {t i3 }r 4‘,..--r:.:,..-..2- � 9 .'i*'�0.a. ..+M ,, ��(tlS /IlliNV it�!$T i I, ,:7;..,,t.- 'S Sb 'i. jY � Yee f s _lea Y i t ,j t!...;-_, n!2 :.Am _x.. +r. -^f•! �::^f +fit ? &. I t[a {{+I+ t R ,,4jttt ;_ , ,- ning ar l-� .y y S �' fit..' _( m __ 4 Ja ' .....,. i. i . o ___ il ___________:„..._. ... 1 _w „. ;. ..” ___ _ .... IN __ 2 2[22'22.1 i■■� j F 1 !MTV b B m 3 3wOol. 4141 if 511 iiii,5� f� c gill di i 1 i i i6iig + a Iii i I i d f _. iiiiliiii y rt. Z 3 =g li g ii R !,s- �y µ.'' : 11 !tot 0C30010 =ion ■con■ a, LI 5 Cz s pC !tI!Ej If , 1� ; tai tIli: 3 1 x ! N 5!/ . €� i�6i t f m J IS rrg 11liI lb g1w $ Y t At 1 ._._+: iI i.1/\ 1 1 S C9 A S 25 J. j S is 1 S 65 1 1 - - -- ( 1 S 6t' 1 i S S` 1__. ! - S L► 1 S 69 1 Li B a li 0 ii Cnc it n n. EIT M 1 iv y I m CD BN i 1 it a) if i _5 N a 7 if I! O \ i 0 im N OM W mB�!Xo'J MONImUl.l j K 0) Ep 4 tt Y I if s5 8q a 2 7 I F 8 z .z • - 4 , J i c . '1 i' .. :' : . ' . 4 -, . . -'... V C jr4-,..:-'' :,'''''...!%.1. # * ,F... "1 :-..Z3.,r, - ,,„,;„. , „i„'1-"t.; • ,L,,,,,-,,,,1:. f, -,,:::,, .. - -,i7%-'a a*:11,-.', :..11' --- . -.--' '4.• v...--. .4't*- a' .''' ''.41 "-:''..; -'i '--., 'to:::' •' ' ' .,..,..-- .-_-,..:: •% :m.-;I,'7.. 40 -a.t. s ar.,4,-- .-, -..-:- ,....-..- ' ...- * .v----..Ahri, '`..- - -....:. , ,1-. i '''',7- .;.• 7:.,. .., '!„ ',.!;,;, t-tfrii... •... Ix' ',...-... , a';,„i ,,,,-; . .$,..,....* ,-, -0.,.; • ,,„ .„. • ...- - ..-.;.#: '''.-4."-., e"0:4". -,s.,.:,:tor*" , 4,- :. :\ ..:', '....5 0::"....'i-'1*. . 4 •, "'IL* ..• •,0444".' - 1 A '1 ie 41 4•.. *.*' •' ...Z4. '. ' .'' * '04' t' t.,... .f :*. - n, 44."r....,.... -- ---.4;4,-, : • :,.: ---,,,-, L...... -1, . . ..•.:- , i........~,f,',..,,,, 4,_:,. ... Ve......'.' ..-. ..,' .1'. 'Z' ,:' ,........v v..',./*... '4 ,.,..„,•It.y.-' fi„,,,,..d. - ,..e,,,,....,- i .4,4 ......i.,., -.'.,.., i -... '-.......::-.,--...., ....,..;:4i-.••..•.-ic : •,...4,- .-,..-,..-• -. - -% '.-"4,-:'''':"--* r . .,...• ' . '...- ''''''1( f 1::;.- '''''' 'l''. 1 'AI• ... • , ,-, . , --,.: .-4,4"' „ ',.- Y.‘44'''''' .4 '' ,`, i--....,; -, -.`" „., . ."..- „ A ,' - .-.'"f". . ' f,, •• '''-*. , *,- A.1w:-''' '',••*' -;''' '''''*' 4;'-** n s' ''''''.,5„..,-f.0.'*4;tf:.!.-..-''''. '• ) ,' 10-4,Aittit''•'• 4.e•,,,,-1,- I.‘14.1-_,.::`,:',..v.‘„f".: ,,..1. 1Af",:"1414 '- . .1,,,. '`.'....*: "r.--''1 - , ,11F-4,0- ''''":'..;"*.-,f....*• -); '., -!', ''',-,, IIIIPri;,;f:'fl-''''''', : '"4„•--z: ,,,•-•.' ,1',... ,,,,,X.:40mf*,,,*.!c...',..,:t: ,..,•.„,-,%.-,f'.•- ...;,: '..:-',7.4%;„*„„,..2.,.44.4"0-,; •••: Wo:.fr.7 ?:/1". ' ".;"4.,..:,,i,4...,%**1,e. '3'r(•..e.-'''.."."... •.-f , _. -,. ...-f,„.•t,Z.0.1,fr.1.1:-.4. .2>. - .1.44.4„.• ' ; I' -, .'' - ', '4.!-, i -410- •,'0- ..4* 1 7 ';'.'''r; . *--,00 .:-:"'" •,V-049. 1..."'"; -.'.'• v.," f•'','„Y J *''''`..-"Lt- 1'74'',, -.".,,,, .•1-21,..;114,0,4 ''''. ,'"'4• ' '.f '• '' '`. , .I -4.4,0"Afti 4ft•-•.'' 4, , . ',• ',4'.- ,---..,• tlf.„,%".f. :. '4.-.• •'' .'.''•" .".,..•'"'"'4,-/.7._tar-ii -i;e4".744,4, - ' - • ' t . f"• ''"-::f. . I ,',1:'''°?..- -.. '''-:-':° . “. -.?" '''•-- 0 f.' ''''' '...:'":44•-‘'''''''' ' '1-"Kfl':4144.11774r44.*".-`s.' .';'''i'''' '4` 4:•°, ' '‘'.,•.7.,,..,;,.1„.,,",:. ..* i..,.... 44 Ir 1 4,..4., ''`i'-'V"*..' •4 1 .. ,".,,...,. 4 .,- ;,,,,is. :,..,... ..,. .....,f.-4,,-„,,,„.„:.,„,...„„f. 4...,,.i ....1;., c.t., ..fefirt,..7„... -. 4-,. ,-ii!., yr'At.: , ...- -',4...-, 1.r.-", ji,-11.-.4..- , „,,,,_-.0•.._,.AA': '`-..„'.",..,„4-. .1,...-- •'1.. .4.. -... t- '0,',..,..6.•-•..., ,....,-.04,,t,„:4 ,-, • ::'- :...",-‘..;t,-,,•..,..,...i.,..iet-......A.,,,.V'-:*--',..'..'' ;,/' . * '-',..--,...7, '......" . - •„i-,:.:, , -. - : ,;er-- - J-7-41.'„--.,.'...- '''''.`........-1 4. '•::::•:. 1.` - • - -- •' • , "" --,. ..-"--' • 4- IA 4-4-.."*.— .,.' .I' ' - • ''''''',0i. -.. ..°51.1.*:"' ,- . l'#7-,1.41"' ,.‘e.'"'.--- * '. 4:-*#.'•>'''' -- -,,„ '''' „144-,'''',,‘40-.Y,* '''-414,4 A0'.°. ..1 -.al .,,'....%.-s, ..,,,,,.- ; -r*,,., „,,,,. ', .4•,..'4,1• „"-.....''Ags*';':',0 - - '-,*.-'''.- 7'r. '-- fr' . ,•.-c-,1,,,,,, ''f.:;, '..`,-7;k04,-:„.',." 41'A.., .7.1., .. :' " --' : 1.:.,:',;-.:„,;,", i"......,;",--` "` '' 1--..v.1- '''''' ".- ."....,a.45r:':' ..-*-:- ' - •**' '1 •.:"' -'.,:,....4?"' 7*'40.1 •14„-;494,•.:1 ; ..A,4, ::',Z•1•1r,t,.1,.:1,,...77.'''f'. .,... ,:.,.,','d ' ,'' • „ .,. . ' (Ise" d /-\U ,...,',.., •„. ,I.,,,; . %."`..A• - '-**, - ' .'', ''• .„ a-- .-.,.,:i...1".,!:%;'___:„A•-.;''.. '- „! • .. .......fAt.,,,;"*"4".'. 1 44, : ••,. ,, ;•-::,, • ...- ,•,7 -,,* -. ..**,,te- ---. t'' ,.: al A , - ,:...- i„...... -.,,,T.,.,.. ....„. ..,,..,--,,i -4 '-'1 dit :3 .,,•••. 1•.• -I ,Xpe.....; :..4,-eilrf -.,';. . .,"1,,NC%-„," ic•••;.:;. , ....',-. -•"•- - .,' .ir .,,..-: ';' ,,,,,-.... "1 ' re, 1*.Ars.'ve•:•.!;•"..'• M.-.1. 'i...F`,...5,4 -;:.'",1_,:4; . 1., • .* ,. *',••14,`,.."..-• ',fr-,,;•;''.." , . r--1.r r.-.r)— - - r-( v t-- ..---- ..lire:, --,' „4.:•,- .,, .... :'4_ . . ..,.• .. ' , . .18,114., '., • e„,-,--,;s0,,-,. ,..,-4,. ,::_ 1 -. .•••••,,. 4: , ' \ - -- ,,,i_. . - ..t.-.4.--.,... :,4-,,i10,----_;.40,,..,-.4*.•-f.:4 i --:......- „_. - \ .. „,,,.....„,,,::„,f,,,,..„,,,c;;,....,--.- ,-,- 4., • ....7._ , .;:4,., . •,,,,r4.,4,, i, -,..:, .. - • . .. ,..„4.„,........ --__„„ ,.,,, -F.:,. „..• „„ , „..„. _„ e..... ,ro..... 1 .., ...,.....v., - , ,,, \ .. . ..,.*,..e,.7-.•-.,.....\ '''' - ,..... .. ' . .1 ''..•3?';'-'2 :•*‘ • :; i ' •.•;•.,.:-.:.."..".;'t74:'.71;71 4'1' ,,' l'1";,' .417;:"--7:‘;.%.":::;:;2;::•':..' ' -..,„.0'•0' . -• „1,104,, -..-44". "..-J -Ai,. 1't-.:,1'2 - :I , . ,,-- '; - --., , , !•‘' A f-t. - „,,,,,,,,',” %.,-.4,i,'"-7„::It - ' ••,-f*.• .,''' defiilf-*, . .',!'•*,:-. '--...'-16.14..4-tp,..'•, ..;- ' .''''- . . • , .- ,..'? r-,.• ''.: ''''' „,A,7.•:":"Tsit -,'. * 4 • ,,,-- 4 ' . , • ' '..--:',..140C-- : -• ,.- ' , 1 4„5..i ....,...-• '1111111111 --, . , . , - ..-. ,.., ..... , . ..... • • .'-- ..•.- „,,.. _ •. - -. ' ..—'-.' .-..,1504.7H'' .,--'''''' P .. ' • .' ;',.'4.-.---,: '... ft . ' _ fr - , .. .. •, : k -.1`.- ''' .2- . , - ,-- ..f.7 - ,,.... --;,:'7” —-.,.. ;zi,':.r' '., " ' .--", A. *.- : - , ,;',„49F.„'-., •-.f:*!7.'...- / .,,t74. .it'''-•.. r !'•. .. . .. ,146,44i..'X':,ff.,...%:4 14k.'.. ......',..,;:'"1'. - L 8 Ac ----- - - Legend 14 7_Ac S 1.10 mtal Acres.--- ,,,_ FL1 IC,C ,-„...__-- nbtiog ' Graeenne 15 88 . _ ,.....c.:r age Pa" ' — d Past_ure„ss-Cabb [1. ImPri've e-‘,Yr • 1 ? Aerla phcraPeitn _ e DttOed Pin ,.....-"...,.. .3, NT A.. ,..„ ITEM v • 8L, _ PLANNING Tr & to a Siiib HOOVE-R EnvironmentalA Nnrth Land,,12 ,1;rrtr'vt Rnn ( 1 i.ri no 6 CD :-.4 t3 c7,* • o 8 cn - 0 co I— C 0 5 --10cmci- n), W 0 m- = 0 z 0.) - \ CD 0) 0 II) _c, a g a a a Q CD C TJ 9. < 5. < c En O -- a(0 '2_ 0 cl) -., cn o 0 CD -- -0 0 C g-13 V N CD CD Fei P a q J o a 0. 0 a-v •-< co o m o 5' K.. (.0 7 "Ci CID 9,:n C) a) 5 > > n --. L,,, o 2 cn 'J.; 9, g 2 --..;: .... 5- 5. . x G EC- r. - 3 Pc F.,. Fticccl --• 0 - ci) - - 0 ),. N ai cp 0 E E. Q g CD" X = -, -, -, C-5* 11) 13.1 ca -., g 5' rn w C -.. -• -\CD rsz X cc=3, ._ n ,z- -0 CO Cr) C 5 o w a) ii \ ii3 \ 112 i g,3 8 c 8 . g 7, \ N"s• ‘ > E...' T Z N S I 3 m 0 , 0 5 0 -. —— —- 5 61 7 0 a to — Z — ET). 0 --irri ut 1 i 1 a > a ,... 0 5> 0) MI CD x 7 X E6' 13 Cr) a 0- ck c = c C) c m ro CO 3 11 "O a •. -0 ....--,... . N x '• 5• 3 g 5 a, -.il 0'f'D 0 O 'c,3 tn M cn0 - w_ -7. a 6,- 6 j> c tr .dr- V.ot, CA c D• 0 ,^ D-g .--,-• a c Ch B• i cg 13 > a cr 73 n -0 O E 5' w a co 3,- a (mod ,000 pieneinog iemoo MOH leue0 .001. 1 1 a a c I b cp a) u) g K 0 Fa 0 )", o F a N a IP b 0- I S -0 cri Pi'v 00 c c r• . c 0 m o c c 0 I ..`L'- a 5 I a 0 < V$ 0 0 -a 5' a to _ , m 1— — – 1 to 1 D N•a. ° ' in o v, F in U) o •-` CO Cp o \ CD cn o c ° a o Cc m \C O O C la c G1cxD m(p a CA D v ea a 0- CP o -\-„ cn o \ted\ , z Tt coCD N Cal m -t\O 0 Cn_\ NX M :.z \c c a\obo 5 �' C m ° cDi r� g \W\a a\D�\ ". m —I ex. m = m o \Z\y 1*:\� d\ TC c * Cn a \ m ►�\ D /�+ Eli c m m00 co co W Z to z �_"' P WI. ? ER m m �m 0 . 0N d- C C g k d 5a a I (Moi.006) pieneinos Jaw° MON leue'J.006 I 1 - -\ - - - - \ -- -----\\ l c as r0 w A ZC > m R20 mco i.n z m Mx w 5 v,13 - m M o 0,m - -7i: gO D y -Zi rn D r ` -----' .tJ - 0 z ti 1-0 0 < m a t 3 (k) H 05 m ri 0l PCJ CP g 4 @ CD vi 0_ )>.,. . 0-j- c n -a 8 . 0 o 0. .A 4 ..9 = 13•-• =. gW X f' 5 6— 'el= op 482 > •5 - ,c, = 3 I r) g U) 13 CD C i c7i = c) 4 0 (7, Fa. 1-ci -zi ,-•• r'l .-----------j P-CI F n.cro rm ,:,•, _,T..• 'a-n ••..-6 c. .. .....) 0 1 g g -.1.- 0 C4 -s a . E rri g 7, rn H _____________ m x C) 7) Fig r LO < .A. 0 a) 0 m o _ 9 0- g ?S 3 (1) 0 a. a PF- _. cu CO 0 : --, .....• Cn iv i 1 I C 0 p n C7 = • n cr7 ct..7° cr,,) E. —,. • Ili Fil* D; b.• 0 "*.."... Pc3-2. N 0 0 = 0 cm _. 0 --, CO 97 i Z Collier Blvd.(C.R 951)ROW. ig 2 T.------"-- r-300• W p O7 t— g a ,, , . cp.a t...„ b > z �„� �0 r a x aC 7 = oo0 1� 3 R ►� . n c _" m 7 0 LL'�II d • n N U) Er co ' C CA , S Cl, Q a O -Yi 0 MM o c tri aZ'"C:i g m O d �n-r in E °±...0 m n o _ o2 eq y m x n : c N O 3 a CD bk8 N a Wn S CD U) -iN G n o. E :97 pj �. � Q v ca g Q. M • o ,N 0 — Min ' N b r* 0 �'y O .b (D S.OQ "-N W 2 ro.� H g Collier Blvd.(C.R.951)R.O.W. 4 Z , r-soo' ITEM V.C.2 LISTED PLANT & ANIMAL SUMMARY TABLE Catalina Plaza No listed species have been observed on the Catalina Plaza property and due to the high level of human activity no listed species are expected. The various listed species which may occur in the FLUCCS communities found on this parcel are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Potential protected species listed according to FLUCCS category. FLUCCS Potential Listed Species Scientific Name Designated Status FWC or FDA FWS 211 Florida Panther Fells concolor coryi Florida Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis prarensis 624.- American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S/A) Drained- Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis Grapevine Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Panther Fells concolor coryi Gopher Frog Rana capito SSC Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC Snowy Egret Egretta thula SSC Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor SSC Wood Stork Mycteria americana Abbreviations: Agencies FWC=Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA—Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS—United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E—Endangered T=Threatened T(S/A)=Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC=Species of Special Concern �'f-EMV.C.3 245 p.01i01 0-' 850 6439 R-07—?J e3 15 A 45 FL MASTER SITE FILE Of 6401 • • oROMA e" ZZs r„� ffict or OakienelftlidIXIA 'tip;1.40efeepaus a+wolidae of � � ': v • y FI,agiDA DEPARTMENT NT OF STATE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL g SO'URCBS Apr0 7,2003 Mr.Jeremy Stark Hoover Flawing Development Inc 3785 AitpoB Rd North,Suite Naples,FL 34105 Fax:941-418-0672 . Dear Mr.Stark 1a,2003,the Florida Master SitoFilelisleImusl'record In response to your inquiry of April cultural resources in the following parcel: T48S,R26E,Section 34 in interpreting the results of our search,please remember the following points: completely surveyed,such as yours,may n unrecorded • Areas whish have not betia comp important structures,or both. archaeological site,,unrecorded historically • As yogi may know,state and federal laws require formal environmentalSite kilt`do review for some projects. Record searches by the-staff of the Florid Mastershould such a review of cultural resources. If your project falls under these laws,you contact the Compliance Review Section of the Bureau of Historic Preserv*tioe at$50- 245-6333 or at this address. Sincerely, tkA-- 044itAVY) Star Duncan,850-245-6440 Data Analyst,Florida Master Site File State SunCotn las-e0 Division of Historical Resources Fax liner 550-245-643920 IA.Gray BuildingooutEmail: de@ma7.des: us 500 South Branagh Suet web: help:/�1+'+v • .srata,�t.usldlir' Tallahassee,Florida 32349-0250 nsfr DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 500 South Bronoagh Street • Tallahassee,Florida 32394-0250 • (850)488.5480 PAXA A :(550)488.3353 • WWW Address ittyli rww.dos.etata.fi.es o ARCHAIOLCXIICAL RESEARCH D HISTORIC PRESERVATION O HISTORICAL MUSEUMS _ Dat t. - .r 11.....-.4..A.—....10.-.4.....4a...........i ..�,. �n$' TOTAL P.01 Item V.D. 4 MARKETING ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD/COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT BY ADDING THE CATALINA PLAZA OFFICE PARK AND SPECIALTY RETAIL CENTER TO THE SUBDISTRICT LOCATED ON VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD NAPLES, FLORIDA PREPARED BY: NICOLA WESTON AND WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP HOOVER PLANNING & DEV., INC. 3785 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH, SUITE B-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 DATE PREPARED: APRIL 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 2 PURPOSE AND FOCUS 4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY , , 5 TRADE AREA ANALYSIS . 5 DEMOGRAPHICS OF TRADE AREA 7 TRADE AREA POPULATION GROWTH . 8 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INVENTORY 9 COMMERCIAL RETAIL DEMAND 10 CONCLUSIONS 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject property is located on 15.88 acres of land, on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The site has about 'A mile of frontage along Vanderbilt Beach Road and its eastern boundary is located about '4 mile and its western boundary about V2 mile west of the signalized intersection between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. The subject property is proposed for an upscale office park/specialty retail center with a maximum size of 150,000 square feet. If the site is approved for both a Plan Amendment and PUD Rezoning permitting the requesting uses construction should commence in late 2004. An environmental analysis shows the site to have very minimal on-site environmental issues. This site is located in the northeast corner of the Naples urban area where potential competitive sites are limited due to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. The site's trade boundaries are 1-75 to the west, Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard to the north,just beyond DeSoto Boulevard to the east, and approximately to Green Boulevard to the south. The growth rates within the project's trade area, especially in the vicinity of the project, demonstrate why the Naples Metropolitan Area has consistently been in the top 10 metropolitan areas in the U.S. as far as population growth. Based on statistics from the Collier County Long Range Planning Section and the U.S Census Bureau, the trade area had a population of 15,381 in 2541 1995 and 5-19-3-3-in 2000. Based on the growth rates from 1995 to 2000, population in the trade area was projected to be 31,467 in 2003, 35,847 in 2005, 46,080 in 2010, and 51,933 in 2013 Based on the marketing analyses there is a major demand for and a substantial shortage of retail within this trade area. In the 2003 analysis, marketing demand was projected at 255 acres of retail development. Since the supply was estimated at only 59 acres, a shortage was projected of 196 acres. In 2005, the demand was 310 acres, the supply 148 acres and a shortage of 162 acres. ---- In 2010, the demand was 467 acres, the supply 214 acres and a shortage of 253 acres. In 2010, 2 the demand was 583 acres, the supply 240 acres and a shortage of 343 acres. The subject site seems to be ideal for the location of some additional retail and office space due to its location. 3 PURPOSE AND FOCUS The intention of this marketing study is to provide an analysis regarding the proposed expansion of the existing Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict The existing Subdistrict is located at the northwest corner of the signalized intersection between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard (see Vicinity Map). The eastern boundary of the proposed expansion area abuts a portion of the western boundary of the existing 33.45-acre Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (hereinafter "Existing Subdistrict"). The proposed expansion area (or "subject site") is 15.88 acres in area and is currently a cow pasture. It is under conditional purchase contract by the applicant. The expansion area has 1320 feet of frontage along Vanderbilt Beach Road and about 525 feet of depth. The Collier County Comprehensive Plan currently designates the expansion area as being within the Urban Residential Subdistrict, which is part of the Urban - Mixed Use District The expansion area is proposed for commercial uses, via a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, that would reclassify the subject land as also being within the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would limit the maximum commercial gross leasing area on the expansion area to 150,000 square feet. Upon final approval and adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the land would need to be rezoned for commercial uses by a PUD Rezoning. Prior to construction, a formal Site Development Plan or plat would also have to be approved through Collier County Development Services and applicable permits would have to be obtained through numerous permitting agencies. Since the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process should be completed by late March 2004 and the PUD Rezoning petition would he submitted in about January 2004, the 2 public hearing processes should be completed by July 2004, The remaining developmental processes are expected to be completed by late 2004. 4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Recently environmentalist Jeremy Sterk, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., prepared a Florida Land Use Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) map and Protected Species Survey on the subject site. It shows all of the subject site being uplands and the site being predominantly cow pasture. The Protected Species Survey advises there were no protected species observed on-site. TRADE AREA ANALYSIS "Trade area" is considered to be the market area that will support a project. Trade areas vary based on: type of subject commercial project, the location and makeup of competing commercial projects in the vicinity, composition of residential properties in the vicinity, and traffic network in the vicinity of the project. A community's comprehensive plan and zoning patterns can also substantially affect trade areas. There are several types of trade areas: primary trade area, secondary trade area, and tertiary area. The primary trade area is the geographical area from which a project will normally generate 70% to 80% of its business. The secondary trade area normally provides an additional 15%to 20% of a project's business. A commercial project will derive the remaining 5%to 10% of its business from its tertiary trade area. Typically this is a more distant geographical area, which will attract customers due to something "unique" or something "better" at the subject site. The land uses of the proposed project will significantly influence the size and layout of the primary trade area. The anticipated trade area for the subject project is shown on the next page (see Project's Trade Area). Initially, the trade area seems out of proportion, since it extends much further to the east and southeast from the subject site than in the other directions. Several key factors formulate the trade area boundaries for this project, including: 1) There is a very limited arterial/collector 5 roadway network in the rural portion of Collier County, located east of Collier Boulevard, north of I-75, and south of Immokalcc Road (referred to as the Rural Estates). Golden Gate Boulevard is the main arterial roadway leading from the heart of the Rural Estates into Naples and it ends at Collier Boulevard. Traffic going to Naples then heads 1 mile to the north or south and uses either Vanderbilt Beach Road or Pine Ridge Road for the rest of their commute. 2) Except for commercial centers along 1-75 and along Collier Boulevard there are few opportunities for commercial centers within this trade center. The commercial centers along I-75 and the one at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard are all located at the perimeter of the trade area along either its northern or western boundary, which makes those commercial sites inconvenient for many of the residents in this trade area. Key competing commercial centers to the Vanderbilt Beach Road/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict are the following driving distances from the subject site: a) Two miles north at the intersection between Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. b) Five miles northwest at the Interstate 75 - Immokalee Road Interchange, that is partly out of this trade area. c) Five miles west at the intersection between Airport Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, that is actually 2 miles outside the trade area. d) Five miles southwest at the Interstate 75 - Pine Ridge Road Interchange, that is again partly out of this trade area. e) Two miles south on the western half of the intersection between Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road. f) The neighborhood centers along Golden Gate Boulevard (at its intersection with Wilson Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard but only 2 of the 8 quadrants have been approved for commercial uses at this time). g) A proposed 5.14-acre office park across Vanderbilt Beach Road at the southwest corner of the intersection with Collier Boulevard. Essentially, this trade area is located within 2 planning communities and 6 census tracts (refer to Project's Trade Area) The portion of the trade area within the Urban Estates Planning Community is basically located west of the subject site and portion of the trade area within the Rural Estates Planning Community east of the subject site. To more accurately analyze and discuss this trade area, the trade area was further broken down along census tract boundaries into 6 study districts. Two of the six study districts were within the Urban Estates Planning Community were labeled the Central Urban Estates and the South Urban Estates study districts. Four of the study districts were within the Rural Estates Planning Community and were relabeled the Southwest Rural Estates, the North Central Rural Estates, the Northeast Rural Estates, and the Southeast Rural Estates. DEMOGRAPHICS OF TRADE AREA Demographics of a trade area are excellent indicators of demand for retail products. Population and income statistics within the trade area were the key factors utilized in projecting retail demand. The population statistics for the trade area were determined in the following manner. Each of the 6 study districts was typically comprised of traffic analysis zones that dwelling unit statistics were available for, see "Breakdown of Trade Area By Study Districts & Traffic Analysis Zones". In about several instances the boundaries of the study districts did not perfectly conform with the boundaries of a particular TAZ, so we reviewed more specific data from the Property Appraiser's office or Feasinomics, Inc. to estimate the number of dwelling units within each study district. The exhibit entitled "Dwelling Units in Trade Area" shows the number of dwelling units within the applicable traffic analysis zones for 1995 and 2000. This exhibit additionally shows the increase in dwelling units over the five-year period from 1995 to 2000 for each of the 6 study districts. The population for each of the 6 trade districts was calculated by multiplying the dwelling units by the average population per household, which were obtained by Census Tract, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. The population of each study district was projected to increase throughout the future projected time frames by the same increase rate as those shown on the exhibit labeled "Annual 7 Population Increase". The 2003, 2005, 2010, and 2013 population projections are each shown on the attached individual exhibits. TRADE AREA POPULATION GROWTH The exhibit labeled "5-Year Population and Percentage Increase" for all of the study districts within the trade area demonstrates why Collier County has consistently been ranked in the top 10 fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States for the last 15 years. The study districts averaged a 67% increase in population between 1995 and 2000. Overall the trade area shows an annual increase in of 2047 persons. Exclusive of approximately 1/2 of the Central Urban Estates and the western and northern area of the North Central Rural Estates, the study districts are true estate areas that are typically comprised of single-family homes developed at a density of less than 1 home per acre. About one-half of the Central Urban Estates and the most westerly mile of the North Central Rural Estates are typical urban areas where the Collier County Comprehensive Plan normally permits densities between 4 to 7 units per acre. The north central portion of the North Central Rural Estates is proposed as a rural receiving area for a transfer of density rights from other rural lands that are typically located in more environmentally sensitive areas. The Central Urban Estates area, located north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and the urban portion of the North Central Rural Estates (area just east of Collier Boulevard) should be major growth areas in the next 5 to 10 years based on a large number of residential PUD Rezoning applications that have been submitted over the past 5 years. Many of these residential projects are still in the development review stages. The Rural Estates study districts should continue to flourish due to their plentiful supply of reasonably priced single-family estate home sites and the recent 4-laning of Golden Gate Boulevard, which is the areas key commuting route to Naples. As demonstrated in the individual exhibits, the trade area's population is projected to increase from 31,467 in 2003 to 51,933 in 2013. