Loading...
CCPC Agenda 02/15/2018AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., FEBRUARY 15, 2018, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 18, 2018 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PUDA-PL20160000087: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-20, as amended, the Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow up to two single family dwelling units as an alternative to commercial and multi-family development in the Commercial/Mixed Use Area of the PUD; and providing for an effective date, for property located on the south side of Goodland Drive (C.R. 892), approximately one half mile south of San Marco Road (C.R. 92), in Section 18, Township 52 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, Principal Planner] B. PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida 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 and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by adding the Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict to allow construction of up to 210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial office uses, all with conversions; providing for maximum height of 168 feet. The subject property is located near the southern corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5.35 acres; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to PL20160003054 Mini-Triangle MPUD and LDCA- PL20160003642) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] C. PL20160003054: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a General Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Mini-Triangle MPUD to allow construction of up to 210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial office uses, all with conversions; providing for maximum height of 168 feet, on property located near the southern corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.35± acres; providing for repeal of conditional use resolutions; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and LDCA -PL20160003642) [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner] D. LDCA-PL20160003642: 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 the following: Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including section 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones, to exempt the Mini-Triangle Subdistrict of the Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan from the Standards for Development in Airport Zones; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. (Companion to PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini-Triangle Subdistrict and PL20160003054 Mini-Triangle MPUD) [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp January 18, 2018 Page 1 of 77 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 18, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Tom Eastman, School District Rep ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney January 18, 2018 Page 2 of 77 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, January 18th 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. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, good morning. Mr. Eastman is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Eastman did notify me that he had a conflict for today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert's here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's that new guy that sits there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, addenda to the agenda. We have five items scheduled for today. Ray, is there any changes from the perspective of staff? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move right into Planning Commission absences. Ray, do we have any issues for the first meeting in February, February 1st? MR. BELLOWS: We have one item scheduled. It's the Eagle Creek PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody know today if they're not going to make it on February 1st? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we have a quorum. Thank you. And the second meeting is the February 15th meeting. I know we have some things tentatively scheduled for that, so we will be hitting both of those in the month of February. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Public evening meeting -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: We've got the 7th, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's the -- what is that evening meeting date again? Is it the 7th? Does anybody know if they're going to make it on the 7th or not? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will miss the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we still have a quorum. Good. Takes us to the approval of minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dock my pay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dock your pay. It's retroactive. We have our minutes electronically sent to us for December 21st, 2017. Is there any changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. January 18, 2018 Page 3 of 77 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? Seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be abstaining since I wasn't here on December 21st due to conflicts. So with that, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 with one abstention. Ray, the BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: There were no land-use items presented at the last board hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That makes it short and simple. Thank you. Chairman's report. I'm going to take this as an opportunity to describe what I've got to do today for the agenda. We have Items 9A, B, C, D, and E. A and B are two items more or less companion items on the same similar project or side-by-side project with interaction. B was required to come before the Planning Commission, and C would have been something that could have come to my other office as Hearing Examiner. Because they were coming before the Planning Commission with B, it made no sense to have two separate processes, so they are combined into one. I know that they're usually discussed typically by the Planning Commission as companion items both at the same time with separate votes on each. I didn't want to upset the process by sitting down for one and coming in for another, because I cannot participate in processes that started with my other office if they are PDIs. So I will be standing down for 9A and 9B, and Karen will be -- as vice-chair will take over on those. And when we get to 9C, that's the Sabal Bay project. That also started with my office, and because it was moved here and I realized it -- I moved it here because of the heightened public concern, which is required in my ordinance, I will not be able to participate in that PDI as well. So I will be stepping down for A, B, and C, and I'll be back up here for D and E. I'll probably be sitting in the back of the room. So with that, that's the end of chairman's report. There is no items for consent. And that takes us to 9A, and at this point I'll leave it for Karen, so thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: ***All right. So Item 9A is Siena Lakes, PDI-PL20160003125, with companion item -- are we going to do them both together? And we need to vote on them separately, though. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. And the other item will be PD -- I mean, PUDA-PL20170000524. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, just 000. You said four zeros, didn't you? It's incorrect on my file then. Thank you. It shows three here. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's four here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Whatever. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So whatever. It's -- all right. Would all those wishing to speak on this item please stand to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And disclosures. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Yovanovich about this, and I guess I got some correspondence from staff. January 18, 2018 Page 4 of 77 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I spoke with Mr. Mulhere and staff. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, and the original rezoning that involved this property, I was the community development administrator when this first came through the staff. I just wanted to put that on the record. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Karen? Karen? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While we're putting things on the record, I live in Lakeside. My unit almost shows on that map there, so. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay, good. And you were at the public meeting? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No? Okay. So we'll hear from the petitioner, then the staff report, and then we'll have the speakers. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Good morning. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here representing the applicant. With me this morning is David Archibald, who is vice president of development with Erickson Living, who is the applicant; and also Fred Moschetta, who is the director of sales who got the enviable assignment of moving to Naples from Michigan for this project; also Rich Yovanovich, whom you all know, is our legal counsel; Barry Jones, who's the civil engineer with Hole Montes who's designing the civil engineering aspects of the project. With me this morning also is Paula McMichael, who is a planner who works with me and Norm Trebilcock who is the transportation consultant on this project. I've put an aerial on the visualizer. I'll see if I can reduce that a little bit. There we go. There are two companion items here. This is the Siena Lakes PUD. Obviously, Orange Blossom, Airport Road. This is St. Catherine's Greek Orthodox Church right here, the Longview PUD, and this is the other property that is the subject of the PUDA, which is the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. I have another exhibit. It's a little shiny, but let's see if I can -- just gives you -- excuse me. This is a conceptual plan. It just gives you a little different perspective showing the neighboring developments and Orange Blossom, Siena Lakes, Orange Blossom Drive, and Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. So as the chairman indicated, there are these two petitions. One is a PDI; Siena Lakes is a PDI. And Orange Blossom Gardens is a PUDA. Siena Lakes is 29.25 acres in size. It is an existing PUD. It was approved in December of 2009. It allows for 764,478 total square feet of