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INVENTORY Key to any marketing analysis is a review of existing and potential commercial sites within the project's trade area. Within the urban area commercial land uses are restricted by the Collier County Comprehensive Plan to locate within primarily Commercial Activity Centers. 'Within the project's trade area is the southern half of the Activity Center, located at Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. The southwest quadrant of this Activity Center is currently open (#1 on the map exhibit entitled "Commercial Office/Retail Property Inventory" and a table entitled "Commercial Office/Retail Property Inventory"). This center is about 2 miles north of the subject site and includes a Publix-anchored shopping center and a free-standing Walgreens. Additionally, there are 2 Interchange Activity Centers located along I-75 along the western and northwestern boundaries of the project's trade area. Three commercial projects are proposed at the southeast quadrant of the Immokalee Road/Interstate 75 Activity Center (#2, #3 & #4 on the map and table). Six acres of the Crestwood PUD (#3) are approved for industrial uses and were excluded from the inventory. The Pine Ridge Road/Interstate Activity Center already has a shopping center in the northeast quadrant (#20 on the map and table) with a Publix and Ben Franklin as the anchor tenants. The southeast quadrant of this Interchange Activity Center has some medical offices open (#19). An additional commercial project in the southeast quadrant of the interchange has been approved and we believe is intended for further medical offices (#18). Finally just east and northeast of the subject site, there is an approved Albertson's shopping center (#8) that is expected to be developed nearly exclusively for retail uses and a proposed business park(#9) with up to 30% of its area for retail and offices uses. 9 The other centers shown on the Commercial Office\Retail Property Inventory exhibits are primarily governed by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and include: 7.38 acres (115 & #6) of existing convenience-oriented commercial land uses, located about 9 driving miles to the northeast at the Immokalee Road/Randle Boulevard intersection_ There are both existing and proposed commercial uses at the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard (#10, #11 & #12) and at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road\Collier Boulevard (#15 & #16). A small office project is proposed in the southwest corner of the intersection between Vanderbilt Beach Road & Collier Boulevard (#14). The Sungate Center is an existing commercial project at the northwest corner of the intersection of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard (#17) COMMERCIAL RETAIL DEMAND A market support analysis was utilized to project retail demand. This section analyzed the total income level and expendable income in the subject trade area. By determining the income and expenditures in a given area, the retail sales potential of that area was projected. The following pages show projections of market support for retail commercial space in the subject trade area. They are based on projected population and retail sales potential. The data cover 4 time frames: 2003 (current), 2005, 2010 and 2013. Demand for retail space is based on population projections and the annual projected retail expenditures for all persons within the trade area. To project market demand the following methodology was used. The projected population for each of the 6 study districts was multiplied by the estimated per capita income of that study district or census tract to reveal its total income. The 2000 Florida Statistical Abstract indicates an average 6% annual growth factor for Collier County per capita income in the previous 5 years. This 6% figure was utilized to project future annual increase in per capita income for each study district. 10 Source:FLA Statistical %of Increase Income Per Capita Collier County --- 1994-1995 $ 32,123 $ 32,836 2.21959344% 1995-1996 $ 32,836 $ 35,001 6.59337313% 1996-1997 $ 35,001 $ 36.210 3.45418702% 1997-1998 $ 36,210 $ 41,913 15.7497929% 1998-1999 $ 41,913 $ 42,813 2.14730513% Average Annual Increase 6.0328503% Source:Florida Statistical Abstract,1993,1999,2000 The total income was multiplied by a ratio of .4411 to determine the total retail expenditure of permanent residents. If we divide the total retail expenditure for permanent residents by .8857, the result will be the total retail expenditure for permanent and seasonal residents(all residents). The total retail expenditure for all residents was divided by the average sales per square foot factor, which was determined to be $220.87 for 1995 by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section. This figure was increased annually by 2.3% to reflect expected inflation throughout the study time frames. This revealed the supportable retail square footage. To determine the supportable retail commercial acreage, the supportable square footage was divided by .1867, the floor area ratio for the planning communities, and then divided by 43,560 square feet per acre. Current and future demands were projected for retail commercial space based on projected income and expenditures or market support. Tables with detailed analyses are shown on the following pages. 11 — Demand 2003 z1 -7,7 ' r 41 3;,,70:1 -ft-FP-OFTTA1TOW471 ii .‘7"-• •rilT:AtiCA7-77, 11,173 X PER CAPITA INCOME $45,133 TOTAL INCOME $504,271,009 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $222,433,942 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $251,139,147 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$263.26) $953,958.62 SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $1,001,656.55 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 123.16 ACRES . .7. Ut4tW ,0*-7 0 Wit .. .,,)11W37 77 1,914 X PER CAPII A INCOME $35.120 TOTAL INCOME $67,219,680 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $29,650,601 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $33,477,025 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$263.26) $127,163.35 SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT,WITH 5%VACANCY $133,521.52 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 16.42 ACRES liolititUSRViLYT.L.li ab.7K11457.;-!'-' 7,190 X PER CAPITA INCOME $28.269 TOTAL INCOME $203,254,110 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $89,655,388 /(,8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $101,225,458 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$263.26) $384,507.55 SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $403,732.93 S.F SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR" .1867) 49.64 ACRES Mi..5' i ii.,.: '.,"r'Cr.:-,1 - firi:_ii— .W*W97.ftW, :01.ii,.-,. 2,197 X PER CAPITA INCOME $21,618 TOTAL INCOME $47,494,746 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $20,949,932 1(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $23,653,531 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$263.26) $89,848.56 SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT,WITH 5%VACANCY $94,340.98 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 11.60 ACRES .914-tiTtiffilkitTifetc' --1'---- 1,794 X PER CAPITA INCOME $21.684 TOTAL INCOME $38,901,096 X(A41 1) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $17,159,273 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $19,373,686 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$263.26) $73,591.45 SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $77,271.02 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 930 ACRES : SberiiiINTiffitilMil.W.AftittiffWATttik":;'" ' 7,200 X PER CAPITA INCOME $25,389 TOTAL INCOME $182,800,800 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $80,633,433 4.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $91,039,215 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$263.26) $345.814.84 SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $363,105.58 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR" .1867) 44.65 ACRES --, SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE WITHIN TRADE AREA 254.98 ACRES Iota!income $1,043,941,441 Demand 2005 >; + i `d •d'. 9E (V1 ,tl-ani ~�,c`ab a i ro f... 12,822 X PER CAPITA INCOME $50.549 TOTAL INCOME $648,139,278 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $285,894,236 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $322,789,021 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$275.37) $1,172,201.11 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $1,230,811.17 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 151.34 ACRES 1 - ! 2,004 X PER CAPITA INCOME $39,334 TOTAL INCOME $78,825,336 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $34,769,856 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $39,256,922 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$275.37) $142,560.63 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $149,688.67 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 18.41 ACRES —_i.1191Rlb' 8,185 X PER CAPITA INCOME $31,662 TOTAL INCOME $259,153,470 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $114,312,596 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $129,064,690 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$275.37) $468,695.54 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $492,130.31 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 60.51 ACRES , 19 "litiP trA 2,887 �� X PER CAPITA INCOME $24.212 TOTAL INCOME $69,900,044 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $30,832,909 1(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $34,811,911 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$275.37) $126,418.68 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $132,739.61 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 16.32 ACRES lfi �A1 2,057 X PER CAPITA INCOME $24.286 TOTAL INCOME $49,956,302 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $22,035,725 1(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $24,879,445 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$275.37) $90,349.15 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $94,866.61 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 11.66 ACRES JTI15 ''RlPU ; 7,891 X PER CAPITA INCOME $28,435 TOTAL INCOME $224,380,585 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $98,974,276 1(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $111,746,953 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$275.37) $405,806.56 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $426,096.89 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 52.39 ACRES SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE WITHIN TRADE AREA 310.64 ACRES total income $1,330,355,015 . _p i ...t ,WI't'1 'f AT A '''- 44 ti.X � .�w�_� � ` 169 X PER CAPITA INCOME $05.713 TOTAL INCOME $1,113.441,072 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $491,138,857 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $554,520,556 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$307.04) $1,806,020.57 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $1.896,321.60 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 233.17 ACRES SOUT1' 'RB.ki ESTE . . : -41$ d'•• 2,229 X PER CAPITA INCOME $51353 TOTAL INCOME $114,465,837 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $50,490,881 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $57,006,753 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$307.04) $185,665.56 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY 5144,948.83 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 23.97 ACRES -1;1161071T4 iN . ..W 10,673 X PER CAPITA INCOME $41, 60 TOTAL INCOME $439,300,680 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $193,775,530 1(,8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $218,782,353 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$307.04) $712,553.26 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $748,180.92 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 92.00 ACRES e *41; i Mai ,` 41 I (r , tit' ,k' '44'a ..�. 3,899 X PER CAPITA INCOME $31.475 TOTAL INCOME $122,721,025 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $54,132,244 1(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $61.118,036 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$307.04) $199,055.61 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ,FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $209,008.39 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 25.70 ACRES -- .ts ' •! �''� 2,716 X PER CAPITA INCOME $31.572 TOTAL INCOME $85,749,552 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $37,824,127 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $42,705.349 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$307.04) $139,087.25 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $146,041.61 S.E. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 17.96 ACRES $0fi7'P11r1!V' RU,tt`A:L,P a 'T e ,.;.1.-117` t'ate a' j. y x 7,,., 9,619 X PER CAPITA INCOME $36,966 TOTAL INCOME $355,575,954 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $156,844,553 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $177,085,416 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@ 5307.04) $576,750.31 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ,FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $605,587.83 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 74.46 ACRES SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE WITHIN TRADE AREA 467.26 ACRES total income $2,231,254,120 Demand 2013 x x ::' ... 19,416 X PER CAPITA INCOME $77.541 TOTAL INCOME $1,505,536,056 X(.441 I) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $664,091,954 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $749,793,332 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$328.22) $2,284,423.05 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $2,398,644.20 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 294.94 ACRES `` 7: 2,364 X PER CAPITA INCOME $60339 TOTAL INCOME $142,641,396 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $62,919,120 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $71,038,862 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$328.22) $216,436.72 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $227,258.56 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 27.94 ACRES NUS t .e r.;,. , +l c e aV 4f f 12,166 X PER CAPITA INCOME $48.569 TOTAL INCOME $590,890,454 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $260,641,779 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $294,277,723 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$328.22) $896,586.81 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $941,416.15 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 115.76 ACRES !w-7.77: IvdB 7f�I� A , Q N, rt�'ti�'�I 5� �R"'�� ' 4,220 X PER CAPITA INCOME $37,141 TOTAL INCOME $156,735,020 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $69,135,817 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $78,057,827 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$328.22) $237,821.67 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $249,712.75 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 30.70 ACRES .W7St1 C��' OM .. _... :mow 3,110 X PER CAPITA INCOME $37.255 TOTAL INCOME $115,863,050 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $51,107,191 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $57,702,598 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE(@$328.22) $175,804.64 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $184,594.87 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 22.70 ACRES ro stialiip, ''® ;�� ass c '' ii � .4'117)''`114:1.:4; I`*: 10,656 X PER CAPITA INCOME $43,620 TOTAL INCOME $464,814,720 X(.4411) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-PERMANENT RESIDENTS $205,029,773 /(.8857) RETAIL EXPENDITURES-ALL RESIDENTS $231,488,961 SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE((41$328.22) $705,285.97 S.F. SUPPORTABLE SQ.FT.WITH 5%VACANCY $740,550.27 S.F. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE(FAR=.1867) 91.06 ACRES V fVWITHIN . �. SUPPORTABLE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE WITHIN TRADE AREA 583.10 ACRES total income $2,976,480,696 CONCLUSIONS: Based on the marketing analyses there is currently and will be substantial future demand for retail and office space within this trade area. In the 2003 analysis, there is a projected marketing demand of approximately 255 acres of retail development. The commercial inventory schedule for 2003 indicates a supply of only 59 acres, resulting in a shortage of 196 acres. In the 2005 study, the total personal income would continue to increase, supporting commercial retail acreage of over 310 acres. The commercial inventory schedule for 2005 indicates a projected total of 148 acres developed for retail and office uses, resulting in a shortage of 162 acres. In the analysis for 2010, the retail demand would be to over 467 acres. The commercial inventory schedule for 2010 projects 214 acres of retail/office development, leaving a shortage of 253 acres. In the analysis for 2013, the retail demand should increase to over 583 acres. The commercial inventory schedule for 2013 projects a total of 240 acres developable for retail and office space, still leaving a shortage of 343 acres of land needed for retail and office space. The subject site seems to be ideal for the location of some additional retail and office space due to its location. It is within 1 mile of where Golden Gate Boulevard dead ends into Collier Boulevard forcing commuters from the Rural Estates to either travel north one mile to Vanderbilt Beach Road or south one mile to Pine Ridge Road to complete their commute. Additionally, the latest AUIR budgets $15,000,000 for right-of-way purchases in FY 2007 for the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road all the way to Wilson Boulevard. This will make Vanderbilt Beach Road another major roadway into the Rural Estates. This report was prepared by: William L. Hoover, AICP Nicola J. Weston, Marketing Coordinator Hoover Planning and Dev. Hoover Planning and Dev. 17 Item V E. 1 .C. • HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 4<< Rezonings, PUDs, Conditional Uses, Variances, Plan Amendments, Traffic, Parking, & Land Use Studies, Siie Planning & Subdivisions t r1 April 24, 2003 RE; Major Traffic Impact Study for Catalina Plaza to Allow 15.88 Acres of Commercial Land Uses,Located in Sec.34,Twp.48S,Rng.26E, in Unincorporated Collier County,Florida INTRODUCTION The subject property is 15.8 acres and is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and west of Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951). The site has about 'h mile of frontage along Vanderbilt Beach Road, with its eastern boundary located about '/, mile west of Collier Boulevard and its western boundary located about 1/2 mile west of Collier Boulevard. The site is currently zoned Agricultural and is being utilized as cow pasture. The subject property is proposed for inclusion within the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Subdistrict, via a Plan Amendment and PUD Rezoning petitions. The gross floor area on the subject 15.88 acres would be a maximum of 150,000 square feet. The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Subdistrict currently comprises the 33.45-acre Mission Hills PUD, that is approved for up to 200,000 square feet of retail uses. The Mission Hills PUD is being developed as a neighborhood shopping center with an Albertsons' grocery as the anchor tenant, adjacent smaller retail spaces, and about 7 -9 out-parcels. The proposed Catalina Plaza is intended to complement the Mission Hills PUD by creating an upscale office park and retail center in a pedestrian friendly environment. Land uses are envisioned as medical and professional offices, banks, restaurants, and a variety of retail uses. Specifically excluded on the subject property will be: gas stations, convenience stores with gas pumps, tire stores, and fast food restaurants with a drive-thru. These more intensive land uses generate a high volume of traffic, are better oriented with the Mission Hills PUD, and are not conducive to the upscale pedestrian-friendly environment we intend to create. The Mission Hills PUD has been designed to allow convenient cross-accesses to residential properties north of Vanderbilt Beach Road and west of Collier Boulevard and this project is intended to continue that planning strategy. TRIP GENERATION The ITE's 6th Edition of Trip Generation was utilized to estimate the number of trips for the proposed land uses. Category "Office Park (750)" was utilized to estimate traffic for most of the project's floor area (with 60% or 90,000 square feet designated as office park). The ITE advises on page 1134 of Trip Generation, "Office Parks are usually suburban subdivisions or planned unit developments containing general office buildings and support services such as banks, savings and loan institutions, restaurants, and service stations, arranged in a park- or campus-like atmosphere." Since many retail and commercial uses are not included in the Office Park (750) classification, the remaining 40% of the project's floor area was determined differently. Category "Shopping Center (820)" was used to estimate the remaining 60,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses based on gross leasing area. .3785 Airport Road North, Suite B-1, Naples, Florida 34105 • Phone: 239-403-8899 • Fax: 239-403-9009 OFFICE PARK(750)-90,000 Sq. Ft. (Based on 1,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area) Formula=Number of Trips per Time Period Enter(%)/Exit(%) T— 10.122(x)+409.040— 1348 Weekday Daily Trips 671(50%)/671(50%) rY — • — I ' . 1-79(8944)/22(-14%) T— 1.213(x)+ 11}6.215—215 Weekday PM Peak Hour 30(14%)/185(86%) OFFICE PARK(750) -90,000 Sq. Ft. (Based on 1,000 Sq. Ft. Gross Floor Area) Formula=Number of Trips per Time Period Enter(%)/Exit(%) Ave. Rate= 11.42 x 90= 1028 Weekday Daily Trips 514(50%)f514(50%) Ave. Rate= 1.74 x 90= 157 Weekday AM Peak Hour 140(89%)/17(11%) Ave.Rate= 1.50 x 90= 135 Weekday PM Peak Hour 19(14%)/116(86%) SHOPPING CENTER 1820) -60,000 Sq. Ft. (Based on 1,000 Sq. Ft. G.L.A.) Formula=Number of Trips per Time Period Enter(%')/Exit(%) YY — .. — . •e : - - .. t0 Y. . 10 Ln(T)—.660 Ln(x)+3.103 —118 Wkdy. PM PK HR of Adj. St. 215(48%)/233(52%) SHOPPING CENTER (820) -60,000 Sq. Ft. (Based on 1,000 Sq. Ft. G.L.A.) Formula=Number of Trips per Time Period Enter(%)/Exit(%) Ave. Rate=42.92 x 60=2576 Weekday Daily Trips 1288(50%)/1288(50%) Ave. Rate= 1.03 x 60=62 Wkdy. AM PK HR of Adj. St. 38(61%)/24(39%) Ave. Rate=3.74 x 60=224 Wkdy. PM PK HR of Adj. St. 108(48%)/116(52%) In my opinion, the computations from the above "Fitted Curve Equations" were not utilized as they were substantially distorted. Since an argument might possibly be made that the above computations were not distorted regarding the "Fitted Curve Equations", no adjustments for the Office Park computations were made for multi-use development, as described in Chapter 7 of the ITE's Trip Generation Handbook., nor were adjustments made for the Shopping Center computations regarding multi-use development or pass-by traffic, as described in Chapter 5 of the ITE's Trip Generation Handbook. Additionally,it can be argued that the shopping center calculations were overstated for the retail uses of the subject project, as the petitioner has specifically excluded 4 high traffic generation uses (see Introduction), whose uses are typically included with many shopping centers and the computations for Shopping Center(820)classification. PROJECT'S TOTAL TRAFFIC TOTAL PROJECT FOR 150,000 Sq. Ft. Total Trips for Office Park&Shopping Center Enter(%)/Exit(%) 1028 +2576= 3604 Weekday Daily Trips 1802(50%)/1802(50%) 157 + 62 =219 Weekday. AM Peak Hour 178/41 135 + 224 =359 Weekday PM Peak Hour 127/232 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The project's trips were assigned and distributed based on total dwelling unit counts within the six study districts that comprise the project's trade area or marketing area. A map showing the marketing area for the project and the trip assignment for each study district is shown on Exhibit 2. The trade area was projected to extend to Immokalee Road to the north, Interstate 75 to the west, Green Boulevard to the south and to just beyond DeSoto Boulevard to the east. The trade area extends further to the east and southeast due to the scarcity of commercial uses in the Golden Gate Estates and the limited road network within Golden Gate Estates. To determine the number of dwelling units within each of the six study districts the following methodology was utilized. First, the TAZ numbers within the trade area were put on a_column in numerical order (see Appendix) and the increase between the 1995 and the 2000 dwelling unit counts were determined for each TAZ. In about 3 instances the boundaries of the study districts did not perfectly match the boundaries of a particular TAZ so we reviewed more specific data from the Property Appraiser's office or from Feasinomics, Inc. to determine the applicable dwelling units within each study district. After utilizing the 5-year increase to project the number of dwelling units within each TAZ for 2005 (when the subject project will start having a traffic impact), the total dwelling units from all the TAZ for each study district were totaled. After totaling all of the dwelling units within each of the 6 study districts(trade area),ratios for the number of dwelling units within each study district compared to those for the trade area were computed for each of the six study districts. These ratios for each of the 6 study districts were rounded to the nearest full percentage point. Finally, the traffic for each of the study districts were assigned to the County's major road network based on dwelling units already constructed, units expected to be developed by 2005, and units most likely within each study district to utilize the subject project. The trip assignments are also shown on Exhibit 2. The project's cumulative trip distribution was then determined by having the traffic utilize the most likely route to and from the site (see Exhibit 3). Due to the loop road running around the previously approved Mission Hills (shopping center) PUD and the nearby intersection between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, the project's traffic for entering movements varied slightly from its exiting movements in close vicinity to the project site. The trip distribution for the project's turning movements in close vicinity to its subject site are shown on Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS This traffic study has incorporated planned roadway improvements from the latest AUIR through FY 2007 and these are shown on Exhibit 7. Based on recent discussions with Collier County Transportation key staff members, the following key improvements are planned for Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road, within the project's RDI. Collier Boulevard, between Golden Gate Boulevard and lnunokalee Road, will commence construction for widening in January to February 2004 3 and this will be a 1-year to 14-month project. This project is designated a "fast-track" and Collier Boulevard will be widened to 4 lanes, between Golden Gate Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road, and to 6 lanes, between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Additionally, Collier Boulevard will be widened to 6 lanes through the Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection and for the next 600 feet south of such intersection. Vanderbilt Beach Road is scheduled to be widened to 6 lanes between, Collier Boulevard and Airport Road, with construction commencing in November 2003. Vanderbilt Beach Road is scheduled to be widened to 6 lanes in 3 separate 1-year projects. November 2003 to November 2004 is the widening between Airport Road and Livingston Road, November 2004 to November 2005 is the widening between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard, and November 2005 to November 2006 is the widening between Logan Boulevard to Collier Boulevard. The first portion of the Collier Boulevard widening project will be to make the intersection improvements at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. RADIUS OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT Exhibit 8 shows the greater of the project's A.M. or P.M. Peak trips for and what that ratio is versus the applicable roadway segment's LOS C traffic at Peak Hour. The RDI was based upon the County's determination that the RDI for a proposed commercial PUD Rezoning is any arterial roadway within 5 miles where the project's trips exceed 1% of LOS C for that roadway segment. EXISTING TRAFFIC(2003) For the existing 2003 traffic, the 2002 annual counts were obtained from the Collier County Transportation staff. The 2002 traffic figures were increased by 108% to project the 2003 existing traffic on all roadway segments. Peak Season Daily Traffic figures(see Exhibit 9) were based on the Peak/Annual Ratios shown in the County's 2001 traffic counts, as these were not provided with the 2002 annual counts. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and Peak Season Daily Traffic (PSDT) for each roadway segment within the project's RDI and that roadway segment's LOS for each is shown for 2003 on Exhibit 10. All arterial roadways within the project's RDI are currently at an acceptable LOS during PSDT except for segments on Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, that are scheduled for the commencement for construction of widening in the next 10 months as previously described. FUTURE TRAFFIC The 2003 existing traffic figures were increased annually by 108%to reflect future traffic on all roadway segments throughout the project's build-out schedule. One key adjustment was made when projecting the 2004 traffic conditions. Since Livingston Road, between Immokalee Road and Radio Road, is planned on being opened as at least a 4-lane arterial roadway it's opening will have significant impacts on north-south arterial roadways within the project's study area. For this traffic study in 2004, Collier Boulevard's traffic was increased by the 108%annual growth factor but then an estimated 4 10% of its traffic was expected to be lost to Livingston Road. Likewise in 2004, Logan Boulevard's traffic was increased as previously mentioned and then 15%of its traffic was expected to be lost to Livingston Road. No further adjustments were made beyond 2004 in regards to the opening of Livingston Road. Exhibit 11 shows the Peak Season Daily Traffic in 2005, both with and without 50% of the project's total traffic. Since construction will not commence prior to late 2004, it will likely be late 2005 before a significant number of buildings will be completed and occupied. Hence Exhibit 11, shows the PSDT in late 2005 with 50% of the project's traffic impacting roadways within its RDI. All roadways within the project's radius of development impact will be either at LOS B or LOS C. Additionally, 50% of the project's traffic at such time will not lower the LOS on any roadway within its radius of develppmentimpact. Exhibit 12 depicts the Peak Season Daily Traffic in late 2006, both with and without 100% of the estimated traffic for the project. All roadways within the project's radius of development impact will be at LOS B or LOS C. Additionally, the project's total traffic in late 2006 will not lower the LOS on any roadway within its radius of development impact. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSES Signalized Analyses at the Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard Exhibits 13 and 14 were prepared to assist in the project's traffic movements at this intersection. Exhibit 13 shows the project's traffic movements at the AM Peak Hour and Exhibit 14 at the PM Peak Hour. These 2 exhibits were based on the trip distribution figures shown on Exhibits 4 and 5. The intersection analyses were performed using HCS 2000 software. Intersection counts were manually taken at the subject intersection on March 4, 2002, during the P.M. Peak Hour(see Exhibit 15). Since the counts were taken in prime season they were considered Peak Season counts. The 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM time frame was determined to be the PM Peak Hour. To project future traffic these traffic counts were increased annually by 8%. In 2003 for existing traffic, during the PM Peak Hour for Peak Season the intersection was at LOS D, with an average intersection delay of 47.5 seconds per vehicles, as shown on Exhibit 16. To reflect the opening of the Livingston Road Corridor in 2004, Collier Boulevard's traffic was increased by the 108% annual growth factor but then an estimated 10% of its traffic was expected to be lost to Livingston Road. In 2005, with the planned roadway improvements in place. the intersection was projected to be at LOS D during the PM Peak Hour, both with and without the project's traffic. The average delay was 35.8 seconds per vehicle without the project's traffic and 36.6 seconds 5 per vehicle with 50%of the project's traffic (see Exhibits 17 and 18). Per Donald Scott, Transportation Planning Manager, 10% of the southbound right and 10% of the eastbound left movements at the intersection were estimated to utilize the loop road in 2004. With the impact of the loop road, 50% of the project's traffic only adds 88 trips to the intersection in 2005 during PM Peak Hour. In 2006, the intersection was projected to remain at LOS D during the PM Peak Hour, both with and without the project's traffic. The average delay was 36.5 seconds per vehicle without the project's traffic and 39.1 seconds per vehicle with the project's traffic (see Exhibits 19 and 20). Per Donald Scott, Transportation Planning Manager, 20% of the southbound right and 20% of the eastbound left movements at the intersection were estimated to utilize the loop road in 2006. With the impact of the loop road,the project's total traffic only adds 176 trips to the intersection in 2006 during PM Peak Hour. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMENTS 1.3/1.4 Exhibit 13 shows numerous key roadway widening projects in North Naples in scheduled in FY 2004. Exhibit 10 shows the 2003 existing traffic with a significant number of roadway segments at LOS F during PSDT. However, all of the roadways segments shown at LOS F during 2003 PSDT will be widened commencing in FY 2004. Vanderbilt Beach Road is at LOS F in 2003 PSDT, between Logan Boulevard and Airport Road. It is scheduled for adding 4 additional lanes: between Airport Road and Livingston Road in FY 2004, between Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard in FY 2005, and between Logan Boulevard and CR 951 in FY 2006. Exhibit 10 also shows Collier Boulevard at LOS F, between Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard. Commencing in about February 2004, the segment from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road will be widened to 6 lanes, and the segment from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Golden Gate Boulevard will be widened to 4 lanes. That construction project is estimated to take 12 to 14 months. In 2005, Exhibit 11 shows all roadways to be at LOS A or LOS B within the project's RDI, even with 50%of the project's traffic impacting such roadways. In 2006, Exhibit 12 shows all roadways within the project's RDI to be at LOS A or LOS B, even with 100% of the project's traffic included. 4`4 Not applicable. 5.1/5.2 Exhibit 8 shows that the project's total traffic will impact several roadway segments that are currently at LOS F. These are Vanderbilt Beach Road, between Logan Boulevard and Oakes Boulevard,and Collier Boulevard, between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. However, both of these arterial roadways are scheduled for widening in FY 2003 or FY 2004. Exhibit 11 shows that prior to 50% of the subject project's traffic impacting either of these roadway segments in late 2005,the widening for each is scheduled for completion. 6 7.2 By sharing in the construction costs of the proposed loop road the subject site is proposing to share a common access onto Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road with the neighboring property to the northeast (the proposed Nagel-Craig Business Park PUD), the abutting land to the east (the approved Mission Hills commercial PUD), and the land to the west and north (the proposed Wolf Creek residential PUD). The project will also proposing a connector road from the proposed north-south roadway along the subject property's western boundary to the loop road, located along the subject site's eastern boundary. This will allow residents of the proposed residential Wolf Creek PUD to gain access to the proposed Mission Hills Shopping Center, the proposed business park,and the subject project without getting onto the County's arterial roadway network. 73 The project will meet the latest parking requirements within the LDC at the time of SDP review and approval. Prepared by: Reviewed by HOOVER PLANNING&DEV., INC. DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. ) •. William L. Hoover,AICP Peter S. Schoenauer,PE 1-11)*3 40TIS 1.REP 7 EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAP N W .,, E 0 .5 1 S Mile /► II f/ •. • - - i• I( •v o15 cr. o � = V o o m Ct t o o o L. Q ` • • -r. 1 :-•_ I '• t� T m Subject • Project -0 Q �� 0, O -0 J • • -I 00 Blvd. cllIlc w o v 0 o, 5 --� �� Pine Ridge Rd. White Blvd. it Green Blvd. zi -o W 0 O O O O'14 O a co c= o c O Golden Gate Parkwa Interstate 75 Interstate 75 (----. ...- ©akes Blvd. o0 00ZZO � NI 0 I DOD © R10 ��i UIQ �,I CCDo �1C h z = 22Z � 2 _ San a Barbara Blvd. „� l m r Z \a o Logan Blvd. o --+AI 14 —I ( —I Z C CO Z cxc.l / m � � � � tO Z -1 y ! � ' Zp -11 o 1.zr m M ° e) co CL �asrd� c © pa k � a2M1 CO r C.R. 951ii 4 1 a / f t_CollierIvd. c) c) I \Weber Blvd.\ v Z I t i714 Dr y 7'4 I i C) 0 X X X X -.4 L___-_____-__i -. g . , NI to Lo ay ;0119 . 2 z I n � kp O I a cn ,� co 1. rn o Q VIZ "I -G V11. © - 2 A O IN DOm LI rT1 --+ Wflson Blvd. r7 NJf �V in 4 z �c I \C.R. 846 b DO ai © O { o m a ti z co Ga 44 o ryn o o C^ a � a. a CD p1 4 tiz N PO Z ��a P. "i r-. r c to e4 ,.......Co 1. C) /Everglades Blvd. fT) a LI) p ut til-c / I 7DeSoto Blvd. Interstate 75 Interstate 75 o Oakes Blvd. cb u / I X ae co San i a Barbara Blvd. :e c° \, \ Logan Blvd. o ° l a N AN,0 o. eco I 10 co a Ft ee T tv 14 :i %\s i C.R. 951 a \ A Collier Blvd. \Weber Blvd.\ \�o \, CO „It cei C) N/9- oQ 4 01 J 3 o1. Nt$ m N-- TT j H (D ” I � o a a Rl Z LPo 0 co T DV �. 40 C-,4 © xo w O 1 ~� a'a _ en A (3) , a r"; y 0 0. Wilson Blvd. I (30 v s° '-1 to 0 c N W C.R. 846 El) �t 0 o)y. O. 0 (N Z C.A.- 0 0 N./- 0 fD .1 O Q '� � T /'J 03 Q C) co C.fi co ti C) Everglades Blvd. In iv ..-"'J , Q -4 spi DeSoto Blvd. m I EXHIBIT 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR PROJECT'S INGRESS POINTS rn PROPOSED PROPOSED j' WOLF CREEK BUSINESS RESID. PUD PARK 4% 19.5% Loop Rd. <' C 0.5% PROPOSED 20%/7- WOLF D%/WOLF CREEK BUCKS RUN PUD RESID. POD MISSION Subject HILLS ~ CENTER Site 37% VANDERBIL T 12% (d129 <---8% 7% BEACH RD. 7% 41% N W ,- E L S `o v EXHIBIT 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR PROJECT'S EGRESS POINTS rn ct PROPOSED PROPOSED (f) WOLF CREEK BUSINESS RESID. PUD PARK 4Z Loop Rd. PROPOSED / 19.5% T WOLF CREEK l09 sz� BUCKS RUN PUD I MISSION RESID. PUD 30% Subject HILLS 7' 20% 77 CEN TER 10.E Site 297/ I 39' I VANDERBIL T 107 z% > BEACH RD. 34 N W E m Q 0 L 5 0 Interstate 75 Interstate 75 p Oakes Blvd. 17- co Sonio Barbara Blvd. mbcc co ,� \Logan Blvd. 4 cow I : .O Nfo,o co -io S' VVI Q O^'fG' 1 CAGE; Q •e' pL �fcz, co q �4w N rn C.R. 951 Q. / a Collier Blvd. \Weber Blvd, ni �C �C mbm b co c)o 'o TO NVQ Z N Ch UO Q C L�� O n cp o --{ m O IT, N _Ii Z n _i / Ip CT) oa yc © q40/ �_ m ° Wilson Blvd. I C) ..iLn R. 846 N, ) m En Do o 0 K3 el- C3 ° a CA CD n a O co C) Everglades Blvd. 4 4i.N G4N oe co/ / DeSoto Blvd. N tit EXHIBIT 7 PLANNED ROADWAY I MPR O IVEMEN TS f Immokolee Road (C.R. 846) to N \_Lanin 7:719Y18 03 -.., CO O L i New Roods •� cb ° in FY 2005 Site g p U / FY 2004 V. derbilt Bead') Road --- ____I4—toning 6—toni;18 n 'min FY 2004 g 6—Loning in FY 2004 m in FY 2004 Golden Gate Blvd. Ea z -o 00 p, /6-Laving in FY 2007 O -' Pine Ridge Rd. White Blvd. 14> / Green Blvd. 16 rN m ir) CD e 0) o �° Go f i o eN ps\ v c a G°�Qot�� 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 N co Miles .-, W 0 Interstate 75 S EXHIBIT 8 DETERMINATION OF PROJECT'S ROI KEY: 1) GREATER OF PROJECT'S AM OR PM HOUR TRIPS 2) PERCENT OF ROADWAY'S LOS C AT PEAK HOUR 3) WITHIN ROI? (1% OR MORE OF LOS C) Immokalee Rood (C.R. 840 ,..„---- --- Ca 1.2% `1-1 0.8% o YES L. NO -''cli 41 .___. L. .. a) 13 97 \ Site Q 0 3.5X YES YES ,61\ I ono Rd .--- V 'polerbtlt Beach\ Rood \ 32 757„/ -6 1.2% 5,5% 147 YES YES 8.0% ci3 -6 YES Go/den Gate Blvd. Ea k- Q) ----------- ,.... ------ 18„ -sz) 129 29 c 0.98% 7.2% NO YES YES C:n o —a Pine Ridge Rd. White Blvd. 0 N14..----- 0.O8%1 7 Green Blvd. P,ir ir) IN, 63 LI-S Q) o cY) -.6 L. 'Le' .2 7 r12. 6 ep Cosi Li Q) CO \O 421 -4— .5 7 ....--., Q (1) Mile '- ..,_..,.„_. Interstate 75 EXHIBIT 9 SEASONAL TRAFFIC FACTORS KEY N 1) PSDT/AADT RATIO W -'� E 0 .5 1 S I I I e lmmokalee Rd ` Mile / - — 0 108.82% o, ao -46'0 Li 107.41% iY m ., c 2i o 0 c- \c.) Q 102.09% b (Li my) RA. Vanderbilt Beach Rd. .,_. > T Zt m Subject > Project Ea 103.68% 15 0, 99.68% m 0 o ---I96.61% Golden Gate c z Blvd. / i oII , ,� 99.09% or, .c S Pine Ridge Rd. , White Blvd. /Green Blvd. o . m 0 0 ct o 0 C 0 0 Q` Q o n C 0 Golden Gate Parkway \ I EXHIBIT 10 2003 EXISTING TRAFFIC KEY N 1) AADT/LOS ,s 2) PSD T/LOS 5 07 w . . E I ► 1 S Immakplee Rd. Mile N. / 22,103/L OS B Q"�, a 24,052/LOS B -- v,' 19,672/LOS F mer Li Z 21,130/LOS F cata a 0 118,967/LOS F 19,363/LOS F ti Loop Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd. '\ N IoS Subct 11,748 B Project ti N. 11, 710/LOS B m /7,298/1 OS B am v cn 11,714/LOS B-2 18,558/LOS ,Golden Gate o l. 17,929/LOS F Blvd. I tb ./ c ; 20,888/LOS 8 0 In 20,698/LOS 8 ,c S -I Pine Ridge Rd. White Blvd. Green Blvd. ti N. -0 m 0 O Ct L. r_ .c o 0 .,,L 0 c 0 Golden Gate parkway EXHIBIT 11 2005 PEAK SEASON DAILY TRAFFIC KEY 1) 149THOUT PROJECTS TRAFFIC/LOS 2) PROJECT'S TRAFFIC (BASED ON 50% OF PROJECT'S TRAFFIC) 3) Wl TH PROJECT'S TRAFFIC/LOS N .i 1 W i1 E 0 .5 1 5 I 1 I _ 0 lmmokalee Rd Mile N 28,054/LOS B - — 0 108 rn 0 28,162/L OS B o 0 N 22,181/LOS B o I m v '360 CC 022,541/LOS B 0 22,585/LOS B 13,659/LOS B ° 0 162 487 .t._ 0 22,747/LOS B 14,146/LOS B Q v cth pp Rd Vanderbilt Beach Rd. 1 Subject Project .•••"*.. m 13,659/LOS B 791 b m 11,614/LOS B o, 14,450/LOS B os:-5 o 0 144 _, Golden Gnte o b11,758/LOSB / ° 18,821/LOS B Blvd. a c 739 -o 24,142/L OS C v 19,560/LOS B 3 648 or, C s '' Pine Ridge Rd. White Blvd. Green Blvd. lzi 0 m 0 o 0 i a 0 O Cl. m o c 0 Golden Gote Parkway EXHIBI T 12 2006 PEAK SEASON DAILY TRAFFIC KEY 1) WITHOUT PROJECT'S TRAFFIC/LOS 2) PROJECT'S TRAFFIC (BASED ON 100% OF PROJECT'S TRAFFIC) 3) WITH PROJECT'S TRAFFIC/LOS N %w E 0 .5 1 S Al as as•. s Z./ Mile 11 to N. 30,298/LOS C 216 0) 30,514/L OS C © ° ti 23,955/LOS B o tii 65 721 �, v 24,392/LOS B 14,752/LOS B 24,676/LOS 8 O 0 324 973 •� 24,716/LOS B 15, 725/LOS B Q V.nderbil :each R.. 1111 Subject Project a 3- Ea m 14,752/LOS B c 7,583 - " 12,543/LOS Bo, 16,335/LOS B m b 288 ° , 111 . • �00� • 12,831/LOS B Blvd • 20,327/LOS : L 01,478 . 26 ,073/LOS C y 21,805/LOS B cu1,297 °i 27,370/LOS C =iaPine Ridge Rd. White Blvd. V Green Blvd. 0 m o L. -0 O 0 0. a3 'C O 0 0 1-fl` Golden Gate Porkwo EXHIBIT 13 PROJECT'S AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS KEY: 1) ENTERING TRIPS (178) 2) EXITING TRIPS (41) 176rn PROPOSED PROPOSED v C j WOLF CREEK BUSINESS Z RESID. PUD PARK 35 i �2` Loop Rd. E' E-1 PROPOSED 8 I` WOLF CREEK ,I,36 °i BUCKS RUN PUD I 4 MISSION RESID. PUD 12 Subject HILLS 8 3 CENTER Site 12 / l 1 _ 3� (...> 21 ,`-> 14 VANDERBILT � yE— 36 T 12 14 2—> 4 BEACH RD. 12—> 4-- 73 N a m w 'i b S EXHIBI T 14 PROJECT'S PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS KEY: 1) ENTERING TRIPS (127) 2) EXITING' TRIPS (232) 16 PROPOSED PROPOSED (-) u-) WOLF CREEK BUSINESS RESID. PUD PARK 25 5 /\ Loo Rd. < 1 PROPOSED 45 1\ WOLF CREEK23 26 1 > BUCKS RUN PUD /.\ RES'/D. MISSION ID. PUD 70 Subject\. HILLS 7 6 46 1 CENTER 23 Site 67 4\1 7 47 VANDERBILT 16 e `-) < 15 < 10 2 59 1 2 > BEACH RD. 9 > 23---> 7 52 N -6 vv E LS!C\ (i) 0 Exhibit 15 fa.SyDryI Road/Weather Conditions /OCC, L/. 5A h'C/'J Date ...7-441 -Pg Time 4.®6'"4:4, Intersection Vandel'i1/? / i I '.. i -c Co//ref g/V. Roadway Approaching Int. Southbound RT #HV ST #11V LT .HV PD RR BS TM VOL North-South Roadway -49 3 /44.445_442_4____44___,....1_464 e*. A2. , / 4o 2 126 ,lq 13 - o 14 -- 2 .17 -' -- Z -2-444:fi---- 2-- -o- - --,t7- ' 3 lig East - Wept Roadway , - if /3.2- _Va',der,61/74 &'aeA Rd. 37 2 , 132 10 9 0 i/ 178 34 2 12A 6 3 / 20 6 is"9 27 3 87 .S" 6 o /0 7 120 26 2_ 8 ? 5 13 a 13_ 8 12s 72 18 5.65 7$ 6 '1' 1 _ 118 rot- /- NORTH 124 9 430 z6 3/ l ,S' 58-c : )ad ay Apprpachina :nt. Eastb•und, Roadway Approaching Int. Westbound LT HV ST #HV RT #HV PD RR BS TM VOL LT #HV ST ItHV RT #HV PARR BS TM VOL -94 6 l'i / 37 7 4 1 160 ./ 3 26 _A- -•(.9= a , _0 1 47 —/3 -S' / 1 O 46 1/ /3 Z ' l 0, 8 d /1 1 6 0 a ' , 3' / 0 57 4 ' -4- .r /scs _ /0 / 30 1 4 - f : =2 ' 1 ' 19 =74 8- 1Z l 40 .,X 17 1- 126. 8 / /0 / , 6 0 .o , . I 24 1?6 3 16 0 63 4 /3 .s' AS* 2, 3' 39 S 6 / 0 5 70 22 2 /6 0 57 3 /0 6 ,163' 3 1 24 3 S 0 a 6 32 22 .5` ,20 a 46 3 /0 7 158 12 / 18 2 8 1 o 7 3 86 3 15 0 /3 ¢ lb 8 144 6 0 14 z 7 0 1 8 27 X5'1 0 /2'/ 2. .i 38Q 32' , ci • —14 3 94 ID- 4"i/ ,,*0' 47 ' .j - 3 'o'' -4.1 - 356 13 67 0 ,2 14 49 63z 117 5 91. /z 26 2 1 /6r KEY LT = Left Turns ST = Straights Roadway Approaching Int. Northbound RT = Right Turns LT T ST 4#H RT H P,RR B` TM VOL 4HV = # Heavy Vehicles TM = Time Periods* , iiia____ _�ial��ii1� ' 4.14111:=I w�w�w�_� PD = Pedestrians i���s�a�'� magi a i NIECNI RR = Right Turn—On Red ,]BS = Buses StoppingVOL = LT + ST + RT � :IEI rlin *TIME PERIOD KEY 20 14 • 136 AM 1 = ' :00=7: V5 4:00=4: 15 542 36 ° 117 159 2 = 7. 15-700 4:15-4:30 493 33 - //6 • 1ST_ 3 = 7: 0-7/:45 4: 30-4:45 1-94 /'\ 4 = 7:4',/8:00 4:45-5:00 '938 /967 .29 © 137 1 ©©■ © IOW 9 5 = 8:0 1 : : 15 5:00-5:15 ,..i--'549 6 = 8:X5-: - 30 5: 15-5:30 5/.S J596 7 = 8/30-8: 45 5:30-5:45 467 1969 118 18 1-79 sf is 2 0 05 8 = . ':45-9:O a 5:45-6:00 4-683` /499 Tot .= Totals Totals Exhibit 16-A HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 71alyst: Bill Hoover, AICP Inter. : CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Agency: Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc . Area Type : All other areas Date : 4-24-03 Jurisd: Existing Traffic Period: PM Peak Hour Year : 2003 Peak Season Project ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment E/W St: Vanderbilt Beach Road N/S St : Collier Blvd. (CR 951 ) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound I Southbound IL T R1LT R1L T R1L T R I I I I No. Lanes I 1 1 010 1 011 1 011 1 1 LGConfig I L TR I LTR 1 L TR 1LTR Volume 1384 72 226 151 102 28 1127 517 19 133 464 134 ane Width 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vol I 0 I 0 I 0 I 58 1 Duration 0 . 25 Area Type : All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left P NB Left P Thru P Thru P Right P Right P Peds Peds WB Left P SB Left Thru P Thru Right P Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 28 . 0 12 . 0 16 . 0 9 . 0 Yellow 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 All Red 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 Cycle, Length: 85 . 0 secs Exhibit 16-B [age 2 MS-Sigmas 1.1 41101310-0304-C4651143 • Intersection Performance '.., r.-mma ry . _.pr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 375 1138 1. 14 0.33 118.3 F TR 555 1684 0. 60 0.33 28. 5 C 79. 1 E Westbound LTR 399 - 1210 0. 50 0.33 27 . 4 C 27 .4 C Northbound L 255 1805 0 . 55 0.14 42. 4 D TR 734 1890 0. 81 0.39 32.7 C 34 .5 C Southbound L 191 1805 0. 19 0.11 36. 9 D T 671 1900 0. 77 0.35 32.7 C 31.2 C R 570 1615 0 . 15 0.35 19. 3 B Intersection Delay = 47 .5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Bill Hoover, AICP Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. 3785 Airport Road N. , Suite B-1 Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 239-403-8899 Fax: 239-403-9009 E-Mail: Hooverplanningl@aol.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst : Bill Hoover, AICP Agency/Co. : Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Date Performed: 4-24-03 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Intersection: CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Area Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: Existing Traffic Talysis Year: 2003 Peak Season :oject ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment East/West Street North/South Street Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Blvd. (CR 951) Exhibit 17-A HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 nalyst : Bill Hoover, AICP Inter. : CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Ad. gency: Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Area Type: All other areas oate : 4-24-03 Jurisd: Without Project ' s Traffic Period: PM Peak Hour Year : 2005 Peak Season Project ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment E/W St: Vanderbilt Beach Road N/S St: Collier Blvd. (CR 951) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R1L T R 1 I 1 I I 1 No. Lanes 1 2 2 111 2 112 3 111 3 1 1 LGConfig 1 L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R 1 Volume 1448 84 264 159 119 32 1134 543 21 136 487 140 1 Lane Width 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 TOR Vol 1 53 1 7 1 4 1 62 Duration 0 . 25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left P NB Left P Thru p Thru Right p Right Peds Peds WB Left P SB Left P Thru p Thru Right Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 14 . 0 25. 0 15 . 0 36 . 0 Yellow 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 All Red 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 Cycle Length: 110 . 0 secs Exhibit 17-B Ks-skilful, 4.1 E11.:740-05VI 0195110 P 2 Intersection Performance Summary fpr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach sane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 796 3502 0. 63 0.23 42.0 D T 820 3610 0. 11 0.23 34 .0 C 42. 4 D 367 1615 0. 64 0.23 46. 6 D Westbound L 230 1805 0. 29 0. 13 46. 6 D T 459 _ _ 3610 0. 29 0. 13 45.1 D 45. 4 D R 206 1615 0. 14 0. 13 44.0 D Northbound L 478 3502 0 .31 0. 14 44 .5 D T 1698 5187 0 . 36 0. 33 28 .7 C 31.7 C 529 1615 0 . 04 0. 33 25.3 C Southbound L 246 1805 0. 