usable area under the floor area ratio contained in the LDC. The proposed breakdown is 355 independent units, 35 assisted living, and 30 total skilled nursing and memory-care beds. The original PUD was approved for four-story buildings. I want to put that original site plan on the visualizer. As you can see -- and I'm sure you noticed -- this is a very, very detailed master plan, and typically it wouldn't contain this level of detail -- this one does -- showing building locations, a lot of requirements. Just wanted to point out -- and the reason for putting this on there is you can see there were some three-story independent livings units here, three over parking, and these buildings along here were all four-story buildings, four over parking. So really five stories in height. And this is the revised master plan. I'll go over each of the changes. But you can see there's a good-sized lake here with a pavilion, another lake here with a pavilion, open up so that there's perspectives and vistas. We have reduced the height in all of the buildings to no more than three stories over parking, so it's -- there's no more four-story buildings, particularly along the front here. It's one connected building. Service areas are located here, so they're buffered from our neighbors. And then let me just go over each of the changes. And I'll leave this on there. The entrance drive has January 18, 2018 Page 5 of 77 been shifted a little bit towards the east from where it was originally located to have a central entrance. It's also a little bit further away from the intersection as well. I mentioned that the previous master plan depicted a number of separate buildings and had three- and four-story buildings. They're all a maximum of three-story now. I mentioned the pavilions that we've added as an amenity and the reconfiguration of the lakes. There's been some reconfiguration of the parking, though most of it is underbuilding parking. But there is some surface parking, and that's been reconfigured. There's been no changes to deviations, landscape buffers, or developer commitments. I do want to point out this connection to Lakeside of Naples is a requirement of the original PUD, and it remains in place, so that connection is there. And then Orange Blossom, of course, is right here. And I'll go over that now. So Orange Blossom was originally 11.7 acres in size, and then about half of that was taken out of that PUD and added to the Siena Lakes PUD. And so the remaining portion is 5.85 acres. It allows for 20 residential units. So as part of the amendment, which we originally went in as a PDI to add the ability on a temporary basis, maximum of five years, for Erickson to use that property as an administrative sales and marketing office in supporting the adjacent senior living facility. It was determined, I think, by the County Attorney's Office, that that was really a change in use; therefore, it went from a PDI to a PUDA. Sometime during the process -- the property is owned by St. Catherine's Greek Orthodox Church. Sometime during the process, they suggested that since Erickson has not closed on this property -- they have a contract to purchase it -- there is always the possibility that they don't -- that they might not close, although highly unlikely at this point, the church asked if we would also add accessory church uses. So when we had added that -- we had had one neighborhood information meeting, and then we had a second one because we added that use during the process, and I'll talk about that in just a moment. Let me get that master plan for you. So, again, Siena Lakes, the roadway connecting, connection to Orange Blossom. We -- when we amended this master plan as part of the process, we created two development areas, Areas 1 and Area 2. Area 2 is 1.62 acres. That will be the location for the sales facility. We will not be doing any improvements or changes or alterations to the northern portion of the PUD. There's a lake here with some vegetation here. You know, that would happen at a future point. If everything -- everything goes according to plan -- there are requirements to have obviously some presales before licensure and so on and so forth for these types of facilities. If everything goes according to plan, Erickson Communities will purchase that Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and incorporate that in the future into the Siena Lakes PUD. So when that happens, we'll come back to you. As an aside, the St. Catherine's Church also owns the Longview PUD, and so they can, you know, sell this Orange Blossom piece and still have the ability to expand in the future onto the Longview PUD, which is due north of Orange Blossom. We had a combined NIM for both of these projects on May 23rd. There were quite a few people in attendance. There were a lot of very good questions, very active communities. They were active in the first PUD and were there to listen to us for the second or amending PUD. And as I mentioned to you, sometime after that NIM we added the ancillary uses for the church, so we scheduled a second NIM, and that was held on October 17th, 2017. We have staff recommendation for approval. I have numerous experts to answer any questions that I'm not able to answer. I know you'll have some questions. And I'm sure there are some members of the public that would like to speak. So thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bob, the -- to clarify -- okay. I want to make sure I title it the right one. The PUD the church owns -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir, Orange Blossom Gardens. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- Orange Blossom, that has the accessory use for the church now, which is, as you, I believe, stated in here, was going to be some kind of a classroom or some other type of facility; it could be. January 18, 2018 Page 6 of 77 MR. MULHERE: Yes. It would be -- it would be a facility that could be used for the congregation for a lot of different uses; classrooms and gathering. Most churches have some sort of a community church facility. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then the -- you would have a temporary use for the sales center? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's if Orange Blossom -- or if the church retains the ownership. If the ownership is -- if they sell it to the developer -- MR. MULHERE: They would construct the sales marketing -- they're going to construct the sales marketing administrative facility. If they don't buy it, the church gains those improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. MULHERE: If they do -- and we're pretty certain they will -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're not building the classroom, then, for the church? MR. MULHERE: Then that will then probably be located on the piece that the church owns just north of Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then you said you'd have to come back again? MR. MULHERE: Right. We intend to come back in the future after we've done the presales and -- you know, constructed the sales facility. That's going to take a few years to get through that process -- we would come back and then incorporate the Orange Blossom into the Siena -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I see. Then you would try and combine -- MR. MULHERE: One PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- one PUD. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, of course, I'd stated on the record that I vividly remember this back in 2009, probably shellshocked from some of this, because it was a pretty contentious design, though the Board did approve it. And this, for the rest of the commissioners, it is an improvement over what was originally proposed just because of the mass of the building -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- the original design and the height, which was the primary concern, but, again, it was approved. And this is, I think, an improvement in what was originally proposed. MR. MULHERE: And they're a very successful company. They operate facilities -- I think this may be the first or second facility in Florida, but they operate facilities along the East Coast, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's all the questions I have. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one or two. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This perhaps could be asked of staff, but since Mr. Yovanovich and I had a conversation about it, and he was going to look into it, I thought it might be best if I just ask him or you, Bob -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and that has to do with the fact that a commercial use on the Orange Blossom piece is nonetheless commercial even though it's temporary. And so how does that -- how is that accomplished within the GMP? MR. MULHERE: So actually this ancillary facility is -- sales marketing, administrative facility is actually permitted anywhere where an ALF is permitted and also anywhere where multifamily, rental, or other types of multifamily housing; even singe family would allow for these types of facilities. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are on the site? MR. MULHERE: Well -- or an adjacent site. I mean, it's allowed -- it's allowed in other than commercial. ALFs are allowed in other than commercial. So, actually, Collier County does not consider this to be a commercial use. It's either institutional or quasi-residential, but it's not -- an ALF is not considered to be a commercial use, so neither is the ancillary facilities to operate that. January 18, 2018 Page 7 of 77 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My question came from the memo from Kay Deselem of October 27 of '17 where, among other things, she says, as the urban residential subdistrict does not provide for commercial zoning at this location, the proposed uses may be deemed consistent with the FLUE only if they are determined by the zoning services section not to be commercial ones. And I understand your explanation, I guess, on the part -- on behalf of staff that they don't consider it commercial. To me that seems like a stretch. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The issue of accessory sales facilities to an ALF or residential developments, as Mr. Mulhere indicated, these are allowed in any zoning district as accessory uses, and because they're limited to the sales of the units for the product they're selling on the property or in this case the adjacent property, we don't deem that any kind of commercial operation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What if it were in Lakeside? MR. BELLOWS: That would be different. This -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why? I mean, in this case the two lots are different. In the case of Lakeside they're different as well. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. It's -- well, the only reason I would say it was different is because it's not immediately adjacent to and that the future plans are to combine them into one PUD. But in any event, it's still not a commercial use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I guess if you say so. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, just to clarify, I mean, we've had these discussions in the county in the past even with homes along Collier Boulevard as -- seemed to be for quite a while that they were developers' models, stand -- single-family as a developer model to sell real estate -- homes in the Estates. So that's kind of a similar type of issue, isn't it? I believe there was some kind of amendment to the LDC, and there's a process for doing that, and wouldn't this be similar? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question or two on the Siena piece. First of all, I like the project. I like the fact that the height of the separate buildings to the north is going to be three plus one instead of four plus one, and I think that is a good step. I also -- I guess I'm puzzled by the traffic, the roadway connection and the easement that would facilitate a connection if it were desired by the Lakeside people and this developer. But county wants it whether it's desired or not; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Yes, that's correct. And we will construct that. We're required to as part of our PUD. The connection, really, is not something that we would be -- we're willing to make that connection, put a gate in, whatever, but that really, of course, is up to Lakeside. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Interesting. MR. MULHERE: And I just did want to correct a couple of comments that Rich mentioned in case I wasn't clear or I misstated. This PUD is approved at a floor area ratio of 0.60 as it exists today and -- because I might have referenced the LDC. But obviously the PUD has a floor area ratio of 0.60. Also, I think I did mention that it is three over one, as you suggested, just to be clear on the record. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There is no height increase anywhere in the entire project, right? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think my last question has to do with traffic, and common sense tells me that the increase in traffic as a result of the change in uses would be negligible, but I'd just like to know that someone has thought about it and that that is a -- that is a reasonable conclusion. Because when you move from a use that involves more incapacitated people, if you will, you're not going to have as many people driving around as you do when they are independent living people, I would assume. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. And for the record, Rich Yovanovich. I did confirm with our traffic consultant that he did analyze the difference in the number of independent living units that we're adding to; it's minimal -- it's a minimal January 18, 2018 Page 8 of 77 increase and has no impact on the level of service on any of the roadway system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to get that into the record. MR. MULHERE: I just did want to add -- and I appreciate your reminding me of this that, as you know, Orange Blossom -- part of both of these PUDs, previously on Siena Lakes and now as part of this Orange Blossom, we are -- have or will be providing the additional right-of-way for the improvements to Orange Blossom, including the intersection improvements as well as a turn lane. So, for example, on Orange Blossom, we have made a commitment to provide the county with 44 feet of additional right-of-way. It was 28 feet until about two months ago, and then it became 44 feet, and so we had to redesign that a little bit, but we've committed to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I did have one more; I'm sorry. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: That's okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the NIM, which I thought was well recorded -- and I commend you for that. It was very easy to follow. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- the -- there were commitments made with respect to mitigating dust, and a comment was made that that would be looked into and that something would be proposed that would be satisfactory to or you would attempt to achieve satisfaction on the part of the residents, and I was wondering what, if anything, has been done along those lines. MR. MULHERE: Well, the county does require, as part of the Site Development Plan, when you come in for preconstruction for improvements, that you maintain the project dust-free through silt fencing and, if necessary, you know, water trucks can come in and do that. We haven't made any specific commitment to that. That's going to be part of the Site Development Plan review. Obviously, we're more than willing to commit to doing that if that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure what the public is going to have to say on this, but that may be something that we ask for a commitment on. MR. MULHERE: Yep, I understand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's all I have, Madam Chairman. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Isn't that all -- isn't that something they're supposed to do anyway? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the question's whether there could be something over and above what the minimal requirement is. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Anything else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I don't know whether -- Jeff, you may want to listen to this. You know I live in Lakeside. The history behind that, we were originally supposed to have an alternate entrance/exit out the back toward that project back there, Bridgewater Bay, whatever it's called. MR. MULHERE: Bridgewater Bay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it was never done. The LDC says you have to have a -- they encourage tie-ins between projects -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- to stop traffic from going out into main roads. And when this project -- there were a couple of instances -- there was a major accident right at our exit one day, and nobody could get in or out for hours, maybe half a day; ambulances, nobody could get in or out. Hurricane, I believe it was, Charley, knocked a lot of stuff down, and nobody could get in or out because there was only one way in or out. So there were people in there that started pushing for some type of alternate exit just for safety sake. And this was the only place where there's no development next to our project. And am I getting into any area that I have a conflict of interest here? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So there were people in there that wanted this secondary entrance/exit which is why we requested it, the people in Lakeside, because it was the last chance we'd have to have a second way in or out of there for emergencies. January 18, 2018 Page 9 of 77 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. It makes sense to me. I get it. It's just that I saw some commentary in the NIM that nobody seemed to want it except the county. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But there are people in there -- the people that live right near there, they are afraid that they're going to see an increase in traffic, increase in traffic noise, and, you know, naturally where you live in there depends on whether you want it or not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly, there would be a walkway through there, right? MR. MULHERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Walkway? MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And there could also be a key-fob-operated type of electronic gate or something. MR. MULHERE: It should be under the control of Lakeside community. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. There are 400 units in there with only one exit. That's a lot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I take it the county doesn't have a problem with there being an electronic barrier that is only usable by the Lakeside people, or does it? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, there's no problem because that's at the backside of Imperial. They have the same thing. The people that get in or out are people that live in that part of Imperial. MR. MULHERE: I don't think there's any issue there. It would be great for emergency reasons and other reasons to have people have another way in and out of the project, and I think that's why the county required it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You will not be putting bituminous down here, will you? This is just -- MR. MULHERE: You're way above my pay grade with that question. Where's Barry? COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're just going to leave the easement there? If Lakeside wants it, they can -- MR. MULHERE: We have to build it within our project, and it will provide access between Siena and Orange Blossom, but we're not going to make that connection unless -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I understand. But you will be putting the bituminous down then? MR. MULHERE: It will be improved and paved, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just one quick question. And, again, I wasn't at the meeting prior to; this has been discussed before. But is there anybody here that can clarify -- I live about a quarter mile from there as well, and I know traffic already -- with First Baptist Academy and Bridgewater Bay, the traffic on that road, single lane, as we're talking about past Siena Lakes and at the intersection, is already super duper congested. So I'm just wondering if there's some clarification if this has been addressed through the county and what the future plan was -- if I missed that, I apologize -- to make that two or three lanes? MR. MULHERE: It has, but I'm going to let Mike Sawyer answer that. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah, please. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, transportation planning. We are looking at that, at getting improvement made. It is a recognized need at this point. We don't have any funding or actual design yet, but it is a recognized need. We actually are looking at that as a relief for Pine Ridge as well. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: In the past I've heard of developers -- I want to say GL Homes is one that comes to mind with Stone Creek and Riverstone where -- did the builder, the developer, contribute funds or pay for road widening or road extensions like the one from Logan that is now -- future going to go to Bonita Beach Road? MR. SAWYER: Quite honestly, yes. That's often the case, and we do have actually a couple of January 18, 2018 Page 10 of 77 developer commitments for this development to actually help primarily with right-of-way because generally that's what we -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. MR. SAWYER: -- that's what we really need to have is we need to get the right-of-way in order to actually get the road improvements done. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I've heard them mention 44 feet from 20-something feet originally. So that 44 would allow -- give me an idea. Are we talking about two lanes with a third lane as a turn lane? Or give me an idea. Because I'm going to tell you -- and I know they know -- that road now can't handle -- it's backed up every day now during heavy congestion hours because of the single-lane deal, because people can't come out and go right on Airport because there's not enough room in that single lane right where we're going to be putting this development. So I'm just -- I'm sure very smart people are on top of this. MR. SAWYER: Yes. The configuration would be a four-lane road link, if you will. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: All the way to Livingston? MR. SAWYER: Yes. It would be basically from Airport to Livingston. There would be turn lanes going into the various developments. That's basically what we've been looking at. Whether or not there would be a median in there or not, I can't tell you. We don't have that level of knowledge yet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And just to clarify, again -- and this speaks to them as well -- what commitments -- let's re-clarify the commitments you-all have made, the developer, to do that road since you've already said the county has no money to do it, and I think it's an absolute necessity. MR. SAWYER: Just for clarification, it just hasn't been budgeted yet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. Mike, when do you think you could put this in? MR. SAWYER: I would have to get back to you on that. I don't have a time frame on that, and I apologize. I did not look into that for this petition. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because 2025 doesn't help at this point. MR. SAWYER: I will be able to get back to you on that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Patrick, one thing. If you look at that road, it's all sloped in one direction instead of crowned in the middle. I think there was always the intent to build another two lanes on the other side like they standard do. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anything else? No other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Could we have the staff report. Oh, Ray. Sorry. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I will be presenting these two petitions for staff. Staff concurs with the presentation made by the applicant today. It's consistent with their request, staff has found it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and we are recommending approval subject to the conditions noted. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. I noticed that the Clerk of the Courts has raised an issue of the capability of the Planning Commission or the Hearing Examiner to enact an ordinance, and I think that point is well taken. I notice the resolution with regard to the insubstantial change part of this is still worded "resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to ordinance." Well, I mean, that -- why don't we change that language now so that what we're doing is we're making a recommendation to the BCC for it to amend an ordinance. MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding that we are in the process of amending the code so that will be, in fact, the case. And until that happens, it's -- we're taking this to the Board as a recommendation, or as an approval of the Collier County Planning Commission for the Board to validate. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it seems -- January 18, 2018 Page 11 of 77 MR. BELLOWS: But your suggestion is in the works. We are going to make PDIs a recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Well, I -- okay. It just seems to me odd that since we don't have that capability we're being asked to pass a resolution that, on its face, appears to change the ordinance. MR. KLATZKOW: You have that capability. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We do? MR. KLATZKOW: Sure. Just because the Clerk says you don't doesn't mean you don't. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. But I give you that point -- MR. KLATZKOW: You have the capability. Now, in the exercise of due caution, we will be amending the LDC. But until that happens, we're under the current rules. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That answers my question. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's in our LDC amendments that we have today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, it is. It is. I just -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: That means it's not in effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I know, but I defer to the County Attorney on that. But to me when I read it, it seems as though we are exercising an authority we don't have, but I've certainly not researched it, and I defer to what the County Attorney said. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anything else of staff? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do we have speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. SAWYER: Excuse me. Chairman, if I might, Trinity just came in and corrected me. Last year Orange Blossom was changed, and it is now budgeted and scheduled for 2022. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: So I apologize. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And, Mike, scheduled for -- re-clarify again what's the proposed -- what's going to happen. MR. SAWYER: That's actual construction. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And that's four-lane? MR. SAWYER: I will double-check that, but I believe it is, yes. Whether or not it has the median or not, I don't know. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: She's coming up right now. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, transportation planning manager. Yes, Orange Blossom, Airport to Livingston, not all the way to Goodlette -- I don't want to start anybody calling me -- is design in Fiscal Year '19, which will determine where those median openings and all of that will be, but we're certainly hoping to have a median along the roadway. Right-of-way and advanced construction, '21, and actual construction in '22. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Great. Thank you. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And just for one more point of clarification, not for them, for you guys. So based on that timeline of that road improvement, which I think we can all agree is a necessity, does that gel with the timeline you-all are talking about? Or I get the feeling you-all want to get this going much quicker than that. MR. YOVANOVICH: My anticipation is we may be a little bit ahead of that schedule, but we certainly won't be a complete project built out by that period. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: By '22? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It won't be a complete project buildout by then. But one thing I want to clarify for the record is our project does not diminish the level of service on Orange Blossom to where it fails, okay. So we're not -- in other NIMs I've said we're not breaking the road. If we were breaking the road, we would not meet concurrency and, therefore, we would not be able to get permits. Since we're not -- yes, it's a congested road, but it's still operating at its adopted level of service. January 18, 2018 Page 12 of 77 There are scheduled improvements that will occur. We will be paying our impact fees. We will be advancing road right-of-way so that the construction can occur, but we will be playing by the concurrency rules as we go along through this process. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Does that increase in the right-of-way, I believe you said 40 -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 44 total feet. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Forty-four total feet. That clearly gives us plenty of room for those improvements for the county to do the four-lane? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: We're not sure yet about the median, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That was -- that's why I think they went from 28, was their original ask, 28 feet, to 44 feet, so they could accommodate their proposed improvements. They already -- remember, they already have right-of-way, so they needed an additional 44 feet from us. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No? Okay. Could we have the speakers, please. MR. BELLOWS: First speaker, Deborah Stevenson. MS. STEVENSON: Good morning. My name's Deborah Stevenson. I'm a resident of Lakeside of Naples, the community consisting of 380 units on the northern side or border of Siena Lakes. Many of our residents have concerns related to the development of these parcels as a whole and the proposed changes that we're discussing here today this morning. First of many was the way the notification went out both in the Naples Daily News and in the notifications Lakeside residents received in the mail related to the height of the building, but most of that's been addressed in the meeting already, and it is our understanding from what's been said this morning that the height of the buildings will be going from five levels down to four, although most of the community buildings, including Lakeside, only have a maximum of three levels without garages underneath, along with the Carlisle and other buildings surrounding us. So Lakeside still remains very concerned about the height of buildings to Sierra (sic) Lakes, especially since post-Irma we've lost a lot of our buffer that's shown on these wonderful maps behind us of canopy trees, palm trees, et cetera. And there are several three-story buildings that will be looking directly into Sierra (sic) Lakes right now as opposed to the two-story buildings that are demonstrated on the models that you've seen today. Bear with me. I'm sorry. I'm also very nervous. In order to create an effective sightline, we'd like to have the developer come back and relook at the buffering system of the remaining trees to see whether or not they can help create some privacy, cut down on lighting from those elevated buildings that will be on that property that will affect Lakeside, as well as noise. Second, we're very, very concerned about the density level planned in these acres and the impact to the quality of life it's going to have on our immediate community as well as the surrounding communities as a whole. Four hundred twenty units, of which those 355 are independent living and 35 are assisted living, would create a significant strain, as we've been saying, on the surrounding infrastructure. Roads, which we've been discussing, currently Orange Blossom, which is heavily used, which has been discussed, to local residents and commuters, the addition of those 420 units puts 420 to about 840 residential trips, not to mention you have Siena employees coming, their vendors, trash, trucks, landscaping, food providers, laundry, and other services. You have visitors coming as well as guests, all whom have to egress and ingress onto Orange Blossom. Currently there is no left-turn lane on eastbound Orange Blossom for the potential of traffic -- allowing for the potential of traffic to back up onto Airport-Pulling Road, and this would be a highly likely probability because it's a very short stretch between Airport-Pulling and where they will be making their left-hand turn. Without Collier County really committing to a time for when they will want to widen Orange Blossom, and even four years down the road, we really -- the traffic has no place to go, literally, in that January 18, 2018 Page 13 of 77 intersection, which is going to be backing all the way and up and down Airport into the residential area on the other side of Orange Blossom, which is two lanes. We also have the impact along there of having Avery Square, a newly developed 82-year-old -- 82-unit development lateral to Siena Lakes on Airport with 82 to 164 trips. We have the library, the government center, St. Catherine's Church and their plans to expand with classrooms, and the Carlisle with an existing 200-plus independent living facilities on the corner, which begs for the evaluation, really, to relook at the density surrounding the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport-Pulling Road. Our other main concern is stormwater management. The last year has proven that significant water management issues exist on that property. The lakes do not hold the water, it doesn't run over Orange Blossom into the runoff lakes like it's supposed to, and with the elevation planned on Siena Lakes to build up will naturally run with gravity down into the surrounding communities, creating a flooding situation. So I'd like to thank you for the time, and I hope the Planning Commission will review the impact of the large development such as Siena Lakes would have on our quality of life: Size of the buildings, the density already in a congested area of Naples, the increased strain placed on the roadways, water management, sewers, and utilities. Thank you. And I apologize for speaking so fast. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have a question. And I appreciate everything you stated, and certainly there is merit to everything you stated, but it's no different than -- MS. STEVENSON: What you said. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- what already exists today and what they're already approved and already vested for today, so -- MS. STEVENSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- regardless of which project, it appears that what they're proposing now will be less of an impact or equal to the impact that already has been approved and allowed for now. MS. STEVENSON: I think it's still a strong impact on the community -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I understand. MS. STEVENSON: -- very big impact, but the main -- I guess because in this particular corner, lately everything's been approved between the last year with Avery Square and other projects down the pipeline, that we're concerned about all the density at that one intersection without any changes in the road. There's already major accidents at Orange Blossom and Airport. Turns signals are not -- Orange Blossom to cut through Livingston, which is highly used by commuters, is a very unsafe road at this point. You've got senior citizens turning left into an assisted living facility. It's going to be very precarious. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MS. STEVENSON: And the other thing is the impact that it has on the greater community as a whole. This is a monstrosity of a facility that's being built and for the residents to have to look at that are around it. So we just want to impact, soften the project a little bit and make it more community friendly when they're moving forward. That's all. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: I think that's what they've done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think that's what they've done. MS. STEVENSON: They may have. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's already approved. You realize that? MS. STEVENSON: I do realize that, but I'm just voicing my opinion, and I will say, unlike Mr. -- sorry I can't pronounce your last name, who lives in Lakeside -- there are a lot -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Few people can. MS. STEVENSON: -- of us that are very concerned about that cut-through. We know the reputation of Erickson with building big projects. There's always traffic problems, there's parking problems in these projects, and we're afraid that's going to start overflowing into the greater community, and especially in Lakeside, because we will have, by choice or no choice, a combining road that leads into the property. So that's what we're concerned about, and if people start overflowing and parking on Orange Blossom. January 18, 2018 Page 14 of 77 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Are you speaking for a board or just yourself? MS. STEVENSON: I'm speaking for many residents that I -- who are working today, and I came to speak on their behalf in Lakeside. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MS. STEVENSON: Thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have, if I may, a question, not for the speaker, but something that she brought up that I want to check with staff on. I'm looking at the 2017 AUIR. And if I'm reading it correctly -- and that's what I want to verify -- Orange Blossom, between Goodlette-Frank and Livingston is in green and, according to the legend, green in this case means 5 to 10 percent decrease from 2016. Am I reading it correctly? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think I'd defer that to our transportation planning staff to verify what that means. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem there. I'm just seeing how this project relates to what we saw in the AUIR, please. MS. SCOTT: Once again, Trinity Scott, for the record, transportation planning manager. Yes, you are seeing that, but understand from a year-to-year basis we are looking at these roadways on a -- this is compared to the prior year. The prior year could have been a major increase. And so as travel patterns change, maybe construction in the area -- we take traffic counts four times a year. Five to 10 percent of 1,000 p.m. peak trips is not a large amount of traffic. In the overall scheme of things, you're talking, you know, a very small amount of trips. You're not going to notice a difference on 20 to 30 trips, but from a percentage basis, it looks big. But in the p.m. peak, 20 or 30 trips might not make a huge difference. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In addition to this picture that has the Orange Blossom in green, the other references in the AUIR to Orange Blossom, none of them that I see indicate that it is going to be deficient in the next five years. MS. SCOTT: It's not. It's not. This is -- the widening of this is about building out our network, our urban network. We have developers that are coming in. We see that coming in, so we start working with them to make sure that we've set aside the proper amount of right-of-way. The speaker made a very valid point about the intersection of Airport and Orange Blossom, and so these are things that we're looking at in advance and going ahead and -- in this particular instance, if we make improvements to that intersection, it's such a small amount that would widen out, because we would make that intersection what an ultimate four-lane would be. And if you go over to Livingston, that is exactly what happened at Livingston. And so if you look at the difference of what would remain to be four-laned, that's why we just opted to go ahead and four-lane the remainder. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Richard Zelinka. MR. ZELINKA: My name is Richard Zelinka. I live at 2711 Citrus Lake Drive. My unit is directly across from the northern boundary of the Siena project. I have some general comments regarding the redesign and a very specific question and concern regarding health and safety. Regarding the -- what is called an insubstantial change, if you compare the two plans, under the new plan the buildings are boxier, they're interconnected, and the roof lines no longer have the softening at the corners that was -- that was created as a result of concerns that were raised during the last round with the initial design, concerns that were raised by myself and others at Lakeside. So we don't feel that this is either an insubstantial design or an improvement. I would also note that I believe the gentleman said the heights have been reduced. If you look at the plans, as I'm reading them, the heights have not been reduced. The number of levels have been reduced, meaning that the ceiling heights within the buildings have been reduced. But the tallest buildings were 60 feet tall, they're high-rises, and they're still 60 feet tall, and I believe the buildings in the back are 47 -- on the north border are 47 feet tall, and they were originally that height. So there's no lowering of the building January 18, 2018 Page 15 of 77 heights. This is a very, very dense development and, for the area, it really stands out like a sore thumb. So, just general, in my opinion and the opinion of many at Lakeside, these are not insubstantial changes, and this is not an improvement over the original plan. In fact, it -- from the perspective of the abutters, it is worse than the original plan. My health-and-safety concern concerns sewage. We have a pumping station along Citrus Lake Drive immediately to the north of the boundary of this property. We had no electricity for nine days after Hurricane Irma. That pumping station was without electricity for nine days. My understanding from the manager of Lakeside is that Siena is going to tie into the sewer lines that run under Citrus Lake Drive. I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is, I want to be -- make sure that this is not going to have a deleterious effect on the sewage systems, because we had major problems. They had to come and pump because sewage was overflowing from that sewage pump station. Why that pump station was not -- went nine days without electricity is another issue. But, apparently, at Lakeside, each community within the overall Lakeside development is on a different electric grid, and that pumping station is on the grid that got the electricity last or next to last. And then I had one other question because there's some confusion as a result of what was said at the various meetings. There appears to be about a 5-foot no man's land between the fence, the chain -- the existing chain link fence that's the southern boundary of Lakeside and the wall that's going to be the northern boundary of the Siena project. I'd like to know whether or not there are any plans to landscape beyond the wall that the Siena development is going to build because it's along their property line or whether that 5-foot no man's land is going to be the responsibility of Lakeside to maintain. Because right now everything past the chain link fence is being maintained by the current property owner of the Siena parcel. Thank you for your time. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Could we get some just quick responses to the last -- well, just for me now. I mean, the biggest one to me off the top was, could you please clarify again the height of the buildings being now lower than it was before. MR. YOVANOVICH: What is happening is -- and Mr. Fryer pointed this out. Heights are not being changed. The number of stories are being changed. So instead of there being four stories over parking, the cap is three stories over parking. Many hearings you hear people say, so I'm assuming what's happening is the ceiling heights are actually increasing to be more marketable. As you know, the types of heights of ceilings has changed for what people want in their types of units. So the number of floors is being -- the number of livable residential floors is being reduced. The overall height of the building is not. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: It stays exactly the same as before? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The actual height is exactly the same as before? MR. YOVANOVICH: The tippy-top height that was there before, all the height numbers are the same. If we had increased the height, we would have been -- not been an unsubstantial change. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I did hear that we've now -- they're now not as -- I heard they were lowered. I understand the clarification now. But I think that's why there's a concern, because that's what I heard as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I kind of -- I could see how you heard it that way. That's why I said, make sure you clarify it's three stories over parking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So what is the actual? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me pull the table. The zoned height for a four -- or three-story over parking or a four-story building, same thing, remains at 53 feet zoned and 60 feet actual. Okay. That's that question. I don't know if there's any more public speakers. MR. BELLOWS: We have one more public speaker. January 18, 2018 Page 16 of 77 MR. YOVANOVICH: Then I can wait or I can do it now. Whatever you prefer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stormwater? MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, let me go through what has been said so far, then -- let me work my way backwards. Regarding sewer, we are not connecting to Lakeside's sewer, and our sewer will actually be connected to a generator should we ever lose power because, you know, the regulations that occur for continuing care retirement communities in the wake of Irma, okay. So we will have no impact on their sewer system or their lift station. Water management -- as you all know, and we try to educate people during the NIMs -- we go through the South Florida Water Management District for them to review and permit the impact in a very simple way. We're not allowed to negatively impact their community, and we go through a permitting process to make sure we don't have our water negatively impact their community. There are engineers in the room that can give you all the engineering calculations as to why and how we achieve that, but the permitting process addresses the water management issues. What I failed to mention and, frankly, I had forgotten, is there is an agreement that is in place by various developers to fund the intersection improvements at Orange Blossom and Airport Road, and we will be contributing towards those improvements pursuant to that agreement. So there's an above-and-beyond impact fee payment, if you will, from this project to address traffic concerns. It's just not this project. It's other projects in the area. Avery Square, some of you were around. That's the old Buckley PUD, and the old Buckley PUD actually was amended to reduce the number of residential and commercial that could happen on the property and resulted in a reduction of overall traffic when Pulte purchased Avery Square and started it. But that project was approved many, many years ago and was recently amended to reduce the overall intensity of that project. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Richard, you're not telling me that traffic has gone down, though, since Avery Square on Airport Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's not -- what I'm saying is it was implied that Avery Square was recently approved and is contributing to the traffic impact. What I'm saying is that was also approved at a greater density and actually came in and reduced the density based upon current market conditions. And all we're doing is adjusting what's already approved from an intensity standpoint of our project to address the market for a lot of people in this room and me soon to be in that category of individual that hopefully will live long enough to live in an independent living facility. But it's a need. There's no question it's a need, and we're just addressing some of the market conditions and the need for, basically, 15 more independent living units. And I think, as we all know, independent living units generate very little traffic compared to regular residential because we're required to provide, you know, community-related transportation. We provide a lot -- food service on campus. We provide wellness facilities on campus. We do a lot of things for people to stay. I'm not going to tell you people aren't going to bring their cars, because it's tough for people to give up their car, but I will tell you over time the use of that vehicle gets reduced tremendously, and we end up having, you know, a lot of vehicles that are just sitting there. So the traffic generated from this type of project is a reduction from what a residential community could be at the approved densities. So I do believe -- and I understand the community's concern, but we went through this discussion and debate the first time regarding the intensity of the project and, you know, we are -- we do believe that this new master plan with the bigger lake and the view corridor is a better plan. And, finally, answering the landscaping questions, there will be landscaping on the Lakeside side of the wall. That's required by code and consistent with the buffers we're proposing. So that answers the first two speakers. I'll wait till the third speaker and see if there's any additional things I'd like to address. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I put in a plug for something right now? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: To answer one of your concerns, within 48 hours after you lose power, all of your pipes, manholes, and lift stations fill with water, and water starts bubbling out the January 18, 2018 Page 17 of 77 lowest manhole, which is usually the one nearest the catch basin, and goes into your lake. That's within 48 hours, depending on percentage of occupancy. For less than $100 a unit -- there's 380 units, almost 400 in Lakeside. For less than $100 a unit -- we have two lift stations. We could have a Generac emergency generator installed at both lift stations, but there didn't seem to be any interest in pursuing that. That's the only way to stop the sewage from bubbling out if we flush after a power failure, after 48 hours. So, you know, you can talk over that with your homeowners association, and maybe you'll have better luck than I did. Thanks. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. The next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Lee Lieser. MR. LIESER: Good morning. My name is Lee Lieser. I am a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. Would you say your name again. MR. LIESER: Lieser. I'm a resident of Lakeside. My concern is the connection gate going into Lakeside. Now, my understanding is that you've got a preliminary approval from Hazelet to put that gate in; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: All I know is we've had discussions with the Lakeside community, and my understanding is the Lakeside community wants to put a gate in, and we will allow for that to occur because we committed to that originally as part of the PUD. MR. LIESER: As an exit or just both ways? MR. YOVANOVICH: As far as I understand, the community -- we have to provide enough for it to be both ways, and if you-all elect it to be one way, I don't know. But we're providing sufficient right-of-way for it to be in and out, and you-all will have the ability to gate it for in and out. MR. LIESER: Which is the way you guys put it on when you had that meeting at the Hilton, which is -- because it's a concern, Orange Blossom, which we've already discussed how many times -- you know, different ways here. When you're adding 400-some doors, you know, and if they're going to use Lakeside as an exit because Orange Blossom, 2022, maybe not done till 2024. MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless you're giving us clickers or whatever you need for us to go through there, we won't have the ability to go through your gate. I mean, it's not intended to serve us in any way, and I believe that your association is protected against our community using your community as an exit point. So this is purely for your community to have its ability to have that second exit out in case something -- you could use it regardless of whether the first side is blocked, but there were concerns. I mean, most of us in the room were around when that accident happened, and it was truly unfortunate, and this is a betterment for the community. I can understand why the county required it. MR. LIESER: Okay. This is what I need clarification on, because it's been rumored different things, and Hazelet isn't exactly telling it like it is sometimes. And we're trying to get involved with Lakeside much more with the management, and we have a major concern with that. That's my only question here. So thank you for your time. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Is that it for the speakers? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, I have a question. In here at one of the NIM meetings, you say the -- it is a new developer; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: From the original PUD, this is a new developer who has come in to buy this. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you're saying the average square footage on these units are 1,400 square feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I say that at the first NIM? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it's -- January 18, 2018 Page 18 of 77 MR. YOVANOVICH: I know when you say "you" -- I went to the first NIM. I missed the second NIM, so I don't remember. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's in one of the NIMs. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's approximately correct, about 1,400; average, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So approximately 1,400 square feet per unit. Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Averages. Let's make sure the record's clear. Average square feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Anybody else? Anything else? Nothing? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't have anything additional. I mean, I think we addressed all the comments from the community that we wanted to address. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of both resolutions, the resolution of recommendation and the resolution of insubstantial amendment. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We have to do them separately. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Well, I think we should probably do them separate just for -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. I'll start with the insubstantial. That will be my motion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Any discussion? (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Opposed. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you have a reason? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is there a reason for that or -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I still have concerns regarding traffic, et cetera, but, I mean, I think it passes without me voting yes, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It would. It does, but -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: But there's a zoning problem that you think is -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'm happy to talk to you guys off-line about that. I mean, to me I made my -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. We're not talking off-line about something you voted for. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I've made -- I'll just restate my comments and concerns before based on -- my biggest concern is traffic congestion. I understand -- I appreciate Mike and them stepping up and giving us an update on the timeline of the proposed lane changes and widenings, which is so needed right now for that Orange Blossom between Livingston and Airport-Pulling that directly affects this community, potentially, and everybody else on that road in that area, so that's the core, to answer your question. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The roads aren't failing, and they won't fail with this project. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make another motion on the PUDA for approval. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Any discussion? (No response.) January 18, 2018 Page 19 of 77 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (No verbal response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, okay. So you didn't oppose that one? MR. YOVANOVICH: Don't encourage him. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I'm just checking. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think, just to clarify for Patrick on the record, the traffic is already vested based on the original zoning, and there's no increase in traffic. The traffic -- they're already vested for that density regardless. So just as a matter of understanding, the traffic -- the project is already allowed the certain traffic. You don't see it there, but when the project's going to be built, they've already been allowed for that traffic impact. So the rezoning is just carrying over the same traffic impact. So just so you understand. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It's already approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's already approved, yeah. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I understand. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I think we'll take a 15-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Everybody, hello. Would everybody sit down, please. Please be quiet. Okay. ***We're on Item 9C, and this is PDI-PL20170003546, Sabal Bay. Will everybody that wishes to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Disclosures. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Arnold also. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: And I, too, spoke to Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke with Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing to report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He doesn't like you then. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. We'll hear, again, from the petitioner, then the staff report, and then we'll have the speakers. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Madam Chair. Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates. I'm here representing Continental Properties for this insubstantial change to the Sabal Bay PUD. And with me today from Continental Properties is Elizabeth Adler and Chris Moore. Do I need to speak louder or move the microphone closer? I'm not sure. I apologize for that. We also have David Hurst and Steve Sammonds who are with Peninsula Engineering and are working on the Site Development Plan. And we also have Norm Trebilcock from Trebilcock Consulting Solutions who's here and part of the team and did some of the traffic analysis for the site plan. There was none required for this PDI, but he did work on the Site Development Plan. So we're asking for what's considered an insubstantial change to the existing PUD to allow 15 percent of the units that Continental's proposing to construct, or 52 of those units, to be less than 700 square January 18, 2018 Page 20 of 77 feet. That would allow them to build 551 square feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you talk a little slower. I think it might be her upper limit. MR. ARNOLD: I'll be more conscious of Terri's typing. I apologize for that. So we're proposing that 52 of these units within this single tract within the Sabal Bay PUD could be 551 square feet, so they would be less than the current 700 square feet. And talked to the neighbors a couple of times about this, and we've also had some of the neighbors tour facilities that Continental has built in the Fort Myers area. And we have Continental here, and Elizabeth, I wanted her to maybe share with you a little bit about Continental Properties and talk a little bit more about the studio unit and why that's an important product line for them and how it's really, I think, been a good product for them. And I think you'll hopefully be persuaded that this is a good change to make. So with that, I'll let Elizabeth take over. MS. ADLER: Thank you, Wayne. Again, for the record, my name is Elizabeth Adler. I'm here on behalf of Continental Properties. So I just had a brief presentation prepared for you just to tell you a little bit about Continental Properties, who we are, what we do, and then kind of narrow my focus a little on the proposal that we are setting forth in Collier County and then specifically why we are here in front of you today for the unsubstantial change for the studio decrease in size. So Continental Properties is a national multifamily hospitality and retail developer. We have been privately held since the business began 38 years ago. And the project that we are proposing with you today is our branded "Springs apartment community." So I have with me our portfolio map just to give you more of a visual aid to show you that we are certainly no strangers to Florida. This Springs brand, we have developed over 17,000 of these units in 17 different states across the country, specifically in Florida. As you can see, we have quite a presence on the gulf side. The Springs branded community which we are proposing in Collier County is what we take a lot of pride in building. We develop, own, and operate these units. So while we take a lot of care in the front end working with staff to entitle the project and bring the project to the county, we also then construct it and then hold it and operate it on site. So we have an on-site maintenance and staff that's available for our residents. So our Springs communities are a gated community; it's a two-story, townhome style approach to apartment living. So it is -- they are multifamily, all market rate, but