16 0.14 43.4 D T 1698 5187 0 . 32 0.33 28.3 C 29. 0 C R 529 1615 0. 16 0. 33 27 . 0 C Intersection Delay = 35 . 8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 .1 Bill Hoover, AICP Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. 3785 Airport Road N. , Suite B-1 Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 239-403-8899 Fax: 239-403-9009 E-Mail: Hooverplanningl@aol.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst: Bill Hoover, AICP Agency/Co. : Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Date Performed: 4-24-03 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Intersection: CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Area Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: Without Project's Traffic Analysis Year: 2005 Peak Season roject ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment East/West Street North/South Street Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Blvd. (CR 951) Exhibit 1B-4 ----... HCS2000 : Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 nalyst : Bill Hoover, AICP Inter. : CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Agency: Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4-24-03 Jurisd: With 50% of Project ' s Traffic Period: PM Peak Hour Year : 2005 Peak Season Project ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment E/W St : Vanderbilt Beach Road N/S St : Collier Blvd. (CR 951 ) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY L Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound 1 I L T R 1 L T R I L T R 1 L T R 1 1 I I I I No . LanesI2 2 111 2 112 3 111 3 1 1 LGConfig 1 L T R1LT RILT R I L T R I ----. rolume 1448 90 303 159 124 32 1160 543 21 140 495 140 -ane Width 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . ( 1 RTOR Vol I 61 1 7 I 4 I 62 I Duration 0 . 25 Area Type : All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B EB Left P NB Left P Thru P Thru P Right P Right P Peds Peds WB Left P SB Left P Thru P Thru P Right P Right P Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 14 . 0 25 . 0 15 . 0 36. 0 „Yellow 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 111 Red 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 Cycle Length : 110. 0 secs RCS-Signals 4.1 Pllei]40-0517-Qf51f@ Exhibit 1 8-B Pale t Intersection Performance , Summary )prl Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach .pane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 796 3502 0. 63 0.23 42.0 D T 820 3610 0. 12 0.23 34 . 1 C 44 .1 D R 367 1615 0.73 0.23 51. 6 D Westbound L 230 1805 0.29 0. 13 46. 6 D T 459 _ _ 3610 0. 30 0. 13 45.2 D 45.5 D R 206 1615 0 . 14 0. 13 44 .0 D- Northbound L 478 3502 0.37 0. 14 45. 4 D T 1698 5187 0. 36 0.33 28 .7 C 32. 4 C R 529 1615 0. 04 0.33 25.3 C Southbound L 246 1805 0. 18 0. 14 43. 6 D T 1698 5187 0. 32 0. 33 28 . 3 C 29.2 C R 529 1615 0. 16 0. 33 27 . 0 C Intersection Delay = 36. 6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D /e1 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Bill Hoover, AICP Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. 3785 Airport Road N. , Suite B-1 Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 239-403-8899 Fax: 239-403-9009 E-Mail: Hooverplanningl@aol.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst: Bill Hoover, AICP Agency/Co. : Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Date Performed: 4-24-03 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Intersection: CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Area Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: With 505 of Project' s Traffic Analysis Year: 2005 Peak Season -Iroject ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment East/West Street North/South Street Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Blvd. (CR 951) Exhibit 19-A .--.... HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 mnalyst : Bill Hoover, AICP Inter. : CR 951 /Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Agency: Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Area Type : All other areas Date: 4-24-03 Jurisd: Without Project ' s Traffic Period: PM Peak Hour Year : 2006 Peak Season Project ID; Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment E/W St : Vanderbilt Beach Road N/S St : Collier Blvd. (CR 951) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound 1 1 L T R 1 L T R I L T R I L T R 1 I 1 I I No . Lanes12 2 111 2 112 3 111 3 1 LGConfig 1 L T R I L T R1LT RILTR T1 " olume 1484 91 285 164 129 35 1145 586 23 139 526 151 .4ane Width 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . ( 1 RTOR Vol 1 57 I 8 1 5, 1 67 I Duration 0 . 25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left P NB Left. P Thru P Thru P Right P Right P Peds Peds WB Left P SB Left P Thru P Thru p Right P Right P Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right I WB Right Green 14 . 0 25. 0 15 . 0 36 . 0 Yellow 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 ----. All Red 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 Cycle Length: 110. 0 secs Exhibit 19-B NCS-Slarial. 4.1 Fi1.:340-M11-CP952W ftg. 2 Intersection Performance Summary Xppr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 796 3502 0. 68 0.23 43.4 D T 820 3610 0. 12 0.23 34 .1 C 43. 9 D R 367 1615 0. 69 0.23 49.1 D Westbound L 230 1805 0.31 0. 13 47 .1 D T 459. _ 3610 0.31 0. 13 45.4 D 45.7 D R 206 1615 0. 15 0.13 44 .2 D Northbound L 478 3502 0.34 0.14 44. 9 D T 1698 5187 0.38 0.33 29.1 C 32. 1 C 529 1615 0. 04 0.33 25 .3 C Southbound L 246 1805 0 . 17 0. 14 . 43. 6 D T 1698 5187 0. 34 0.33 28 . 6 C 29. 3 C R 529 1615 0. 18 0. 33 27 .1 C Intersection Delay = 36. 5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Bill Hoover, AICP Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc, Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. 3785 Airport Road N. , Suite B-1 Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 239-403-8899 Fax: 239-403-9009 E-Mail: Hooverplanningl@aol.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst: Bill Hoover, AICP Agency/Co. : Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Date Performed: 4-24-03 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Intersection: CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Area Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: Without Project' s Traffic Analysis Year: 2006 Peak Season Project ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment n East/West Street North/South Street Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Blvd. (CR 951) Exhibit 20-A ----, HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Analyst : Bill Hoover, AICP Inter. : CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Agency: Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc . Area Type: All other areas Date : 4-24-03 Jurisd: With 100% of Project ' s Traffic Period: PM Peak Hour Year : 2006 Peak Season Project ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment E/W St: Vanderbilt Beach Road N/S St : Collier Blvd. (CR 951) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I- Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I IL T R1L T R I L TR1LTR 1 I I I I No . Lanes12 2 111 2 112 3 111 3 1 1 LGConfig1LT R I L T R I L T RILTR — 1 Volume 1484 103 364 164 139 35 1197 586 23 146 542 15] I Lane Width 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12. 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 112 . 0 12 . 0 12. RTOR Vol I 73 I 8 I 5 I 67 1 Duration 0 . 25 Area Type : All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 LB Left P I NB Left P Thru P Thru P Right P Right P Peds Peds WB Left P SB Left P Thru P Thru P Right P Right P Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 14 . 0 25 . 0 15. 0 36 . 0 ----- Yellow 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 All Red 1 .0 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 Cycle Length: 110 . 0 secs I Exhibit 20-B NCS-Signals 1.1 2i1ai340-O1Vg-2l.2 Pans 2 Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 796 3502 0. 68 0.23 43. 4 D T 820 3610 0. 14 0.23 34. 3 C 49.7 D R 367 1615 0. 88 0.23 65. 8 E Westbound L 230 1805 0. 31 0. 13 47 . 1 D T 45-9 _ - 3610 0.34 0. 13 45. 7 D 45. 9 D R 206 1615 0. 15 0.13 44 .2 D Northbound L 478 3502 0. 46 0.14 46. 9 D T 1698 5187 0.38 0.33 29. 1 C 33. 4 C R 529 1615 0. 04 0. 33 25. 3 C Southbound L 246 1805 0.21 0.14 44 . 1 D T 1698 5187 0 . 35 0 .33 28 . 7 C 29. 6 C R 529 1615 0. 18 0. 33 27 . 1 C Intersection Delay = 39. 1 (seclveh) Intersection LOS = D HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 . 1 Bill Hoover, AICP Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. 3785 Airport Road N. , Suite B-1 Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 239-403-8899 Fax: 239-403-9009 E-Mail: Hooverplanningl@aol.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Analyst: Bill Hoover, AICP Agency/Co. : Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. Date Performed: 4-24-03 Analysis Time Period: PM Peak Hour Intersection: - CR 951/Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Area Type: All other areas Jurisdiction: With 100% of Project' s Traffic Analysis Year: 2006 Peak Season Project ID: Catalina Plaza Plan Amendment East/West Street North/South Stree Vanderbilt Beach Road Collier Blvd. (CR 951) ITEM V.E. 1 -3 Davidson Engineering, Inc. LAND DEVELOPMENT•UTiUTIES•PERMITTING•WATER MANAGEMENT•FEASIBILITY STUDIES April 22,2003 Collier County Development Services Long Range Planning Department Attn: David Weeks,Chief Planner 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 Ref: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Additional 15.88 acres of land to the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Sub-district. Dear Mr.Weeks, The following addresses the items listed in section V.E of the Application for a Request to Amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan: V.E.1 Public Facilities The following is an analysis for the Potable Water and Sanitary flows for the proposed retail and office space square footage under the proposed Comp.Plan amendment. Potable Water Estimated Flows under Proposed Amendment The following calculations are derived from information found in Potable Water Sub- Element of the Public Facilities Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance No.2002-54, The proposed Comp. Plan Amendment 60,000 s.f.of retail space and 90,000 s.1 of office space. The typical water use rate for retail space is 0.1 gpd/s.f. The typical water use rate for office space is 20 gpd per employee.The total potable water use for this development is estimated at 19,500 GPD or 0.0195 MGD. Total 19,500 GPD (.0195 MGD) The project is located in the service area of the North Collier County Water Treatment Facility. The subject project is located within the Urban Area with standards for Potable Water established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service(LOS)Standards and 2002 Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR)for Potable Water are as follows: 2154 TRADE CENTER WAY,SUITE#3,NAPLES,FLORIDA 34109 • 239-5973916 • FAX 239-597-5169 Potable Water LOS Standard 185 GPD/Capita Available Inventory as of 9/30/02 32.0 MGD Required Inventory as of 9/30/07 38.5 MGD Planned CIE FY 03-07 20.0 MGD 5-Year Surplus or(Deficit) 13.5 MGD Minimum standards for Potable Water are being met or exceeded and the proposed increase of 0.0195 MGD will not significantly change the projection. Sanitary Sewer Estimated Flows under Proposed Amendment The following calculations are derived from information found in Sanitary Sewer Sub- Element of the Public Facilities Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance No. 2002-54. A typical sanitary sewer use for retail space is 0.10 gpd/s.f. The typical sewer use rate for office space is 20 gpd per employee. This would equate to approximately 19,500 GPD or 0.0195 MGD for the proposed project. Total 19,500 GPD (0.0195 MGD) The project is located in the service area of the North Collier County Water Reclamation Facility. The subject project is located within the Urban Area with standards for Sanitary Sewer established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service(LOS)Standards and 2002 Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR)for Sanitary Sewer are as follows: Sanitary Sewer LOS Standard 145 GPD/Capita Available Inventory as of 9/30/02 18.8 MGD Required Inventory as of 9/30/07 17.7 MGD Planned CIE FY 03-07 5.3 MGD 5-Year Surplus or(Deficit) 6.4 MOD Minimum standards for Sanitary Sewer are being met or exceeded and the proposed increase of 0.0195 MGD will not significantly change the projection. Dr The subject project is located within the Urban Area with standards for Drainage established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service(LOS)Standards and 2002 Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR)for Drainage are as follows: Drainage LOS Standard Future Development—25 year,3 day storm Existing Development—current service level Available Inventory as of 9/30/02 374 Canal Miles Required Inventory as of 9/30/07 374 Canal Miles Planned CIE FY 03-07 14 Canal Miles 5-Year Surplus or(Deficit) N/A The proposed development in the amendment area will be designed to comply with the 25 yr,3 day routing requirements. Solid Waste: The established LOS for capital solid waste facilities is two years of landfill lined cell disposal capacity at present fill rates and ten years of landfill raw land capacity at present fill rates. No adverse impacts to the existing solid waste facilities are anticipated from this 150,000 square foot project. The subject project is located within the Urban Area with standards for Solid Waste established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service(LOS)Standards and 2002 Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR)for Solid Waste are as follows: Solid Waste LOS Standard 10 year of permittable capacity at average disposal rate/previous(5)years Available Inventory as of 9/30/02 8,833,453 Site Tons Required Inventory as of 9/30/07 5,655,833 Site Tons Planned CIE FY 03-07 0 Site Tons 5-Year Surplus or(Deficit) 912,258 Site Tons Parka: Community and Regional The subject project is located within the Urban Area with standards for Community and Regional Parks established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The currently adopted minimum Level of Service(LOS) Standards and 2002 Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR)for Community and Regional Parks are as follows: Community Park Lands LOS Standard 1.2882 acres per 1000 population Available Inventory as of 9/30/02 459.6 Acres Required Inventory as of 9/30/07 390.9 Acres Planned CIE FY 03-07 0 Acres 5-Year Surplus or(Deficit) 87.7 Acres Regional Park Lands LOS Standard 2.9412 acres per 1000 population Available Inventory as of 9/30/02 1045.1 Acres Required Inventory as of 9/30/07 1016.3 Acres Planned CIE FY 00-04 108.0 Acres 5-Year Surplus or(Deficit) 136.8 Acres Minimum standards for County Community and Regional Parks are being met or exceeded. V.E.3—Public Facilities The proposed commercial project would have no effect on schools. The proposed project would increase the requirement for fire/police protection and emergency medical services but the estimated costs of these 3 services would be offset by the applicant paying impact fees,at the time of permitting. Police protection would be provided by the Collier County Sheriffs Department. Fire protection would be provided the North Naples Fire District. Emergency medical services would be provided by Collier County EMS. Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you require additional information. Sincerely, put u Peter S.Schoenauer,P.E. Project Manager Davidson Engineering,Inc. ITEM V.E. 1-3 Continued PUBLIC FACILITIES LOCATION MAP iImmokalee Rood o® p p ® b g O m °f S dSub pre k \ �„t Project Vanderbilt Beach Rood IIM vcmderbill Beach Rood Ext. rr°1 m Blossom (Jr. e o Item V. I Golden Gate Blvd J& c She OO A c a m Pine Ridge Road Pine Ridge Rd. Kerte Blvd. O '}' y 0 .5 1 7-1let m tI i s Mile - b I Liven Blvd.vGreen &vim D eiC m V p. Ln 0 43 S Q S a Za m t t Et X" cc m Off. °i £ Ci z0 4...._______ yQ Gorden Gate Pkwy \\................„ct. 0 S M Il r-+-E Q nteratate 75 0 .5 1 ! i 1 Ern 15--"---' Mlle Radio Rd. r EX/ST7NG SERVICES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP KEYFO ARE DEPT. 0 D•IERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Q SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION Q minis © WATER TREATMENT PLANT Tr WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT • ..al;),., . • • .......-...i...... . 4 i I 3 .% • NI H 0 . ..• ...... — 0 • 79 . 0 I M 0 r COt [7.1 . - tr CD •; 'Cf ro H S O P 'C b ti •N • rt • 0 , . Iii;,tt 1 I-1:: 4.4(4 11 ® ` C z 0 6' I C• z ,�', • • a ^ • �\ ` ' r ��/ /Q ' r . 1 • Item V.G. 3.a 2628633 OR: 2670 PG: 0578 'This Instrument Prepared By RICORDIO to OPPICIAL RICO3DS of COLLIIR COOITT, FL and Please Return To: O5JO112000 at 03:51PM DWIGHT D. BROC[, MIK COIR 509760.00 RIC Ill 15,00 t1% JOHN F. STEWART DOC•,70 3561.10 '►ySHEPPARD, BRETT, STEWART Sete: 1 V4 v &HERSCH, P.A. SBIPPARD BRITT IT AL P 0 ORAYII 100 '0. 41�' 2121 West First Street rT OTIRS PL 33902 P. O. Drawer 400 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Grantee(s)S.S. #65-0877951 THIS WARRANTY DFED, made this a0 day of ,pr i ( _, 2000, between Harvey Bros. Farms,Inc.,a Maryland corporation iI whose post office address is: 7373 Vanderbilt Bea.b Road Extension Naples, Florida 34119 hereinafter called the grantor, to Mark L.Lindner,Trustee unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D I- 4-99 with full power and authority either to protect,conserve and to sell,or to lease or to encumber or otherwise manage and dispose of the real eroper'ty described herein whose post office address is: 4099 Tamlami Trail North,2 Floor Naples, Florida 34103 hereinafter called the grantee: (Wherever used herein the terms "grantor" and "grantee"include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations) WITNESSETH,that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of$10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens,remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee all that certain land situate in Collier County, State of Florida, viz: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT"A" Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record,if any, and taxes for 1999 and subsequent years. Property Appraiser's Parcel identification Number: A portion of 00204040002 Item V.G.3.a llllll- ' OR: 2670 PG: 0579 • TOGETHER,with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. AND the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever;and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 1999. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered Harvey Bros. Farms, Inc., a Maryland in / P esence: corporation o ' _', r By. ,-. -- Witness Si.lature Fred R. Harvey, PresjQ iii . • r :i, ,.aivll_J VV Pri 1 • : e of Wi 1.1 st __ 'tress Si IiIr u • Printed Name of Witness STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2C day of_Aro - 2000,by FRED R. HARVEY,as President of Harvey Bros. Farms, inc., a Maryland corporation, who is personally known to me or who has produced N/A as identification. (Seal) Notary_ blic / • My Commission Expires; Printed Notary Signature • SHERRY N.SINES I• MY COMMISSION i CC at0586 EXPry IRES,Sworn* ' 2 r • Item V.G.3 .a >tt>t OR: 2670 PG: 0580 *f EXHIBIT "A" ' '/.of Section 34 Township48 A tract or parcel of land located in the S /:of the SE /.of the SE South, Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 34 run N 01° 26' 37" W along the Easterly right-of-way of State Road 951 and the Easterly line of said Section 34 for 145.13 feet, thence run N 88' 55'54" W for 100.09 feet to the Westerly right-of-way of said State Road 951 and the Northerly right-of-way of Vanderbilt Road; thence run N 88° 55' 54" W along said Northerly right-of-way for 665.33 feet to the Point of Beginning of the lands herein described; thence continue N 88° 55' 54" W alontr said right-of-way for 665.67 feet; thence run N 01° 26' 38" W for 523.86 feet to the Northerly line of said S ''A of the SE '/ of the SE ''/ of said Section 34; thence run S 88° 57' 19" E along said fractional lire for 665.66 feet; thence run S 01' 26' 39" E for 524.14 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 8 acres, more or less. 1 PIM Item V.G.3.b This Instrument Prepared By and Please Return To: 2803171 OR: 2832 PG: 2869 JOHN F. STEWART t1COHDID In OFFICIAL R1rokDs of COLLI1t CODMTl, !1 SHEPPARD, BRETT, STEWART 05111/2001 it 0::21141 DWIGHT t. !ROCK, CLIII & HERSCH,P.A. Cott 551521.10 2121 West First Street SIC !1t 15.00 P. O. Drawer 400 DOC•,70 3551.2$ Fort Myers, Florida 33902 MA: aNtlPeto Tutt at AL 2121IIt? tt FT Mast FL 33501 Grantee(s)S.S. #G5-0877951 THIS WARRANTY DEED, made this day of )41,k, , 2001. between Harvey Bros. Farms,Inc.,a Maryland corporation j whose post office address is: 7373 Vanderbilt Reach Road Extension Naples, Florida 34119 hereinafter called the grantor,to Mark L. Lindner,Trustee unrecorded Land Trust U/I/D 1.4.99 with full power and authority either to protect,conserve and to sell,or to lease or to encumber or otherwise manage and dispose of the real property described herein whose post office address is: 4099?Intim'Trail North, 2 Floor Naples, Florida 34103 hereinafter called the grantee: (Wherever used herein the tenni "grantor"and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs,legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations) . WITNESSETH,that the grantor, for and in consideration of the suns of S 10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby aoknowlodgod, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens,remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee all that certain land situate in Collier County, State of Florida,viz: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT"A" Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record, if any, and taxes for 2001 and subsequent years. Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification Number: A portion of 00204040002 • I Item V.G. 3 .b OR: 2832 PG: 2870 TOGETHER,with all the tenements,hcre4itatutrronta and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever AND the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell anu convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the seine against the IawfLl claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2000. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presenia the d,iv and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered Harvey Bros. Farms, Inc.,a Maryland in Our Presence: corporation /� UYli9'�1/1� _ Byt Witness Signature Fred R. larvey, Presider •� G, Printed Name of Witness 411 tness Si!nat • 'nnted Name of Witness STATE OF FLORIDA • COUNTY OF LEE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of r/A 2001, by FRED R. HARVEY, as President of Harvey Bros. Farms, inc., a Maryland corpdration, wlfis personalsown o me or who has produced as identification, • fI/ L (Seal) Notary Public My Commission Expires: Printed Notary Signature Kathleen Ellen Vaienthe qt. ►ryCOAaattlOIIS CCM III ExXNFS 2 1111 Item V.G.3.b OR, 2832 PG: 2871 *** • EXHIBIT"A" A portion of the South '/:of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast '..of Section 34, 'Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as t011ows Commence at the Southeast Corner of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 last, Collier County, Florida; thence north 88° 59' 06" West, along the south line of the Southeast 1. of said Section 34, a distance of 2,096.56 feet; thence North 01° 28' 07" West, a distance of 145.00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Vanderbilt Road, the same being the point of beginning of the parcel of land herein described, thence departing Boni said northerly. right-of-way line, continue North 01° 28' 07" West, a distance of 523 75 feet, thence South 89 00'49" East,a distance of 665.64 feet; thence South 01°28'07" East, a distance of 524 05 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of said Vanderbilt Road, thence North 88•' 59' Ob" West, along said northerly right-of-way line,a distance of 665.65 feet to the point of beginning Containing 8.0 acres,more or less. 1. -- Item N.r.G.3.c glii2988374 OR: 3043 PG: 2662 This Instrument Prepared By !UNDIDla OrrICIAL IIC01D5 of COLLIII MUM, it 05/2412002 it 02:46PN DWIGHT I. DOCI, MU and Please Return To: CONS 594656,D0 RIC FII 15.00 JOHN F. STEWART DOC-.10 4162.90 SHEPPARD,BRETT,STEWART tete: HERSCH&KINSEY,P.A. 811PPAID IIITT I1 14 2121 West First Street PTONtIlS fl400 33902 P.O.Drawer 400 Fort Myers,Florida 33902 Grantee(s)S.S. #65-0877951 THIS WARRANTY DEED,made this 22nd day of May ,2002,between Harvey Bros. Farms,Inc.,a Maryland corporation whose post office address is: 7373 Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Naples,Florida 34119 hereinafter called the grantor,to Mark L.Lindner,Trustee unrecorded Land Trust U/T/D 1-4-99 with full power and authority either to protect,conserve and to sell,or to lease or to encumber or otherwise manage and dispose of the real property described herein whose post office address is: 4980 Tamlami Trail,N.,Suite 200 Naples,Florida 34103 hereinafter called the grantee: (Wherever used herein the terms"grantor"and "grantee" include all the parties to this Instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations) WITNESSETH,that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of$10.00 and other valuable considerations,receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,hereby grants,bargains,sells, aliens,remises,releases,conveys and confirms unto tie grantee all that certain land situate in Collier County,State of Florida,viz: V SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Subject to easements,restrictions and reservations of record, if any, and taxes for 2002 and subsequent years. Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification Number: A portion of 00204040002 Item V'G. 3 .c OR: 3043 PG: 2663 TOGETHER,with all the tenements,hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD,the same in fee simple forever. AND the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land,and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever;and that said land is free of all encumbrances,except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said grantor has signed and sealed those presents the day and year first above written. Signed,Sealed and Delivered Harvey Bros. Farms,Inc..a Maryland in Our Presence: corporation (/ r Witness Sigt ure Fred R.Harvey,Preside RoivEYD. I4a, 1€Prinnted Namef Witnessa 4 Witness Signature C. Printed Name of Witness STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF L e, , The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this = day of�..60t�y 2002,by FRED R. HARVEY,as President of Harvey Bros. Farms, Inc.,a Marylandcorpofation, who is personally known to me otbwite.ltas,yeadtmoatie NAS as identification. Nr1111 (Seal) Notary •ubli � My Commission Expires: Printed Notary Signature 4,1 JOHN I SiMART y A, M1 te74M1%%10N/CC 11226I :10,Ili` 1%PIM u',u Y1! 2 I.awl N1tAkY 17.Na Serum Co Iter V.G.3 .c• *** OR: 3043 PG: 2664 t" EXHIBIT"A" A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE 88°59'06" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTON 34, A DISTANCE OF 2,096.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0I°28'07" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 145.14 FLET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VANDERBILT ROAD. THE SAME BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 88°59'06" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 541.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°05'46" WEST CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 124.85 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 01°26'29" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 523.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°05'38" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 118.77 FLEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34;THENCE DEPARTING FROM THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 89°00'49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 547.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°28'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 523.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 8.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34 AS BEING NORTH 88°59'06" WEST(ASSUMED). ITEM V.G., LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 1 hereby authorize Davidson Engineering, Inc. & Hoover Planning & Dev. , Inc. (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a reque to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property id: tifie' in this Applic,tion. Signed: ! A. . _ Date: 05/6_D 'ame of Owner(s)of Record) Mark L. Lindner, Trustee I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. 21,19 - /U4—aih.. Signature of Applicant William L. Hoover Name-Typed or Printed STATE OF ( _ ) COUNTY OF ( ) 441 n„ Swor o and subscribed before me this U �/1 t day of Apr I ' !'�J –�+ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public dir CH•SSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: JESSICA BERGERON NOTARY PUBLIC.STATE OF FLORIDA who is personally known to me, cowwIssloNccar�7o EXPIRES 9/23/1003 Cho has produced Ft., �('Ik h BONDEDTFIRUASAt 9ESNOTARY/ and P►�-y�as identification did take an Oath did not take an Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 -False Official Statements Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of$500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 7 MEETING NOTES COLLIER COUNTY **** DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT **** DATE IN _ G TIME i/ .)(2 C/l'�fl NOTES BY -v' ✓�' •f TOPIC OF MEETING �/11 F 4 for / s• 1 ac. S/74t- 41N/1 YAR '4 /►4we '- rf ty 6.4.1 VILA-144;11Bh1t//cihhzr 11.1 AN ATTENDCE(print name'clearly) / 3r/! /[�(rt�'► f 1 .v�� '�.�►,ai.��' C-r[,q C oil( Crleah 1A.rru- / .irf l,J' Lilvr6 Ri i KEY POINTS/UNDERSTANDINGS/CONCLUSIONS ", &r4. ,. 114.4-, j?el/ . fcr ' i'16 42A /4'iS ('71 L Ii17f7'rq,,/` fr9^ 54r$'I- f l ..b — rppow- fDr..2 GC%' T�a-�t�/ �Jel -6 ;S eix.pitis/.on ltff rt D,e ��fc)17,4 / roe Pi J9Vtj4_71`/ir 1-111t v4 i- — /1.4'15%Ph H* pizo fv)lre[7. y.,[,' - V ,,,-4 L'1 it, lr L•ndr! v .t/41l'°X/~/Ir y„ /ota//►'.. - c .q, A,/11)4047. � �k;••-;f► ,r - /'l tE%fif.) chfF o /r p A 1,4..,,f'r�f/ : v // f t /2 z P P`A• 1 ,.�/ rr ,r Es.i_7` / ; c✓i// tot kill s 4-i c ,Z z p 7-n . v,.t--7 OR c 4.11. re ct;.. -DLit L /41.41yS;5 - lhaAtt. AA-ti I iLJ/P Slhec t4-Pr /."-41 5-445/v.cf[t��Nw.er I) 41c. rit 4 &/ c4'A c1bcr ( )7t 4s/) ?ripafe4 e!riEm-t t) C�ik�,�Ef t° � —, 14 es-. Cxh,,,f ,, of t i/SprA 9h4. t 1^'eftcer+ ,14,1.1/ (0.. I 5v1,/. S L✓C . Df Vfi /q r/ .NP Di ' /1 a,p c. • r'1 S ;h- h P �t� , i 71.'11tr- C r t- pp/. 11. 2 s;}i,;rr .,f 174!1C/LGG� 1.x: .44 ^•• PSP Apr 17 03 01 :55p ADDRESSING CHECKLISTIto ev rase complete the following amd submit to the Addressing Section for Review. Noallt items will FJL—m eject. Items in)cold lune are raauiot+ 1. Legal description of subject property or properties(copy of lengthy description may be attached) .? � 2. Folio(Property I i))number(s)of above(attach to.o r associate with legaly/ tidescription if oY D ore than S 0°-2 o y T(,6 3 8 care / i#1, ;$ 002 o !1/ o 70 3. Street address or addresses(as applicable, if already assigned) ' E tJi : 4- r' , 4. Location map,showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right-of-way(attach) 5. Copy of survey(NEEDED ONLY FOR UNFLATTED PROPERTIES) 6. Proposed project name( applicable) C I; nR 7. Proposed Street names(If applicable) n L1tfa 1: hQ I14r; t' SAt�a l.om� ruoA R , cb'( I- Cakt1kr`0-' ac 1.s "1" 5 0. [ 1.t. "c.o..4 t• . a. Site Development Plan Number(FOR EXISTING PPOJECTS/SITES ONLY) SDP AM - 9. Petition Type-(Complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) ❑SDP(Site Development Plan) 0 PPL (Plans&Plat Review) D SDPA(SDP Amendment) O PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) O SDP1 (SDP Insubstantial Change) 0 FP (Final Plat) D SIP(Site Improvement Plan) ❑LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) 0 SIPA (SIP Amendment) 0 BL (Blasting Permit) O SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ROW (Right-of-Way Permit) 0 Vegetation/Exotic(Veg.Removal Permits) 0 EXP (Excavation Permit) D Land Use Petition(Variance.Conditional Usc, t7 VRSFP (Veg.Removal&Site Fill Permit) Boat Dock Ext.,Rezone,PUD rezone,etc.) %Other-Describe: ()lap', 1 •r. P h dm an't' 10.Project or development names proposed for,or already appearing in,condominium documents(if applicable; indicate whether proposed or existing) Al 11.Please Check One: 1111 Checklist is to be Faxed Back Cl Personally Picked Up 12. Applicant Name ell e e i r Phone y0 3-lityy Fax Yo 3- Po 13.Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Nam=approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Section ( E a FOR STAFF USE ONLY . Primary Number 3tt.111`il Address Number 335991 Address Number 375932 Address Number Approved by J2n r 2 I Lfl(QI L Date V--1 g-03 - it DCPAYM ATTACHMENT "C" ORIGINAL GMPA APPLICATION- NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SYNOPSIS Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE ATTACHMENT "C" ORIGINAL GMPA APPLICATION- NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SYNOPSIS Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA February 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com JEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Synopsis provide by Lisa Koehler, Public Information Coordinator The NIM was held on March 10, 2005 at 5:30 P.M. at North Naples Baptist Church. Six people attended the meeting. Bill Hoover, representing the applicant, gave an overview of the project and the PUD document. There were no concerns expressed about the rezoning or the proposed uses and development. Those attending asked clarifying questions about uses allowed in the PUD document. Mr. Hoover explained that there would be no gas stations, no convenience stores with gas pumps, no tire store, and no fast food with drive-thru. He did explain that they were anticipating a bank building, an upscale restaurant, retail and offices with up to 64 condominiums on the second and third floors of the office/retail area. He also clarified that none of those units were affordable housing units. Maximum building height proposed in the PUD would be three stories. L4/3)-3\ Carolina Village PUD Neighborhood Information Meeting i71 -° Thursday, March 10, 2005 '3a • �- Sign-in Sheet NAME ADDRESS PHONE 37- £9; 4$4f g6c --15 l_ I-L' C cc / ( t 6,� -.7.6-/Z-- ` f L / - J 21 l l ' Gz -©.zoG� - 7,0 y /e/r -e-s_r �=L fir' 'l7 f - 0\-44/,--4- e_., cm / 4-1-3- _.-, 0'7 12.,j„ NI 0J 6,o..,.,1, /-10017,4,•......:-.--Tr. *I Ste. 3 0,.) 1-11S -L SI-5 TE2E4'-cY ,Spic 3785"A►4PoLT RO Mo2TLA ,57(g- i ‘10.3-f5$9 y 0 LANAI Lli A50V+So b-u-i.t2o42.4A ( U,i 462.. 5'S ( 2-Le) 4,19.„<",i,19.„<", c670,--711 D 9'71.@7.4)z-#4 Cl L.z 44...16' `' C1-_i 7 C k I 1 a 1 DIE DAYRN?. ENGINE ! N6 ATTACHMENT "D" EXISTING AND PROPOSED POPULATION DATA Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DQE DAytyp.N ENGINE A NG Existing Local Population: Demographic information is an excellent indicator of demand for proposed services that are currently in short supply. Population statistics for the market study were determined based upon a 3.5-mile radial distance from the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard(please refer to Attachment E). In order to identify an accurate depiction of the population within the area of study the AUIR 2016 based upon BEBR medium growth rate projections information obtained from Collier County has been referenced. The AUIR 2016 identifies the area of study within four planning communities; refer to Attachment F. Within these planning communities the percentage of land representative of the 3.5-mile radius boundary was calculated to obtain a more precise population within the area of study, please refer to Table 1—Planning Community Area Calculations. Table 1—Planning Community Area Calculations for 3.5-Mile Distance Golden Gate Total Area w/in Planning Community 9,539 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 1,146 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 12.01% Urban Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 22,257 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 14,941 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 67.13% Rural Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 75,188 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 6,822 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 9.07% Corkscrew Total Area w/in Planning Community 181,924 Acres Planning Study Area w/in Planning Community 1720 Acres Community Percentage of Planning Community 0.95% Utilizing the percentage calculated within Table 1,the following projections for permanent populations has been interpreted for the four aforementioned planning communities within Table 2. Please refer to Attachment E for specific AUIR 2016 referenced data. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DIE DAVNDSQN Table 2—Calculated Permanent Population 2015 within Market Study(3.5 Mile Distance) Golden Gate Permanent Population in 2016 45,540 Planning Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 12.01% Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 5,469 Urban Estates Permanent Population in 2016 43,878 Planning Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 67.13% Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 29,455 Rural Estates Permanent Population in 2016 36,052 Planning Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 9.07% Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 3,270 Corkscrew Planning Permanent Population in 2016 11,541 Community Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 0.95% Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 110 Total Permanent Population w/in Market Study: 38,304 To interpret the Peak population,additional information from the AUIR 2016 was evaluated resulting in a calculated 16.67% increase in population during peak season. This information ultimately, results in a base permanent population of 38,304 persons and peak seasonal population of 44,689 persons. To further define the population directly impacted by the proposed services, the same analysis was performed within a 0.5-mile radius from the development site. The AUIR 2016 identifies the aforementioned area of study within two planning communities; refer to Attachment G. Using the same technique previously completed for the 3.5-mile distance,the following results were obtained. Table 3—Planning Community Area Calculations for 0.5 Mile Distance Urban Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 22,257 Acres Planning Area in Study 6,060 Acres Community Study Area w/in Community 27.23% Rural Estates Total Area w/in Planning Community 75,188 Acres Planning Area in Study 67 Acres Community Study Area w/in Community 0.09% Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAVIDPPSM EN61NE R NG Table 4-Calculated Permanent Population 2015 within Market Study(0.5 Mile Distance) Urban Estates Population in 2016 43,878 Planning Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 27.23% Community Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 11,948 Rural Estates Population in 2016 36,052 Planning Percentage of Study Area w/in Planning Community 0.09% Community Approximate Population w/in 3.5 mile 32 Total Population: 11,980 This information ultimately, results in a base permanent population of 11,980 persons and peak seasonal population of 13,977 persons. Proposed Population Growth: To further define a population in need of services,an analysis of the growth patterns within Collier County has been completed based on the AUIR 2016. Table 5-Projected Populations within 3.5-Mile Distance Year 2011 2016 2021 2026 Golden Gate Planning Permanent 5,405 5,471 5,490 5,509 Community Peak 6,306 6,383 6,405 6,427 Urban Estates Permanent 26,067 29,455 34,822 39,554 Planning Community Peak 30,412 34,365 40,627 46,148 Rural Estates Permanent 3,156 3,271 3,534 3,767 Planning Community Peak 3,682 3,816 4,123 4,395 Corkscrew Planning Permanent 43 109 156 207 Community Peak 51 127 167 217 Total: Permanent 34,671 38,306 44,002 49,037 Peak 40,451 44,692 51,322 57,187 Per the BEBR medium growth rate projections, the planning communities directly impacted by the development are growing at a rate of±9.0%every 5 years. As a result, placing the County within the top ten growth rates in the state of Florida; please refer to Attachment E. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE PAYIDPS AN EN INE (1NG To verify growth within the defined limits, a review of permitted zoning rights and available properties has also been reviewed, specifically, the ±15.88 acre expansion area. This area is bordered by a large residential Planned Unit Development, Wolf Creek, to the west and north. Within Wolf Creek, 671 residential units have been permitted within the ±167.96-acre zoned property. To the south is Estates zoning with some undeveloped properties and properties developed with single family homes. To the west is a Commercial Planned Unit Development; Mission Hills. Mission Hills is currently 89% built out with approximately±3.73 acres of available commercial development with zoning restrictions. Also, to further promote growth within the area, transportation infrastructure within the vicinity has improved and has provided additional capacity on the adjacent roadways. Improvements include the widening of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard that have provided efficient alternative routes; both of which are arterial roads. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE D/�VIDN EN INE R NCi EXHIBIT "U" DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAYI9SON EXHIBIT "U" DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST NAME OF OWNER(LOTS 1 and 2) Florida Trust Holdings, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company,as Trustee of the Vanderbilt Commons Land Trust dated 8/1/16 Percentage of Ownership: 100% Sole Member of Florida Trust Holdings, LLC: Sam Saad III Trust beneficiaries of the Vanderbilt Commons Land Trust: • Welsh Sponsor, LLC—George Vukobratovich 100%ownership • Richardson Holdings of Naples, LLC—Melody Richardson 100%ownership • TG Vander FL, LLC—Todd Green 100%ownership • Millie&Susan Investments, LLC—Susan Vukobratovich 100%ownership NAME OF OWNER(LOTS 3,5,6) Vanderbilt Commons, LLC Percentage of Ownership—100% List of Owning Entities &Officers of Vanderbilt Commons, LLC: • VC Investor, LLC-33.33%-Ownership of Vanderbilt Commons, LLC -Ralph Cioffi 50%ownership of VC Investor, LLC -Fred Pezeshkan 50%ownership of VC Investor, LLC • SMS-USA Holdings, LLC-33.33%-Ownership of Vanderbilt Commons, LLC -Fred Benoit 100%ownership of SMS-USA Holdings, LLC • Jam Properties, Inc. -33.33%-Ownership of Vanderbilt Commons, LLC -Daniel E.Smith 100%ownership of Jam Properties, Inc. NAME OF OWNER(LOT 4) Midgard Self-Storage Naples, LLC Percentage of Ownership- 100% List of Owning Entities of Midgard Self-Storage Naples, LLC: • East Property Management, LLC-25%owner of Midgard Self-Storage Naples, LLC - Kim Pegula, President 100%ownership of East Property Management, LLC • Reliant Property Management, LLC-41.25%owner of Midgard Self-Storage Naples, LLC Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA-PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 January 2017 DCSa-, - Lewis Pollack, Manager 50%ownership of Reliant Property Management, LLC - Todd Allen, Manager 50%ownership of Reliant Property Management, LLC • Midgard I, LLC(33.75%owner of Midgard Self-Storage Naples, LLC - Ralph Cioffi, Manger 100%owner of Midgard I, LLC NAME OF OWNER(TRACTS A, B and C) Vanderbilt Commons Owner's Association, Inc. Percentage of Ownership- 100% c/o Welsh Companies FL, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 List of Officers of Vanderbilt Commons Owner's Association, Inc. • Ralph Cioffi, President-50%ownership of Vanderbilt Commons Owner's Association, Inc. • George Vukobratovich, Vice President-50%ownership of Vanderbilt Commons Owner's Association, Inc. Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA-PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 January 2017 DE PAyR25i9t EXHIBIT "V" PLANNING COMMUNITIES MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com Z:\Active Projects\V1Vanderbilt Commons\DWGIPIanning\GISIGMPAt2016-02-04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT V(PLANNING COMM.).mxd N LEGEND j VANDERBILT BEACH RD./COLLIER BLVD. W _ad_ E pi COMM SUBDISTRICT(EXP.AREA 15.88 AC) -, ) 113.5 MILE RADIUS S ®North Naples s ^ MI Urban Estates -Central Naples - _ -- ----- BE Golden Gate Lzr Rural Estates y F ^` r ®Corkscrew ��y'��� T) a '' '1 IMMOKALEE RD/CR 846 IMMOOLE - ..-t, 1 I It I North qlaplbs m i_ I oIV 12 Urban Estates (II 1 1 1 1 ...i) VANDERBILT BEACH RD. I 1 Oa( I OO 1 I et 1 I 8 Rural Estates .11 GOLDEN GATE BLVD ` m ( II ♦ L Z cc / iiii I— _..__________ PINE RIDGE RD Q WHITS BL $ / x ) 1 I \ •1„.w_.-___ .. ......_..e. W _._ __ I F- 4y r r♦ 0 I Cl)' 411-: r i E2 ♦ w ' JM. �5 I GREEN BLVD ___.._ JO 'II { w 16 TH AVE.SW C7 cn moi1 D3 ` 0� 'I Q ♦� j;', IL__ 1T? co 3 Golden Gate 1 2 '2 °.'D-iti�.t _ i� - ' Com; ,,i MILES SOURCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION[SYSTEMSI(2016) t i DEDAVIDSONENGINEERING, INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES, FL 34104 DAVNDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT V: PLANNING COMMUNITIES DE PAYIRPOJ EXHIBIT "W" EXISTING LAND USE MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com -41 X za 111 (a a_ 0 i > o ':5 W Z w z a -� k y ;. ckik _ cli S. ,_"z 7 O O • w 0 «• ,., - `DI O L j Z n Q.,. Rill 0 LL ill H Q (lJ 7 7 w w W .. I w U U F- z O W ¢ C9 C7 c• In W Q a ¢ ¢ w a Ilil O, Q gO 12 1:1II J I N n©■■■ d Q ° y �4 a' ♦� Q I.%° V OJ LLQ'° Q "LEINEHE Q Qo Q Q 1 I 1111 Ilidiii 3 �(03dO13A0Nf • rc ii ! Q Q ■� w .>Z. J-'•' Y CI ri ♦ _ . '._ QI 11111111u111111111111_ , 11/1 . ' _as ■■I W it � "7' WJ -'_ lc w II ¢;.,,,,: NV at oW ' �■mow ( 0 ° ■� Q o o " . NIMMENNIE v ' '.-- a iii, � MEM W X �-�m 4i-66'r7 amiiMINIMINIMMIMIll _1 ...L Ii ,P;i :tom �.tail► lit' �� i li 1 ilii viii i■■ I _ o i1111111111111111t111 a :' (L56'>1'�1O>ItlA31L109 •31110 11111 LA .'. 1 •- . Al 17 4 ;,......lilt:Iii..___:=.. __, i g gl . , .•., i 7., -I, _I= __. 0. , v, „. IR • •, . _E., i ,_, . 0 111111111•01111111.11 �VI!l9tM11+ F� 3 (, o , Im—......mr=3=1Er 24.;'-i ii o - G as 0°-° IIIIIMMIIMIIM ---ik u r Ii s U. a w^ U ' Q • - �,I�Illllllllilll�,1` w p m _ a e .: illiz v, In y X413 4 INI ° WM W o ialb- k 11.4111:111611:12::: � 1p4 Q; �u o I I-'-°5 N1�_ e -L11z ��g N'' �wa- �;--min es'4 '" :: JW . z. �► .w hR � immun'i_.2111110 F AWcaffifil, E :: n 11 , (t; • C ._+.��`�S a l 44- DE D u qt EXHIBIT "X" FUTURE LAND USE MAP Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict GMPA November 2016 www.davidsonengineering.com x 1 p a 31110HH 319011 CL 3V &n/fn3R 0v Cc C 6 w J a X Z a fy I.z J w :B U W a U U O W U 2 pLu Q W H e X U m Z c[ p J> K liq l 'i CS ca H U LL 1- Ill K w p a w 00 41 QQQQ([,r}� (� J i m y .7'[ U < Q Z m U iDi n v h Q �O,- J p F ? a K �j LJ W w K C7 In W o Q Z Z p a U Q W n J(n Iiii11ViiiiiIiim4 . q li > aaawrt >" . ,r oDi 1 ,. H 1Iii 0 U a <I ci (3 ,-.3 .,0 1- 0 4 Ii a o I II!!! IIIIIIII 751,- 1 p e fin« J r liti.• IfIIINl111111 IIH/ri 011E �1 Q _ 4 OF 11YIii111i111111111YtM 11111= a �—„z p � �///11111110 —� ��1Qw Il ,Q111111111111UI� o- /111 . i , ,: 1�-' W g N [2 t�_ s o �i110fD1//11 a JU► �1 / —�,liM =MEN —'KJMO � ... U.WIIPW -L1 ______ a.o a >.� 3.~z.0 c W w ' Cl- C�i u'01w pi K y NM, Jcaw3o 4 caw � �=111 O oa �0m 9 I. 0cc< —_—I COm 2 ig•-:1-- fA m iW J, I —_� c,..2 —_--- o - i° fa—1- — J ---- J rn. c a = r w - —_—� 0 m r o = p zm JL J x _ qL aoa _ aW � 2 \mwa z Imo , z=w u z v —_—�I w \ :,1 wilrMi. m ,,0t now ,Illlli V 2 w cryr �4J,W. %%111111_ _, r._IIr J K x E:w.0 0 z —_) _ _romN wy m I 0I-' .,w�1.lA, =yam _ CO •w o)`aIvA3]I109 21311100 c�� _ (196 a o)aavA31f109.8311100 ■ A W _� .t,,1' 11171171H�llllllllllllllfl) 3 N / _ _.1 s w I. _IIIIII�Ili111 a otl v O a ii ■ r • 11611011 Z / _ Iw rP2 W oZ. 9p _1ltlllllillh ,IIIIIOII01_ zYQ2 yJE I. _-- Q <p^ ao _ _v1gv1111piIIIP _ 4 NO p f=0 --- ' a I R W .3 - a'y,il�flp.,1-a Cu- 0 Ur • �ME— ' y 7w >w 1111111111111111INI�.ao 4 I�\/11111111110/ , �� '.� U> Z> Ca V1 N F\\� •� __ \11111111111111=z/2 cay, >w �M��.1 w f�7 ... z.`.. .W w O�. 2 2 i CO W /� 41M111111"1"0=1111111111111 '') q�.. re w ="��_ y mon E.-..y_ O a 111.1111111111 i re-0 I i -/ pj �Iw- a_' 00 u. ,/IIIII� �IIII c7 Er- 4/11111111111110 LL a C , _ "11'�� C cn a. a *nlummuuP° '� W a co C I J(m l.: ///p U ii O 3AIL031'.71.1.9111W-7--.--1-1:11.-,y K �, 7�U 111NI►I_ y 2a�� x Z, A► 1.1111 Y w 0 a h( U.I, Q M- O '� Y W iiiiiMp �� �a 1111 ° t g oor �wf 91.111111.01.1 LL oa11 m W� a> ..Zxo m= m air we No aw�i pw H _1"W.�w. JA LO 11 .,k-e ITE a... S. X11 0. 0 i g 1 MIN w.� oa. 3 y 3.?a=w 11,- wE. Wmom2 Y Wii aJl/111 a'�— 0 JW J: O (7w �� J� I re it LLa IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � --��//11111111 Z i t9' w Z~ - VO y .1 W< -,a =� p �j�'//lllll in 51 o a Z } LI.,w 1 �► �w/1U IIIA. J 0 a - �= Vii/ /�//////11111!' _ °z S imit i 3 IIIIIIINI IIIIIIIB G //jp/ t v til,-- Z z Q, ---. �= .. Ia�J /lIllllllflll . �` �_ o w0A' Ip111111=0� 010 i= pp111U1 oI. Y'a a WNW a;W e//1111 ter'' E z g LL 1 Ilr \ 111111//�'i \\ z%0 .f///11111% �r ° o y.. 1 malts k = 100 g.�• i \� y, !� W o z I 1111I111111111111111111111� �/ w ♦ / �” a'a°x � _ I .. __%.re �//lllllllll art_y _- z I► ®l hvilN3O1S3a) n m=_ ,= MI ��� =e-_ //-"minium II 1� �1 $ o'$za 31 III11111IIIIIa3"' ' 38� D�� Z' =C _a — 3JV1RI3H ������ �S I i i �, /11111111111/11//111 \ 1111, `' Mz2 IDIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111 d 11� \\�� 1.....2_ 5 i i 11111(11I� C////11111111111///111111 �� Q< �x� EST Fto yb'J ?/' . 1400 Colonial Blvd.,Suite 1A P:239.938.1813 I F:239.938.1817 Fort Myers,FL 33907 0 i www.swfrpc.org o J mc'�.1 DlANN1 �O�0 UFS•REAL 5° �y SSy� May 5, 2017 Mr.James French Growth Management Manager Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Collier County CP-2015-2/DEO 17-1ESR Dear Mr. French: The staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council has reviewed the proposed amendment (DEO 17-1ESR) to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. The review was performed according to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. The Council will review the proposed amendment and the staff recommendations at its May 18, 2017 meeting. Council staff is recommending that the request be found not regionally significant. Council staff is also recommending that the proposed changes are consistent with the SRPP and do not produce extra-jurisdictional impacts that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plans of other local governments. A copy of the official staff report explaining the Council staff's recommendation is attached. If Council action differs from the staff recommendation,we will notify you. Sincerely, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (1- --------- i k),Ajtj :114iL" Margar. erstle, AICP Executiv- • ector MW/DEC Attachment Cc: Mr. Eubanks,Administrator, Plan Review and Processing, Department of Economic Development .,r,Nfsi FID 1400 Colonial Blvd.,Suite 1 A P:239.938.1813 I F:239.938.1817 Fort Myers,FL 33907 , = www.swfrpc.org d, 2q ..... (,9 2y II 'Po ,• REAL S(IN-, May 5, 2017 Mr. Ray Eubanks Plan Processing Administrator State Land Planning Agency Caldwell Building 107 East Madison- MSC 160 Tallahassee, FL. 32399-0800 Re: Collier County CP-2015-2/ DEO 17-1ESR Dear Mr. Eubanks: The staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council has reviewed the proposed amendment (DEO 17-1ESR) to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan. The review was performed according to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. The Council will review the proposed amendment and the staff recommendations at its May 18, 2017 meeting. Council staff is recommending that the request be found not regionally significant. Council staff is also recommending that the proposed changes are consistent with the SRPP and do not produce extra-jurisdictional impacts that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plans of other local governments. A copy of the official staff report explaining the Council staff's recommendation is attached. If Council action differs from the staff recommendation, we will notify you. Sincerely, 1S thwest Florida Regional Planning Council AIL- / (/0/4A4/ -ek..- II Margaret ( f rstle, AICP Executive Director Mw/DEC Attachment Cc: Mr.Weeks,Collier County .00 EST pto o`, "P.rO 1400 Colonial Blvd.,Suite 1 P:239.938.1813 F:239.938.1817 Fort Myers,FL 33907 www.swfrpc.org A . # LANSIIN� •.,O SSLFs •R E M-SO`' LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COLLIER COUNTY The Council staff has reviewed the proposed evaluation and appraisal based amendments to the Collier County Comprehensive Plan (DEO 17-1ESR). These amendments were developed under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. A synopsis of the requirements of the Act and Council responsibilities is provided as Attachment I. Comments are provided in Attachment II. Site location maps can be reviewed in Attachment III. Staff review of the proposed amendments was based on whether they were likely to be of regional concern. This was determined through assessment of the following factors: 1. Location--in or near a regional resource or regional activity center, such that it impacts the regional resource or facility;on or within one mile of a county boundary;generally applied to sites of five acres or more; size alone is not necessarily a determinant of regional significance; 2. Magnitude--equal to or greater than the threshold for a Development of Regional Impact of the same type (a DRI-related amendment is considered regionally significant); and 3. Character--of a unique type or use, a use of regional significance, or a change in the local comprehensive plan that could be applied throughout the local jurisdiction; updates, editorial revisions,etc. are not regionally significant. A summary of the results of the review follows: Factors of Regional Significance Proposed Amendment Location Magnitude Character Consistent DEO 17-1ESR No No No (1) Not Regionally Significant (2)Consistent with SRPP RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve staff comments. Authorize staff to forward comments to the Department of Economic Opportunity and Collier County 05/2017 Attachment I COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Act requires each municipal and county government to prepare a comprehensive plan that must include at least the following nine elements: 1. Future Land Use Element; 2. Traffic Circulation Element; A local government with all or part of its jurisdiction within the urbanized area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization shall prepare and adopt a transportation element to replace the traffic circulation; mass transit; and ports, aviation, and related facilities elements. [9J-5.019(1), FAC] 3. General Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element; 4. Conservation Element; 5. Recreation and Open Space Element; 6. Housing Element; 7. Coastal Management Element for coastal jurisdictions; 8. Intergovernmental Coordination Element;and 9. Capital Improvements Element. The local government may add optional elements (e. g., community design, redevelopment, safety, historical and scenic preservation, and economic). All local governments in Southwest Florida have adopted revised plans: Charlotte County, Punta Gorda Collier County, Everglades City, Marco Island, Naples Glades County, Moore Haven Hendry County,Clewiston, LaBelle Lee County, Bonita Springs,Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach,Sanibel Sarasota County, Longboat Key, North Port,Sarasota,Venice Attachment I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS A local government may amend its plan at any time during the calendar year. Six copies of the amendment are sent to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for review. A copy is also sent to the Regional Planning Council, the Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation,and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The proposed amendments will be reviewed by DEO in two situations. In the first, there must be a written request to DEO. The request for review must be received within forty-five days after transmittal of the proposed amendment. Reviews can be requested by one of the following: • the local government that transmits the amendment, • the regional planning council, or • an affected person. In the second situation, DEO can decide to review the proposed amendment without a request. In that case, DEO must give notice within thirty days of transmittal. Within five working days after deciding to conduct a review, DEO may forward copies to various reviewing agencies, including the Regional Planning Council. Regional Planning Council Review The Regional Planning Council must submit its comments in writing within thirty days of receipt of the proposed amendment from DEO. It must specify any objections and may make recommendations for changes. The review of the proposed amendment by the Regional Planning Council must be limited to "effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan and extra- jurisdictional impacts which would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of the affected local government". After receipt of comments from the Regional Planning Council and other reviewing agencies, DEO has thirty days to conduct its own review and determine compliance with state law. Within that thirty-day period, DEO transmits its written comments to the local government. NOTE: THE ABOVE IS A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE LAW. REFER TO THE STATUTE (CH. 163, FS) FOR DETAILS. Attachment II COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT(DEO 17-1ESR) RECEIVED:4/18/17 Summary of Proposed Amendment Collier County DEO 17-1ESR seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP)to revise the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict to: 1) add 200,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of commercial land uses in the (originally) 15.88- acre expansion area,which is the site of the Carolina Village PUD (150,000 sq. ft. was requested as part of the 2003 GMP amendment to expand the Subdistrict but was not actually included in the Subdistrict text though the Carolina Village PUD is approved for that 150,000 sq. ft., plus an additional 50,000 sq. ft.), resulting in a total of 400,000 square feet of commercial land uses in the entire Subdistrict; 2) remove a development restriction related to transportation impacts (now met); and, 3) amend and re-order the text. The amendment proposes to add a previously-requested 150,000 square feet (sq. ft.) allotment of commercial space per petition no. CP-2003-and increase the maximum floor area from 150,000 sq.ft.to a maximum of 200,000 sq. ft. The net effect of this amendment is to allow an additional 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. The infrastructure needed to serve the development can be provided without related levels of service or concurrency concerns. Based on data and analysis submitted for the supply of, and demand for, existing and potential commercial development within the study area for the subject property, the need for the additional commercial floor area contemplated by this amendment has been demonstrated. This location fulfills the localized need to provide convenient shopping, personal services and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas. Regional Impacts Council staff has reviewed the requested changes and finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments do not directly produce any significant regional impacts that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of any other local government within the region. Extra-Jurisdictional Impacts Council staff has reviewed the requested changes and finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments do not directly produce any significant extra-jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of any other local government within the region. Conclusion No adverse effects on regional resources or facilities and no extra-jurisdictional impacts have been identified. Staff finds that this project is not regionally significant. Recommended Action Approve staff comments. Authorize staff to forward comments to the Department of Economic Opportunity and Collier County. Attachment III MAPS Collier County DEO 17-1ESR Growth Management Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Z:\Active ProjectslV\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\PlanninglGIS\GMPA\2016-02-04 VC GM PA-EXHIBIT E(AERIAL EXHIBIT).mxd _ ,:••-.•-•_, .- .4! .:. ,,.. , /.'*5,,-.4.4:*-;,. # -.. ..> `fir -...„,,;,-..-4.- / '.�"•.iw.. X • `r 4 tVia. �_. 1Ir,, jju ..k.... . I - I ' AV* If444( „...ii..4 4', I ill 1` ""AV—RAll t ; 2'..'"'"11" sox :4k'9rF t K.� Yf • �.t P — ��" r• *ra ref"a`� t il 'a� Ix' tx� ar , .. - , I ,j, .. , .. :'= ° '�Y, ..+'f6t\WSJ ' ".,',�-rP.}.-� 4 I 41 y <. kioa .may ,� .�.,. VANDERBILT ' D , v . . • } re. 0 140 r Lu -•- ', 4k, -'. �. K' If - J. 0 CO ille o LEGEND . . , ■y 4 ..r., , VANDERBILT BEACH RD./COLLIER BLVD. ' t 1"ot*it I$ • ®COMM.SUBDISTRICT(15.88 AC.EXP.AREA)ft t a mss. - _ '..q.a. w`a+,+r s+ wnr". r f' IAXIF Q 600 r'• x.1;521)0 SOURCES: o U GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION� "" a - # E DEDAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. NAPLES,FL 34104 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA DAVINDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT E: AERIAL EXHIBIT Z:Wctive Projects\V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\Planning\GIS\GM 72016-02-04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT I(FLUE EXHIBIT).mxd e _ ( _ . `" N d ! i v • ",t, y. t 1 � W C1� g ��,' y. ,,,,,c,-, .Yid a-"_' � ,t � a#' � I � �"'� �; _.' i r`" ' dY4 .} •.fi �' S � # * 'moi. • to • ",/° " » -. `. % � a vet 4 �r ?^a fir ' a t., .-ii ' �'` g w g ar "` tt ego- ., , tip • °terga. VSub VANDERBILQ BEACH 0 re W J n P3 m LEGEND 0 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD/COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT (15.88 ACRE EXPANSION AREA) ®ES-ESTATES DISTRICT EDUR-URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT # , -VSub-VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD/COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT 0 600 __ DAVIDSONDC ENGINEERING, INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NCOMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA NAPLES,FL 34104 DAVI�SON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT I: SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Z:IActive Projects\VlVanderbflt CommonstOWGIPIanning1GIS1GMPA12016-02-04 VC GMPA-EXHIBIT H(ZONING EXHIBIT).mxd a_„ MPUD W - p E r -t RPUD A MPUD POD jitji ) RPUD MPUD MPUD Pa VANDERBILT BEACH rM 0 LEGEND E' m F-71 VANDERBILT BEACH RD./COLLIER BLVD. tiCOMM.SUBDISTRICT(15.88AC.EXP.AREA) LLI ZONING DISTRICTS A-AGRICULTURAL 0 O E-ESTATES 0 PUD-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 0 RPUD-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -MPUD-MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 0 600 1';200 FEET SOURCIES3COLLIERICOUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2016) DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. VANDERBILT BEACH RD. / COLLIER BLVD. IIIIIIIII .4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 �NAPLES, FL 34104 COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA DI_ RAyIR 9J PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT H: SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS — I SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (Section 10.03.00,COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) p..1A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to Section 10.03.00 of the LDC. I. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right- of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post,or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED,THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED FREDERICK E. HOOD, AICP,SENIOR PLANNER WHO t"-*\ ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10,03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL20150002167/CP- 2015-2 AND PL20150002166. . ‘ I,\:1/4).\ _.._ ___......__ ._._ 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Signature of Applicant or Agent Street or PO Box Frederick E.Hood,AICP, Senior Planner Naples, FL 34104 Name(Typed or Printed) City,State,Zip STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of August, by Frederick E. Hood, AICP, personally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. ..., N- , JESSICA HARRELSON \ fi 5 DPY 'o Notary Public-State of Florida ...Sig attire of Notary Public a #r e 3 Commission#FF 954332 �, ,,,..,, , My Comm.Expires May 18.2024? " 't•,..0` 'donned through National Notary Assn � � ii Printed Name of Notary Public �� My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) PL20150002167/CP-2015-2 AND PL20150002166 4. • '4,4 4,4::,- om: ,..,'.'„ 4....r.4,,....,...,...? 3 ;s. ..f « f by 'a F+" 3( i- r-j ze �: -it, ".•%r' ' d..i «, 4. *4-.'..-%*"*"'--ii.,:s„,,,n,,,.....,.. ,,, .,,,,,,...„„ ,,,,,:,.::,,,„.:,.,,,,,,:;, ..„-,,,,,,„,,,,,,:,,,,,, , ., ,,, .,,, i'ilipt. - 1.',-,,,,"-;;4,,%,,, .:.0.,,_, 1.4 ,• ,,.. D�'. 7-11.1,....;.„ •`• � ff. '" '#- F<3' '-y l > 4+..'':i .>J. . ,�'.>r��{i` •j,�,- I =;'7 ;'-:,'Y'• -4 -1'4—•.4- -.„ _'"1" ....4.4,..-7,4,,,,< 'NI.F ": ,t$`' :, a r� "'' •�� fir;- ...A..,:. 1*:4 , •° +ai: '• "* `<''Y 1'. iµ ^: ,g 'f •6 t, •-.Y .h •Y «• .y'„f; `r, , i..".' 5..;!,;`, 4;--''s *,1 � s'r''°�4 :fi.-arm+ _ ..'.1'.. .'.:;‘,.::,....0 =+i � ,'y.'' yam': ,'z _ice y� y �_ '4,--:::. r" ;4' ''' ...'1 4; 'ri :'" 'sT ir4 k,.;:'''' '+ ,�� »d.. Y "�ils✓..:'�?*' t- �• '• 'Y` a ...,!«---;,-,731.04).,,,.. ,y:rd ..+.r�,;,F -•;!,..1.:;!;404.51,:':;106. t _' sn�`` , ., ` ,""w, ,..e�`'`�-' j 1; qq.,�III,—,i :4 - (;7 ! 1 �.�,' ,. ..".7...,;;;P•4-.1i'-'17,;:4;-4.. - i - -„ ..-: . « -;fa ?s •1••.Tr ,4i- - .A 's;..y' S � _ Fwt,F".i� jr C3 :'R" .,� �, . s anr' w• y„ „:ai,>" 'L'� <- 4''' ~ • • =i's 7. :.»'!!('{i}t1t" - Vic. ,�. PS S. -1.1'' 7.= .:-i-" .,;,,• ;` F«--.5.5.,41,,.., Fy y`i -.' ''># ,;:.er`"<� ----• <;si '. 7. `''.'s a'31.. 3 4 ct }?s !2Sa ,;sw�n"�S: ti • ,;si~ :i "E-`.< X., yt' ;. ��•S -Yi'T,,,,./ " f -S.y;,f'• ; r .T'~ye'^ ,F2 �; »fi ::' p( • _,...,- :2,''• .., ,,,..... t'''',';, ""'' '.`c.'''-V.. ..: .;.$F'= - 'iw,�•''p 349 ,.h ;e,"t•.y ` µ .,I. c� `.eke" "•5 a - ys y�� ''£[[ i..,-; ^c.. '! il,.y'. ' ,yam u _ Qy�', f'S} I ��..,..,•'47;-..;.••< ^ a I, rt'4 5' t�'f?`; . r. ' .•j,,'e i.'r, h y.,• �Su� f • cc°. rirt ={ ',1,N0,"4.4,-;,.''.1:,,,,, „ra y,# x _- �,_` '' �<,- .4.-y.",,4 4' It �, }�� . .. 3< r •�,` s < - -E s''€,'°' ->'''''t�,.' vg;s F, b:-.I,?'� :r"� moi `„ Y .s yam',, ,>., ....c.,,,,," • ,,,,,„7 ..:, • ,.., •• t Y `; .44:- •�, 1 '' ,,,t-,/• aE t,< {'> ..f4.4,- - �is ;t .x- -e y3 YT..:.- ,a ~ 3 a .« ,,.`4tite',' i ,�: `;",se. , r 1, 5` .(A_ .,'� _ • .-" .• :: e ,; ''s.'‘'44--4,,,4_' -7C-,;,;...t.::• "--''',41,7.?;',. ..i,„ „,M.z ,.. c- • „M1#"-- �. r`Es.ta. wCe_'ti ! '7r' ��° - ,i 4, .: .t .&:.44, rr;^"' s :,»'-t. <,-- fir' f - } "";;w .dei:«?" " ,.•.-?"�" - • ., ^,a t''''ri E4 ,fZ?r"t t 3� �� .-e, , ,1,. ,4. t,,.%".t'r �',<" 4tf.'.$• M�v ',*4' s4 '4-,.p.:;-`4*. " r•.-.*, ',' •.' �y,A `�, u'TF. w Y y Xri-�' ' f' pia _ • • _ .�i: • 3 l', z' 7 --:-,ti,,, = -:-;, A - ..fir,_. :•.`";,,r ,:z • ..za.., 4, ✓.: yc:. _4‘,4:'-:;'';•::•#';1,'A,;,, t "' .: t 40—.2.61. r �� am1`` .. r< - 5"ifi • y�j« i4:4- µ .fi. J , rY ..- ; l�'V" .` i' ;=:. -;;- S• ''W.'< ,.M ,44.,".'".?';,' i: ir . ! 4. r`.<�.:' x"• `, ~,,:+:t: � srY s � Sti `- :-; -+ rx .y� •.,_..�.. fit i.z 3 kms:;° _.r e-`F,: '"S'"-'.i,-'!y, ' u.',. . . 'Ac F`t' '`Y''�: `.f;N,' '° .' ,.:r _ , .�'1 iT 4111 y.. : ,_'..'.. _',.`'''''.-• _ ,.APS'"`'"'y3 >. � o„ ia• -• 'V a { , , :x i'" .- ,,,.f:" F :.ice ^'a.:s -%iE Su - - • ^# :OA 4. �} ,Yep :! �'' < i; , .x.'' , - •_ i ;`•-,-''';-,.'-',:,1--.1;.'''.,4.-':••4 ,a'-',V4',-,,,,it' ' pi : -.- . :,:3,''''',,:44 e.,N rn 0 zSC!; , . Vi f }, q � (( I .,+� .r - ,• 74.--.1,.;5 »T":" -- . gr,,,,, c " .it eye•" .« �,}i:'' t. 7', .'";..5.z "-;.�;,,, •x.+, , 1 ws -;:‘,;.7.7,4,;t:,1,i ; yr m „x,- 1 . i y ,, .' ,a''�-- R ... '',,,* 1, , ,,.''< »t« • •a .P " .,t ASA. , .'. , » • R,Y-:' r- .., ..',. '4-4, `".• «6- "„X "% s�t�^I� �tF ��,:.<,•'`r �, ". -4• >R��� .'Y,'"x,•,a''rti.;r" ':'�n i�,,.`i- ,„-'11.44.‘1 ",,,s.,,,,-; , r5 '"'�',.,".r � ai..` -±y2J, - �.4 .. (,w;'. :lf.i .y „4 ¢' 'R•^Rib• '•,n.,Jv:•'j�', `k} .FLX _ v A �5. x-i':.„aP`:.t.i '- -1". ...,;"--44,',••••.>T: ".Y ,'� .I M '.w-'o o ,F C ..4"11% 2:\Ac 11 NC Pro/ects\V\Vanderbilt Commons\DWG\Plonntnq\2017-01-27 VC—Concept Pion(CMPA).dwy(COP(Overall))Fre.Hood Jon 27,2017—11:05000 in Z RPUD O WOLF CREEK y lo m (RESIDENTIAL)I4 Dm ��2o --4i m cn RPUD _ N WOLF CREEK z RPUD (RESIDENTIAL) - WOLF CREEK D r (UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL) 7 rn Z m 0 T'�'"Cl)1 PRIS/vvE ORM O auc.rc.au[J.uu AL) mmD WRACT A-I•(NOT A PART --IIDfmTI D3� _ �� f"r . ...1...--.."'" ,°t—' i 20'TYPED LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT [ LANU20'TYPED FFER EASEMENT -T---^---II 1I in IL °. mcn 4 H�� --E mmD r ;g j Hnm 11' O -1 I I ` -< 3 * I 0 f0 => z s c) ill 41 ILm I >m � J I ` I mm ; i cncnm I ' i I Om 28 c r >s-I I j zoo vm D O ;N ' ji I �m mcn z nl -1 m jI >m rm-� O c' N in ' j ',� i 004 I— IH 1 � 1 m i , D � yg -* M I '�F. I D -1 mr0� C) _ F I ' ITI m< c�c <mo in :U I• o 111:' Z -1 m c) O ' j § ;g -Im m 1 T :. :U i m _ I I _m I O I 7017 2 p mm j m I F O,l' ri m HIIt _i cmn�micn xi in i' I mmD \>_/ ��� D�m II ii M I /� r-i= i I II r ri l I ` O�jI c I ' I I rzMSI p m I ` StI y�Ir0/r+ vNI o 7 9t: II _—^Pc � O m z m m ^�„_—^�^--^ • I 20•TYPE DLANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENT 20'TYPED LANDSCAPE BUFFEREASEMENT r r m C c j O ( it?. o D ri m m y m N RICHT-01,1114Y m w D m D z C a Aa 500E 091E o¢soar Tsps PAGE 7a0 r vmi aR mar a�a PAeE nr m m < C mo g C 51--1 D m y m m m D 71 m TI >�1 cn m D m -I m > ��`� o D m CO D Zi _< MOZC O D�rO D ( (n C7 0 r n xi 3 CP I— oo to 6) -I y mN �Z�5' mmD C�im�=� njri , m rm�F m C) K µ r'r= O H- j H- H- FF D MI -I On > -IN. '' O -i C7 O { mozc A 6) CO - 0 o co o rn 03 m co ao m �?0 0 n n n n n n cnI I of ' PROJECT CLIENT (' REVISIONS m , X VANDERBILT BEACH RD./COLLIER VANDERBILT COMMONSDESIGNED BY: 1/28/2016 REVISIONS PER COLLIER COUNTY RE DATED 12/7/2015 ' FEH o BLVD.COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT LLC 1/27/2017 REVISIONS PER COLLIER COUNTY EMAIL GATED 12/22/2016 DRAWN BY ig C/O WELSH COMPAINES FEH ° DAVIDSON FLORIDA,INC. CHECKED BY I T ENGINEERING SHEET TITLE. 2400 NINTH STREET NORTH, .j 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201EXHIBIT 0: CONCEPTUAL SUITE 101 L341O PROJECT NO.: -� Napes,Florida 34104 NAPLES,FL 34103-4435 ( P 239 434 6060 F:239 434 6084 MASTER PLAN 14-0100 1 \ / Company Cart d AWwrzation No.00009996/ ,REV. DATE: DESCRIPTION ) AGENDA ITEM 9-D C0*6Y C014ftty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION— ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2017 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL201500002166 VANDERBILT COMMONS PUD FKA: CAROLINA VILLAGE COMPANION TO GMP-PL20150002167 PROPERTY OWNER, APPLICANT & AGENT: Vanderbilt Commons, LLC: c/o Welsh Companies FL, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED ACTION: Agents: R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Cheffy Passidomo 8215 1h Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 Fred Hood, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 radio Road, Suite Naples, FL 34104 The Applicant requests amending the PUD document by changing the name of the Planned Unit Development to Vanderbilt Commons PUD; by adding 50,000 square feet of gross leasable area for a total of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable area for commercial uses; by decreasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 64 to 58 dwelling units; by revising the legal description and reducing the acreage of the PUD from 15.88 acres to 14.49 acres GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR -951) and Vanderbilt Beach Road. Within the Briarwood PUD, the commercial tract is 15.99 acres of the 209.17—acre PUD (see Location Map on the following page). PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Carolina Village PUD was originally approved in 2005, as a residential over commercial project. It has been amended several times over the years. The proposed amendment would add additional commercial square -footage to the PUD. Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 1 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC CL m G O N m O O J 44 o� A N¢ die 3 j � UAlB aelllo� gYo 0�0 :G LU ZN_ f D 00) CL 00.'N Ud N NS a f7LL Zo Q 2 D 00 oa 3s 7 z N o m a �o i LU _ 0 a Dj a a. s Ww 1 zLU i BLV Q 4'U N S UA78 ue of J Q KJ �ogap U Y Q W O 7 IL Y JW 0 a z G w I- 0 C Q J O �� 2 3 CL m G O N m O O J 44 o� A N¢ die 3 j � UAlB aelllo� gYo :G �� E m Vz moo: a oa 3s z o m �o LU _ a s 1 BLV N S UA78 ue of �ogap Y CL m G O N m O O J SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject: Carolina Village PUD; density: current 4.03 DU/A; proposed: 4.03 DU/A North: Wolf Creek RPUD; density: 3.99 DU/A East: Buckstone Drive ROW, across from which is Mission Hills PUD, with commercial uses South: Vanderbilt Beach Road ROW, across from which is Golden Gate Estates Unit 19; (E); density: 1 DU/2.25 Acre West: Pristine Drive ROW, across from which is Wolf Creek RPUD; density 3.99 DU/A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY Staff has determined that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Conservation and Coastal Management Element, and the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. (Please see the staff report for the amendment for the subdistrict for additional details). STAFF NALYSIS: 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 Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection, 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the Collier County Planning Commission's (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board, Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 3 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below. In addition, staff offers the following analysis. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document for environmental sufficiency. This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: The property is bounded on the south by Vanderbilt Beach Road. Transportation staff reviewed the PUDA and found that the Level of Service continues to be acceptable. Zoning Review: The Applicant wishes to increase the commercial square footage. PUD FINDINGS: This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b, "a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development." LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of commercial square -footage is compatible within the PUD. The addition will not have a major effect on traffic and other infrastructure. 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. Unified control was established at the time of rezoning and continues through the present ownership. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this amendment to add additional square footage does not affect the PUD's consistency with the GMP, with approval of the companion GMPA. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 4 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed change is the addition of square footage. Staff believes that the approval of this amendment will not cause any compatibility issues with the additional locational restrictions imposed. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Applicant proposes to add square footage. Required open space of the PUD will not be affected. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is staffs opinion that the addition of new permitted uses will not affect public or private facilities beyond what was approved in the existing PUD. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The current PUD was found consistent with the GMP and compatible with the neighborhood. The addition of the proposed square -footage is compatible with the existing uses. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed amendment, if the increase is approved, will remain consistent with the PUD regulations. LDC Subsection 1O.02.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations from 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" (Staff s responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The proposed change has been found consistent with the FLUE with adoption of the companion GMPA. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern was reviewed and approved at the time of the original rezone. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter that pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. No isolated districts will be created through this amendment. Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 5 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment will not affect existing district boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. Staff believes that this location is appropriate for the proposed square footage. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Allowable commercial uses are generally compatible with the uses in the PUD. 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. Transportation staff reviewed the PUD and found the Level of Service acceptable. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The PUD is required to meet South Florida Water Management District standards and therefore, will not create a drainage issue. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The site planning process, PUD dimensional standards, and LDC requirements will ensure that light and air circulation are not seriously affected. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by many factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Since the Carolina Village PUD is existing, the proposed amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the GMP which is 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. Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 6 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. A portion of the PUD has been developed within the parameters of the existing allowable land uses. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The subject PUD was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban -designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are other parcels in the County suitable for commercial uses. However, an existing PUD, outside of an Activity Center is deemed to be an appropriate place for commercial uses. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree ofsite alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. However, since the site is partially developed, this process will be minimal. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by County staff who is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION.• The petitioner is seeking two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Document Section 3.45 (E). The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation #1: Off -Premises Signage, deviates from LDC Section 5.06.04.A.6. a -c "Deviation from the Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04.G 5 06:gq�6 as in order t,...efmit ......roximately one h lr e ,.,.e to allow one double- faced off -premises sign with a maximum of 8 feet in height and 32 64 square feet in Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PLTDA-PL20150002166 Page 7 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC area, located in the road right-of-way a mediE- in the read between the Welt Crspk nrm and the n..,.,.4n Village (labeled Pristine Drive on Exhibit "A") anda=«-on the west ,.:ae F441gs C,...,a:«e Village «_,.«e.4y line with the ,adveftisin,., The sign will be limited exclusively to no more than 3 residential development within the abutting Wolf Creek PUD. The proposed sign must meet all vehicular safety sight distance standards for Collier County and have a minimum 10 -foot setback from the Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way, as aeseribea in Seetion c 06 nn n , of the LDC. The proposed sign must be externally illuminated only. Lighted and not intemally ligMea Th:,, deviation allows ., hetier quality sign to he constructed for the 3 residential prejeet, without having t4e sign leeking etA of balance if it were leeated solely E)a the westem half of the median in the road, and also minimi-zes the, son4iisie4i fer visitors and deliveries to the 3 residential projects Once Pristine Drive is accepted by the Board of County Commissioners as a public road, any structural changes to the sign shall require a right - road becomes public may require the sign to be relocated for road expansion or to address capacity or safety issues." Petitioner's Justification: This deviation, with slight modification, was previously approved. The modifications are caused by the conveyance of the ROW and maintenance of the sign by the HOA. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff has no objection to this previously approved deviation, as long as it includes the added language. Proposed Deviation #2: Removal of a Wall Requirement along Vanderbilt Beach Road, deviating from LDC Section 5.03.02.H.1.b "Deviation from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.03.02.H.1.b, which requires a wall if located on a property rtv opposite a residentially zoned district but fronting on a local street or roadway, or the properties are separated by a platted alley, wall along Vanderbilt Beach Road." Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner believes that the buffer is sufficient to shield the Estates zoned properties across Vanderbilt Beach Road. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff agrees that a buffer and the width of Vanderbilt Beach Road are sufficient to shield the residences. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project does not require review by the EAC since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): A NIM was held on September 7, 2016 at 5:30 PM at Vineyards Community Park, 6231 Arbor Boulevard, Naples, FL 34109. The NIM summary is attached as part of the back-up. Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 8 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed this Staff Report on September 27, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20150002166 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 9 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC PREPARED BY: FRED REISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMO . BVLLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION i-2 7,t MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: IES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Vanderbilt Commons PUD, PUDA-PL20150002166 Page 10 of 10 October 5, 2017 CCPC ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO, 2005-19, THE CAROLINA VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO VANDERBILT COMMONS PUD; BY ADDING 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR A TOTAL OF 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR COMMERCIAL USES; BY DECREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 64 TO 58 DWELLING UNITS; BY REVISING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND REDUCING THE ACREAGE OF THE PUD FROM 15.88 ACRES TO 14.49 ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 15.8+/- ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20150002166] WHEREAS, on April 26, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 2005-19, which established the Carolina Village Planned Unit Development (PUD); and WHEREAS, Frederick Hood, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing Vanderbilt Commons, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend Ordinance 2005-19, the Carolina Village PUD, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Amendments to the PUD Document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 2005-19, formerly the Carolina Village Planned Unit Development. The PUD Document attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 2005-19, formerly the Carolina Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended and replaced with the PUD Document attached hereto as Exhibit A. [I6 -CPS -01577/1356455/11163 Page I of Vanderbilt Commons /PUDA-PL20150002166 8/4/17 SECTION TWO: Effective Date. 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 2017. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney IL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A — PUD Document (including Revised Master Plan) [l6 -CPS -01577/1356455/1] 163 Page 2 of 2 Vanderbilt Commons /PUDA-PL20150002166 8/4/17 CARO IN VI i 4GE MIXED i SIE PUD VANDERBILT COMMONS A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -11 it ll foll it I Wall T21 I IN1,11111 11 WIN TV I CIA "am I 1.71111V'111 A I VA -4 as IN 41ALWAIRIESEWMA1111 Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words StFUSk thFOugh have been deleted TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SECTION III MIXED USE AREA PLAN SECTION IV PRESERVE AREA PLAN SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 PAGE. -56 S9 3416 3317 Words added are underlined and words Legh have been deleted LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" PUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "B" CROSS SECTIONS FOR PUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "C" CAROLINA VILLAGE GE VANDERBILT COMMONS LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "D" LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "E" BOUNDARY SURVEY TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words StW g ; have been deleted STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 1`.88114_49 acres of property in Collier County, as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development to be known as (�a :",.;age -Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The commercial and residential facilities of the mina Village Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the 14.49 -Acre Expansion Area of the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict land use designation, as identified on the Future Land Use Map -and as described in the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Sub -District of the Urban -Mixed Use District in the Future Land Use Element. The Future Land Use Element permits commercial and residential land uses in this area and this Mixed -Use PUD complies with both the commercial and residential development standards within the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Expansion Area. 2. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's commercial intensity as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 3. The project development is compatible and complimentary to surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. S. The project development will result in an efficient and economical allocation of community facilities and services as required in Policy 3.1.G of the Future Land Use Element. 6. The project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub -Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. The project is located within the 14.49- Acre Exoansion Area of the. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, on the Future Land Use Map. The 64 58 proposed units over commercial uses and resultant density of 4.03 dwelling units per acre is in compliance with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan based on the following relationships to required criteria: Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words StMek-tpreugh have been deleted 1 Maximum Permitted Density 16 dwelling units/acre Maximum permitted units, per the Density Rating System of the Collier County Growth Management Plan = 15.88 affes (Expansien A•-^ affeag-) 14.49 acres x 16 dwelling units/acre = 2-54 231 as the maximum number of dwelling units at a maximum density of 15.9915_94 dwelling units/acre. Requested Maximum Approved dwelling units= 64 58. Requested density= 4.03 dwelling units/acre. 8. All final local development orders for this project are subject to Division 6.02, Adequate Public Facilities Requirements. of the Collier County Land Development Code. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words have been deleted 1.1 1.2 1.3 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PURPOSE The purpose of this Section Is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of rff9lina W age Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 4&.8"14.49 acres, is located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, and is fully described on Exhibit "C. The subject property is owned by, William 6. HeaveF, PFesidentof Catalina i a r :n s the Man ..ate plaza, I 1 r 3785 A: eFt Read n eFtM Suite e 1 Naples ReFida 34195 Vanderbilt Commons, LLC 2950 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34103 Florida Trust Holdings, LLC, a_ Delaware limited liability company, as Trustee of the Vanderbilt Commons Land Trust dated 8/1/16 c/o Welsh Companies FL, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 Midgard Self -Storage Naples, LLC 1905 Woodstock Rd, Building #900, Suite 69100 Roswell, GA 30075 Vanderbilt Commons Owner's Association. Inc. c/o Welsh Companies FL, Inc. 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words s••��;Fwgh have been deleted 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road approximately one-quarter mile west of Collier Boulevard (unincorporated Collier County), Florida. B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the date of this approved Mixed Use PUD Document was Rural Agricultural, 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The Project site is located within the Harvey Drainage Basin, according to the Collier County Drainage Atlas. The proposed outfall for the Project is to the Vanderbilt Canal. Natural ground elevation varies from 12.3 to 13.2 NGVO; average site elevation is about 12.6 NGVO. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone "X" with no base flood elevation specified. The water management system of the Project will include the construction of a perimeter berm with crest elevation set at or above the 25 -year. 3 -day peak flood stage. Water quality pretreatment will be accomplished by an on-site lake system prior to discharge south into the Vanderbilt Canal or discharge north into the Black Bear Ridge Subdivision water management system and eventual southerly discharge into the Vanderbilt Canal. The water management system will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through the Environmental Resource Permit process. All rules and regulations of SFWMD will be imposed upon this Project including, but not limited to: storm attenuation with a peak discharge rate per Collier County and SFWMD Rules, minimum roadway centerline, perimeter berm and finished floor elevations, water quality pre-treatment. and wetland hydrology maintenance. Per the Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils Mapping for Collier County dated January 1990, the soil type found within the limits of the property is #2 - Holopaw Fine Sand. Limestone Substratum. Site vegetation consists predominantly of improved pasture grasses, except a narrow strip of native vegetation along the north property line which is pine cypress- cabbage palm forest. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stFuek thFaugh have been deleted 4 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The EafeliRa Village Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD is a project comprised of 355&_14_49 acres designated for commercial and residential land uses and the commercial uses are limited to a maximum of 358998 200.000 square feet of gross leasable area and the residential land uses are limited to a maximum of 64-58 dwelling units. The remainder of the square footage may for retail and office land uses and all residential dwelling units shall be located in mixed-use buildings with commercial uses situated on at least the first floor. Commercial and residential land uses and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, quality screening/buffering. and native vegetation, whenever feasible. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Ca,8l' a Village ."-".'.lied Use Planned W ` "Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Ordinance". Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words ugh have been deleted SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Ce G4na `Q- ;W Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, MPUD - Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the 6aFeliRa Village Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD shall become part of the regulations, which govern the manner in which the MPUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this MPUD the provisions of other land development codes where applicable remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this MPUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of Division 6.02 Adequate Public Facilities Requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code at the earliest, or next, to occur of either Final Site Development Plan approval, Final Plat approval, or building permit issuance applicable to this development. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A. Commercial uses are limited to 36.8814_49 acres with a maximum of 160,000 200,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Rfesidential uses are limited to a maximum of 64 58 dwelling units and must be located on the second and/or third floors of mixed use buildings with commercial uses on at least the first floor. Eafelina Village Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD is intended to create a pedestrian -friendly atmosphere that encourages area residents to work and shop there and on-site workers to walk to other services, such as having lunch within the project. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL70150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stwck threagh have been deleted The maximum of 64 58 residential units will not exceed a density of 4.03 units/per acre. The project is shown as 2 tracts, a "North Tract" located north of Carolina Way (the east -west roadway splitting the site) and a "South Tract" located south of Carolina Way. The South Tract is expected to be more retail -oriented with a sit-down restaurant, a bank, and a few residential uses. The North Tract is expected to be more office and service-oriented. The North Tract will likely have both medical and professional offices and some residential uses. 2.4 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a Record Plat, and/or Condominium Plat for all or part of the MPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the PUD Master Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Code and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD Development Plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with PUD approval, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat if applicable shall be submitted for the entire area covered by the PUD Master Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the PUD Master Plan, Division 4.03 Subdivision Design and Layout of the Land Development Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. C. The provisions of Section 10.02.03, Site Development Plans of the Land Development Code, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Section 10.02.03 prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. D. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.5 SALES/RENTAL/CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES Temporary sales/rental trailers and construction trailers can be placed on the site after Site Development Plan approval and prior to the recording of Subdivision Plats, subject to the other requirements of Section 5.04.04 of the Land Development Code. 2.6 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the PUD as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code. Section 10.02.13E. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words StFUGkthFOug; have been deleted 2.7 PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Whenever the developer elects to create land area and/or amenities whose ownership and maintenance responsibility is a common interest to all of the subsequent purchasers of property within said development in which the common interest is located, that developer entity shall provide appropriate legal instruments for the establishment of a Property Owners Association whose function shall include provisions for the perpetual care and maintenance of all common facilities and open space. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words StFUSk have been deleted 3.1 PURPOSE 3.2 SECTION III MIXED USE AREA PLAN The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Mixed -Use Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan. Areas designated as Mixed Use Areas on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a variety of retail uses and office uses, while providing for the opportunity of having residential uses on the second and/or third floor of mixed use buildings, that have commercial uses on at least the first floor. Commercial Areas are limited to a maximum gross leasable area of 158,089 200,000 square feet and residential uses are limited to a maximum of 64 58 dwelling units. 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part. for other than the following: A. Permitted Commercial Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Amusement and Recreation Services (greups SIC 7911, 7991, 7993 only for indoor video game arcade and indoor coin-operated amusement machine. 7999 only for bicycle rental, ice skating rink operation, indoor slot -car track, and miniature golf course). 2. Apparel and Accessory Stores (grsdps SIC 5611- 5699). 3. Auto Supply Stores (9FOUP SIC 5531 only for automobile accessory dealers and automobile parts dealers, limited to retail sales without any installation). 4. Automobile Parking (greep SIC 7521). 5. Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper Stores (greap SIC 5231). 6. Business Services (greaps SIC 7311, 7313, 7322 — 7338, 7361, 7371— 7379, 7384, 7389 'only for service of interior decorating/design, mapmaking, notary public, paralegal service, and Postal Service contract stations) 7. Depository and Non -Depository Institutions (gfeups SIC 6021-6199). 8. Eating Places (greep SIC 5812) and Drinking Places (greup SIC 5813 only cocktail lounges and on- premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor, in conjunction with a restaurant.) Drinking Places are subject to the locational restrictions described in Section 2.6.1A 5.05.01 of the Land Development Code. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA-PL201S0002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words struek thMugh have been deleted 9. Educational Services (gFSUPS SIC 8211 - 8231 (no regional libraries). 10. Food Stores with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure (greups SIC 5411- 5499). 11. General Merchandise Stores with 57,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure (gFeuPS SIC 5311- 5399). 12. Health Services (gFeaPS SIC 8011- 8049, 8082). 13. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores (9FeepS SIC 5712 - 5736). 14, Insurance Carriers, Agents, Brokers, and Services with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure (gFeuPs SIC 6311- 6399, 6411). 15. Legal Services (gFeuP SIC 8111). 16. Membership Organizations (gFeuP6 SIC 8611, 8621, 8641- 8661). 17, Miscellaneous Repair (gFeeps SIC 7622, 7629, 7631, 7699 but only bicycle repair, camera repair, locksmiths, luggage repair, medical/dental instrument repair, musical instrument repair, piano repair, saw/knife sharpening service, and custom picture framing). 18. Miscellaneous Retail (9FeuPS SIC 5912, 5921, 5932 (antiques only), 5941 - 5949, 5961, 5962, 5992 - 5999 (except auction rooms, awning shops, fireworks, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, sales barns, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). (The sale of swimming pool accessories and supplies is allowable under SIC 5999. but not the sale of swimming pools.) 19. Motion Picture Theaters and Video Tape Rental (gFeePS SIC 7832 and 7841). 20. Museums and Art Galleries (gF0UP SIC 8412). 21. Personal Services (9FeuP SIC 7212 dry-cleaning and laundry pickup stations only, 7221 - 7291, 7299 (only car title and tag service, diet workshops, tuxedo rental, massage parlor, and tanning salon). 22. Professional Offices, Research, and Management Consulting Services (gFeuPs SIC 8711 - 8743,8748). 23. Public Administration (gFeuPS SIC 9111- 9199,9229,9311,9411 - 9451,9511 - 9532, 9611 - 9661, 9221). 24. Real Estate Agents and Managers (greups SIC 6512, 6531- 6552). 25. Security and Commodity Dealers (gFemps SIC 6211-6289). Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words•S o '- thMwgh have been deleted 10 26. Social Services (greup SIC 8322 (only adult day care services, counseling services, and senior citizens associations), 8351). 27. Travel Agencies (greep SIC 4724). 28. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal and the accessory uses by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). B. Permitted Residential Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Multi -Family dwellings. 2. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal and the accessory uses by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). C. Accessory Commercial Uses: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the Permitted Uses within this PUD Document. 2. Drinking Places (group 5813 only cocktail lounges and on -premise consumption of beer, wine. and liquor in conjunction with a restaurant.) 3. Caretaker's residences subject to Section 5.03.05 of the Collier County Land Development Code. D. Accessory Residential Uses: 1. Customary residential accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and storage buildings. 2. Recreational. uses and facilities including swimming pools, hot tubs, volleyball courts, children's playground areas, tot lots, walking paths, picnic areas, clubhouse, verandahs, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 3. Manager's residences and offices, temporary sales trailers, and model units. 4. Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Carports are permitted within parking areas. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stwek thFeueh have been deleted 11 3.4 PROHIBITED USES 1. Auto and home supply stores (SIC 5531 tire dealers and tire battery, and accessory dealers retail and auto supply stores with service bays lifts or other facilities for installing such automotive parts). 2. Gasoline service stations and other facilities with fuel pumps (SIC 55411. 3. Food stores (SIC 5411 fast food restaurants with drive-through lanes only). 3.45 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Ga*eliFla Village Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD. Front yard setbacks in Table I shall be measured as follows: 1. If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. 2. If the parcel is served by a non -platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback Is measured from the road easement or property line. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stNektkreagh have been deleted 12 TABLE I MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The table below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Vanderbilt Commons 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. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words sHUekt#eagk have been deleted 13 COMMERCIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet SCU on First Floor Minimum Lot Width 75 feet (1) SCU on First Floor Front Yard Setback 20 feet SCU on First Floor Side Yard Setback (2) 1 -Story 6 feet SCU on First Floor 2 -Story 7.5 feet SCU on First Floor 3 -Story 30 feet SCU on First Floor Rear Yard Setback Principal Structure 15 feet SCU on First Floor Accessory Structure 10 feet 10' PUD Boundary Setback Principal Structure BH BH Accessory Structure 10 feet or buffer width 10' or buffer width Lake Setback (3) 20 feet or 0 feet 20' or 0' Preserve Area Setback Principal Structure 25 feet 25' Accessory Structures or Other Site Alterations 10 feet 10' Distance Between Structures Main/Principal 1 -Story to 1 -Story 12' 42= 13,5' 1 -Story to 2 -Story 13.5' i5 15' 2 -Story to 2 -Story 15' 4SL17.5' 2 -Story to 3 -Story 17.5' �71r 20' 3 -Story to 3 -Story 20' 20'-12' Accessory Structures 1 Same as principal structure ISame as principal structure Maximum Height (4) Retail Building 35 feet and 1 -story N/A Office Building 42 feet and 3 -stories N/A Accessory Building 35 feet 35' Mixed -Use Building (4) 45' and 3 -stories 45' and 3 -stories Minimum Floor Area 700 square feet of principal structure on first habitable floor 500 square feet per dwelling unit Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words sHUekt#eagk have been deleted 13 (1) May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots and lots along the inside and outside of curved streets by 25%. (2) Where fee simple lots are created for each building unit no side yard shall be required between interior units of a unified principal structure, and the side yard shall be measured from the exterior wall(s) of the unified principal structure. (3) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Lake setbacks can be reduced from 20' to O' where a stemwall bulkhead or pier is constructed and the requirements of Section 4.02 05 of the LDC are met, (4) Retail uses are limited to the first floor of any building residential uses are limited to the second and third floors of mixed-use buildings (structures with retail or office uses on the first floor and office or residential uses on the second and third floors) Note 'BH" refers to building height and "SCU" refers to same as the commercial use on the first floor of the mixed-use building the residential use is located in, B. Off -Street Parking and Loading Requirements: As required by Division 4.05 Off -Street Parking and Loading of the Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. Off-site parking is permitted where a shared parking facility is located within 300 feet of the building requiring such parking. C. Buffering Requirements: 1. A minimum twenty (20) foot wide Type "D" Buffer shall be provided along Vanderbilt Beach Road, with the landscaping as required in Section 4.06.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code. D. Commercial Design Standards The project shall meet the commercial design standards within Division 5.05.08 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150007166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words 54UG'k thFeugh have been deleted 14 E. Deviations 1. Deviation from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04.G ` 06 ^� "�. e., in Wrier-te to allow one double-faced off -premises sign with a maximum of 8 feet in height and 32 64 square feet in area, located in the road right-of-way a. on the Fead between 6 WOK GFee'( o,,n @Rd the .yf{yge, (labeled Pristine Drive on Exhibit "A") ap.d mn the %sfegt side ..c the Celina Village PFBpeFty line with the advertising: The sign will be limited exelusively to no more than 3 residential developments within the abutting Wolf Creek PUD. The proposed sign must meet all vehicular safety sight distance standards for Collier County and have a minimum 10 -foot setback from the Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way, as described ' Seetien ` Of; 04 A ` a of the ImPQ 'PQThe proposed sin must be externally illuminated only.lighted and net iRte """;' "C"`"'' TMis Fleyintlen allows a betteF quality sign te be NAStMeted feF the 3 Fesidential ffajeets, without having the sign leeking eut ef balance if it weFe located selely en the westem half of the es'a_ t•a' pFejeets. Once Pristine Drive is accepted by the Board of County Commissioners as a public road any structural changes to the sign shall require a right-of-way permit. The signage shall be perpetually maintained by the homeowner's associations of the developments named on the sign The County at any time after the road becomes public may require the sign to be relocated for road expansion or to address capacity or safety issues. 2, Deviation from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5 03 02 H.l.b which requires a wall If located on a property opposite a residentially zoned district but fronting on a local street or roadway, or the properties are separated by a platted alley, then height shall be 4 feet and placement shall be a minimum of 3 feet from the rear of the right-of-way landscape buffer line to instead remove the requirement to place a wall along Vanderbilt Beach Road. Vanderbilt Commons MIND PLIDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words g : have been deleted 15 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREA PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit "A," PUD Master Plan, as may be amended pursuant to Section 5.3. 4.2 PERMITIED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 3. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words strtCk Ehreegh have been deleted 16 5.1 PURPOSE 5.2 5.3 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. GENERAL A. All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with Final Site Development Plans, Final Subdivision Plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this MPUD, in effect at the time of building permit application. B. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the Collier County Land Development Code shall apply to this project even if the land within the MPUD is not to be platted. The developer, his successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this document. C. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall follow the PUD Master Plan and the regulations of this MPUD as adopted and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee is subject to the commitments within this Agreement. PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", PUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as Final Platting or Site Development Plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.13E, of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stFUGI( thMUgh have been deleted 17 5.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT Wood One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is The Vanderbilt Commons Owner's Association Inc. Should the Managing Entity desire to transferthe monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section When the PUD is closed -out then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 4.03 Subdivision Design and Layout. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stFuel( thFeugk have been deleted 18 One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is The Vanderbilt Commons Owner's Association Inc. Should the Managing Entity desire to transferthe monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section When the PUD is closed -out then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5.5 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. B. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code, Division 4.03 Subdivision Design and Layout. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stFuel( thFeugk have been deleted 18 5.6 5.7 5.8 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Surface Water Permit Application shall be sent to Collier County Development Services with the SDP submittal. B. A copy of the SFWMD Surface Water Permit, SFWMD Right -of -Way Permit, and SFWMD Discharge Permit shall be submitted prior to Final Site Development Plan Approval. C. An Excavation Permit will be required for any proposed lake(s) in accordance with Collier County and SFWMD rules. D. Lake setbacks from the perimeter of the MPUD maybe reduced to twenty-five (25) feet where a six (6) foot high fence or suitable substantial barrier is erected. UTILITIES A: Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 88-76, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. TRAFFIC Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words s4wek thFough have been deleted 19 E. Peed Impaet Fees shell he paid iR apserdcc .04th Cell•... Ce .ety GFdinanee 91 10 amended. G. nu PFepesed ed:ee openings shell he iR RGROFFlamee with the, reuier reunty Annessss Management Palley /Penel t•en n1 2471 amended, and the. 1 nr as It Figay be amended. r 11' COURtYs the Fight to ...edit.. a elese any ed•e ngs 'st'e at the tim the publie. Any such Fnedifleatiens shall be based en, but amp net limited te- safety, epeFatienal H. Nething iR any deyelelament eFdeF shall vest a Fight Of -AcCaSS iR PHSaS9 Af a Fight in�Flght Out AFA median epening, nOF the Iael( theFeef. shall be the basis f9F any fUtUFe cause ef astieR f9 dvvgcSv6evniir�6iii2r-rc'v6' triv�vT-tnc-dC'�ciopc .�cTavccc»vi<il� v� o se nigRee- A.11 developments, with passible a ntiens fee BU&Steve nri.ee nd P,-int'Fie DFIye shall he I IF aRY red t..n lane pet r s the use of existing re Rty Fight of way a easement, eempeRsatlft Fight ef way, shall be ffevided vOit-he-04 te- GeIlIeF Geunty as a- eensequenee of a eh : et K. if on h 1 opinien f Celln.r re •nt.e a traff•e signal, OF ether traff•n rentFel de. ice, sign eF pavement FnaF'(*Ag within a pUblie Fight ef WaY GF easement Is deteFFAIRed te hecce..... he. a f test os .eh :....e.e.,e.r. t shall LeLeene ern .. a by the deelepe. and by neighbeFing PFSee..ty ewners ..eitL.:.. the ehengd Feed a ent and shall Lee neid_te Celller re onty hefe. the issuaRre of the pent CertMeate of flee•unane y. A. L-.- Adjacent developments have been designed to provide shared access or interconnections with this development. The PUD Master Plan indicates these locations. The developer, or assigns, shall assure that any such shared access or Interconnection is utilized and shall accommodate the perpetual use of such access by incorporating appropriate language into the development covenants or plat. M. The develepeF Shall pFovide a copy ef a shared Fead agFeement for both PF'stine [)Five and hawing that he has made any FequiFed 4aiF Shffe" payme.etc en eh e r to the issuanee of the first CeFtifleate of ns lanesIII. The ffejeet may eemmenee e8R4tF-1G*iAA Af site wark, and buildings upon hp 14,; -PFI -ntil the PRFIIAF of QetebeF 1, 2907 BF Lint'! the substantial Gempletien (new tFaffie aFe epen te t.afQe1 of the 6 lan'ng n eets of beth rellier Pe.•le.eardI between Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words gh have been deleted 20 B. A west bound right turn lane on Vanderbilt Beach Road, at the intersection of Pristine Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road, shall be constructed by the Owner(s) prior to the certificates of occupancy for any building within Lot 3, as shown on the Vanderbilt Commons Subdivision Plat, recorded in Plat Book 60, Page 31 of the Public Records of Collier County. C. granting of the certificates of occupancy for any building within Lots 4 and or 5 (as shown on the Vanderbilt Commons Subdivision Plat, recorded in Plat Book 60, Page 31 of the Public Records of Collier County) or within five years of the adoption of this PUD amendment D. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses (both primary and ancillary) may not exceed 547 PM Peak Hour, two wav trips (total external with pass -by trips subtracted) E. Access to all parcels within the Vanderbilt Commons Subdivision Plat, recorded in Plat Book 60, Page 31 of the Public Records of Collier County, or as amended, shall be from Vanderbilt Way. F. No public access or circulation drives shall be provided to, from or within lots 4, 5 and 6 (as shown on the Vanderbilt Commons Subdivision Plat, recorded in Plat Book 60 Page 31 of the Public Records of Collier County) between the northernmost Property boundary lines (shared boundary with Black Bear Ridge) and the northernmost structures (governed by their PUD setbacks) of the identified lots. 5.9 PLANNING Pursuant to Section. 2.03.07E. of the Land Development Code, if during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.10 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Environmental Services Staff. B. All conservation/preservation areas shall be designated as Preserve on all construction plans, and shall be recorded on the plat as a separate tract or easement with protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. Preserve areas shall be dedicated on the plat to the project's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibilities and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance. Buffers shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.05.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stwc'tkreugh have been deleted 21 In the event the project does not require platting, all conservation areas shall be recorded as conservation/preservation tracts or easements dedicated to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or as per Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. C. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic -free) plan for the site, with emphasis on the conservation/preservation areas, shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to Final Site Development Plan/Construction Plan approval. E. Any perimeter berms, shall be entirely outside of all upland and wetland preserve areas. F. A minimum of 0.17 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on-site, including all 3 strata. and emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. If created preserves will be used to make up any of the acreage, the landscape plans shall re-create the native plant community fin accordance with Section 3.05.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code) shall be submitted with the First Development Order submittal for review and approval. F. All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of these plants (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. G. A Preserve Area Management Plan shall be provided to Environmental Staff for approval prior to site/construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. H. This MPUD shall be consistent with the Environmental Section of the GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element and the Land Development Code at the time of final development order approval. I. This MPUD shall comply with the guidelines of the USFWS and FFWCC for impacts to protected species. A Habitat Management Plan for those species shall be submitted to environmental review staff for review and approval prior to Site Plan approval. J. All approved Agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final Site Plan/Construction Plan approval. 5.11 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure except for a temporary construction site office or temporary sales/rental facility. 5.12 SIGNS Signs for this mixed-use project shall be permitted as described in Section 5.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA - PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words stFUCk thFeegh have been deleted 22 5.13 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of building permit application. 5.14 POLLING PLACES Pursuant to Section 4.07.06 of the Land Development Code provision shall be made for the future use of building space within common areas for the purposes of accommodating the function of an electoral polling place. An agreement recorded in the official records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, which shall be binding upon any and all successors in interest that acquire ownership of such common areas including, but not limited to: condominium associations, homeowners' associations, or tenants' associations. This agreement shall provide for said community recreation/public building/public room or similar common facility to be used for a polling place if determined to be necessary by the Supervisor of Elections. 5.15 LIGHTING Lighting provided at the rear of any building and structure adjacent to the Black Bear Ridge Subdivision, for development on lots 5 and 6. (as shown on the Vanderbilt Commons Subdivision Plat, recorded in Plat Book 60, Page 31 of the Public Records of Collier County) shall be in the form of shielded structure mounted sconces. The areas Identified shall be free of "pole lighting" 5.16 ADDITIONAL SCREENING Owner(s) shall construct a 6 -foot wall at the rear of lots 5 and 6: abutting the Black Bear Ridge Subdivision (as shown on the Vanderbilt Commons Subdivision Plat, recorded in Plat Book 60, Page 31 of the Public Records of Collier County). No wall will be located along Tract C the Preserve Area. Vanderbilt Commons MPUD PUDA•PL20150002166 August 4, 2017 Words added are underlined and words StFUe'�: thFeueug : have been deleted 23 C RPOD I N ?u€ I WIXF CREEK O 1PTYPEAIANpSCAPE IPRESERVE7 10' TYPE A LANDSCAPE 10' TYPE A LANDSCAPE e u w Ico awn BUFFER BUFFER BUFFER I 4FOOT HIGH WALL _ I 6 FOOT HIGH WALL SCNL a iffy Ij— —-•--- T -- TRACT G(PRESERVEAREA, C.E.) t m m LL I� e LL I m PUD cw = D MISSION HILLS on LOT &i TRACTB MANAGEMENT LOTp5 LOTM6 i I (COMMERCIPL7 O w I o 19TYP OLANDSCAPE 10TY BDLANRSCAPE I Z s UFFE BUFFER ----L-- - wMRLL mItg 3 rc It u1D TYPED LANDSCAPE - --- ----- -- —.. 10' TYPE DSCAPE LIFT LLI ¢ BUFFER BUFFER STATION ! m LOCATION a It vOi LOT iFi ( LOT 712 ( LOT 773 I z— PUD Z nu=am HILLS 0'. I TRAUS S c i g0 Y ICOMMERCVLLI E g Q a I 4 FOOT HIGH WALL ! m o Z L- --R -- --�-_- ---- -L-_-�---- 5 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER a a 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD -RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 Q Q r MPUD LAND USE SUMMARY MPUD SUMMARY DEVIATIONS -THE VANDERBILT COMMONS MIXED USE PUD IS A PROJECT COMPRISED OF1ATON FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) SECDON 5.06.N.G TO ALLOW ONE USE ACRES 2 - Z WATER MANAGEMENT (TRACT B) 1.28 AC. 14.49 ACRES DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES DOUBLE-FACED OFF -PREMISES SIGN WITH A MAXIMUM OF 8 FEET IN HEIGHT AND 32 SQUARE 9 < ° O AND THE COMMERCIAL USES ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 200,000 FEET IN AREA, LOCATED IN THE ROAD RIGHTOF-WAY (LABELED PRISTINE DRIVE ON EXHIBIT SQUARE FEET OF AND THE RESIDENTIAL LANA •q•)_ THE SIGN WILL BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN GROSS LEASABLE AREA A € USES ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 58 REA ANG UNITS. ALL RESIDENTIAL THE ABUTTING WOLF CREEK PUD. THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST MEET ALL VEHICULAR SAFETY DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE LOCATED IN MIXED-USE BUILDINGS WITH SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS FOR COW - ER COUNTY AND HAVE A MINIMUM I OOT SETBACK COMMERCIAL USES SITUATED ON AT LEAST THE FIRST FLOOR. COMMERCIAL UTLLITY EASEMENT/ VANDERBILT K a AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES AND SIGNAGE ARE DESIGNED TO BE FROM THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST BE WAY R.O.W. 11.71 AC AN � •s HARMONIOUS WITH ONE OTHER IN A NATURAL SETTING BY USING EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ONLY. ONCE PRISTINE DRIVE IS ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF f COMMON ARCHITECTURE, QUALITY SCREENINGBUFFERING AND NATIVE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS A PUBLIC ROAD. ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO THE SIGN a}�S VEGETATION. SHALL REQUIRE A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT. THE SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERPETUALLY MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENTS NAMED ON THE SIGN. THE z ACCESS TO ALL PARCELS. WITHIN THE VANDERBILT COMMONS SUBDIVISION COUNTY AT ANY TIME AFTER THE ROAD BECOMES PUBLIC MAY REQUIRE THE SIGN TO BE PAT, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, PAGE 31 0E THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF RELOCATED FOR ROAD EXPANSION ORTO ADORESS CAPACITY OR SAFETY ISSUES. LL COLLIER COUNTY, OR AS AMENDED, SHABE FROM VANDERBILT WAY. ®DEVIATION FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LOC) SECTION 5.03-02 HA b. WHICH REQUIRES A WALL IF LOCATED ON A PROPERTY OPPOSITE A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT BUT FRONTING ON A LOCAL STREET OR ROADWAY, OR THE PROPERTIES ARE SEPARATED BY A PLATTED ALLEY, THEN HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND PLACEMENT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET FROM THE REAR OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE BUFFER LINE. TO INSTEAD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO PLACE WALL ALONG VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD. Ivrs.nc OF t PRESERVE AREA (TRACT C) tO.iB AC. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 11.44 AC. DEVELOPABLE AREA (LOTS IF) 29.88 AC. TOTAL SITE AREA 11/.99 AC. • RIMIw=" oft l Yrg1,6 TYPICAL LAKE SECTION Yr: 9� 'h90R1 YI[/.p bD h s 1Olp vvcI ( t Pip 0 YLL 1 �. tOTYI a[e . lo.a) i P SECTION C N.ri 0 u4 EWE �' YOY eY1t 2<o MJx10 �77 1v0[ a Y/.\nplr. �. MMI MO iaT1UII � Irlm ui Iw la [rw I iolYluw -Qi-. - - SE srrar fnsll., I 1r_ '\ --r Ya YtYt a00 noloox v rnoaYT � aot¢Yr-' 'I ,I sfm rw .Iw rarer .oYfm uY coq aR marc mum, fam.x a rac ama m wwlal IY i1M1® Lpq.(C- tla Yfp � RY15 ra IRI,IYn. a rua wrw�ws u�+ewnsYl � oMl e.�iYlYOo � 101 fw .4 rn marc `r oYY.r fuse¢ 11 YO1 wu aac W Imo. m YWI t rIIr sl <: Vra) OOIA 1NI 11Y Ol!wt06 fOYI Ya f06 wtYl Ys Yn awu lm ols .l. fig' WIDE FIGHT -OF -WAY SE PON SECTION A .I.s ppy ,TT LK IG fViP '1'IIq Mr P�� m was r wasaY: rs r- xa'. 4 Yq v ar afTl roe a ww � Y.R_ 1 Y.V I[r Sw. MSYY li d!/.RrJ ---- pl 11/YtT4mat T.34a/,l4 t.11w Wi01 flQ1.-• .�Ylp GSI auof Ymc nsrri ar roux r w rYa wY: or womrr YYC wYls to Yowl � a.Y rt, us[ t I YK ao.c. - YLYYp YNL A SE NSIWa M W Omt IW SEQTION Y.Tj Q. GRADY WOR AND AS40L7AM PA CAROUNA nLuca E%W817 '9' YOOr rl rM04 SCna+S rP I.a Y.ST MY Exhibit "C" Carolina Village Legal Description THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 69°46'10" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN NORTH 02014'20" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 145.13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, A 175 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 02°14'20" WEST. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 34. FOR A DISTANCE OF 523.93 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 112 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°47'36" WEST. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 112 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322.04 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE RUN SOUTH 02913'26" EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHEAST 114 OF SAID SECTION 34, FOR A DISTANCE OF 523.38 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD: THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°46'10" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: CONTAINING 15.879 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. u NOLF CREEK a ?ESID. PUD EXHIBI T "D L OCA TION MAP WOLF CREEK RESID. PUD VANDERBIL T BEACH RD. PROPOSED NA GEL - CRA I G RESIDEN TIAL PUD MISSION o, MR HILLS m SHOPPING W CEN TER rexrorxn -sH 12, mWor .0.4 §Wff&,M 1 13, VAIWROaTSFACUMD Powof com"'Cow teJ GRAor jaim AND LWHM P. A �V tz ttti. Vmv rexrorxn