we like to say that it's a townhome style approach because they're all direct access into their units from the ground level. And so what we are proposing in Collier County for the Springs at Sabal Bay is 340 multifamily units and specifically, more focused in on why we are -- what we'd like to discuss with you today is the request to decrease the size of our studio units. So this change would only impact 15 percent of our proposed total unit count. And so we feel that this request -- we validate this request by a few different items, one of which is our studios -- we have seen extreme success in our portfolio. As I mentioned, we have built these all over the country. But specific to Florida, we know that our studio units, in fact, outperform any of our other unit types all throughout our portfolio just specific to Florida. Our residents typically are -- the two demographics more specific to our studios is those that live in the units, they're employed by either medical professional units -- medical professional health care or some sort of management and professional business in that regard. So we have a lot of tenants. These are extremely popular units, just as (sic) the size as they are today. We provide this size unit all over the country, as I stated before. So those are -- that's just a little bit of background. I have some other facts that I don't really want to just spit at you, and I'm happy to answer any questions regarding specifics to the studio units. I know Wayne wanted to discuss a little further our engagement with the neighbor, so I'm going to hand it back over to him, and then we'll open up for questions. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you define "outperform"? January 18, 2018 Page 21 of 77 MS. ADLER: Sure. So in our portfolio the studios outperform both rent per square foot as well as they're the highest occupied units compared to the one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. MR. ARNOLD: Did that answer your questions, Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, kind of; close. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, we're here. If you want to get further clarification, we'll try to do that for you. So thanks, Elizabeth. I just wanted to talk back. In addition to our required neighborhood information meeting that was fairly well attended, recently the neighbors reached out to Continental and requested more of a town hall style meeting with residents of Isles of Collier Preserve, and that was conducted on Tuesday afternoon of this week. I, unfortunately, couldn't be in attendance. I was at another neighborhood information meeting. So Elizabeth and other folks from Continental were able to participate in that meeting with the residents. And I think part of the discussion that came up was we have talked about some of the things that were mentioned here today, like the two-story product, the gated entry, things of that nature and, you know, the thought that those were commitments that were made and should be included in this PUD. So I guess what we're prepared to do is -- if we can tie any of those types of commitments directly to the Site Development Plan that they filed for this product, because they are a contract purchaser of this site from Collier Development Corporation. They are not the owner of the property. It wouldn't be fair to bind the owner with something that's specific to Continental's product. So a few of the things that have been mentioned that I think were seen as commitments that we were making would be a gated entry, having concrete roofs on the structures, limiting the product to two-story, providing a clubhouse with a pool, providing a dog park. Those were things that they had heard that were things that -- we sat at the original neighborhood meeting. Those were further discussed with the neighbors. Staff and I discussed those that -- whether or not those were firm commitments or simply describing the fact that Continental had a Site Development Plan under review when we held our neighborhood information meeting, but we're willing to commit to those if we can tie those directly to the Site Development Plan that they have so that the project owner -- if for some reason Continental doesn't close on this, that he's not bound with limitations that otherwise wouldn't be in place for this property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dog park for whom? Just for this development or for the entire -- MR. ARNOLD: No, I'm sorry. All the commitments are specific only to this 34-acre parcel within the Sabal Bay PUD. And the site plan -- we didn't really talk about the details of the site plan, but they have, obviously, a gated entry. They're going to have a leasing office in their clubhouse. It is going to have a pool. They provided in this plan two dog parks, for instance. They also have a car-care facility, which is a place you can go and vacuum, but it also has a place you can wash your dog, which is kind of unique and a neat feature. But I think that -- to me it goes to the breadth of people who may choose to live here. This has become a very well located part of town. It's, you know, 15 minutes from the beach. It allows, you know, potentially a younger professional or a single person who doesn't need the space to have a well-located, well-amenitized style of living. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How are you going to keep the neighbors' dogs out of the dog park? MR. ARNOLD: Well, as proposed -- one, it's a gated project, so it's specific to the tenants that would live here, and I don't believe that they open the gates to the general public other than you get to the leasing office, and then the project's gated beyond that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it's like total access control everywhere? You can't just walk through anywhere? MR. ARNOLD: No. It's proposed to have -- right now there's fencing that's proposed along both the roadways and along -- well, all the roadways. We have three frontages. But I believe there's chain link style fencing that's along the top of this page where you see the green strip, and then there's a decorative aluminum fencing that's proposed along Thomasson Drive. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pretty good security. January 18, 2018 Page 22 of 77 MR. ARNOLD: I think that that's part of what they're selling. It's security. And some of the other things that's unique to Continental that I was surprised at -- because they have the dog parks and they expect you to pick up and clean up after your dog. If you don't they DNA test your dog so they know whose dog it came from. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. MR. ARNOLD: They also do criminal background checks on all their tenants. And I don't know if Elizabeth mentioned that, but I thought that was also a very important aspect of what they do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, Wayne, just to clarify, to make sure we don't stray from what's being requested, all this is is just a request to increase the square footage from -- reduce from 700 to 551? MR. ARNOLD: That would -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It has nothing to do with the zoning or the development itself as far as approval of the development? It's simply just a request as stated? MR. ARNOLD: You're correct, Mr. Schmitt. If this proposed amendment is not approved, Continental will likely still build the project. They would have to modify their buildings to include more one- and two-bedroom units without the studio. But from the outside of this building looking in, you wouldn't know the size of any of those units, which to me it's -- it's a functional space. I toured a 551-square-foot unit for their project on Six Mile recently, and to me it was a very functional space. I've personally lived in apartments that I believe were smaller than that space. But, you know, it's a full studio unit. Walk up, you walk in from your door outside. You go into a living area. It's got a full kitchen. It has a partial wall that's your bedroom, typical. It has a bathroom, and then you also have a walk-in closet that has a washer and dryer in it. So, I mean, they're very fully functional space at 551 square feet. I know it sounds small to a lot of people, but for somebody who doesn't need the extra space, I mean, if I could save a couple hundred bucks and didn't really need the space, that's just that much more money I can spend in the community. So I think that's not a negative in any way to have a certain number of these units to be smaller sized. We have a floor plan -- I think it was in your backup material, but I can put it up on the visualizer if you'd like to see what a studio floor plan looks like. That's an example of the floor plans, and there are two floor plans. One's a ground-floor unit and one's a second-story unit. So you can see the one with a stairwell coming up; reflects what it looks like. But to me that's truly functional space when you're probably a single individual living there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the market this is geared towards, then, is not really a low-income type of market. It's a young professional or I think what we like to call in Collier County kind of the gap housing, so to speak; the student -- the teacher, the firemen or whatever; that young professional who needs a place to live and still be able to not have to commute from Lee County or elsewhere to come down here. But it is not something that's targeted as a low income or -- MR. ARNOLD: Oh, absolutely not. This is not a low income. It's fully market rate. The rental rates are surprisingly high to me as a person who hasn't been in the rental market for a long time. But to me it seems like still it's a higher rental rate, but there's a large demand for rentals in our community, and I think allowing a studio unit, like I said, it gives a younger professional or even an older single person or even -- if somebody wanted to have an annual lease and only come down here seasonally, you're 15 minutes from the beach in this location. It makes a lot of sense. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But part of the process for the approval, criminal check, financial check to ensure people meet requirements to make the monthly payments? MS. ADLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it is a rental -- short-term rental, too? You stated -- MR. ARNOLD: Let me clarify one thing that I forgot. There was some -- it's not misinformation, but the PUD the way it's structured, multifamily appears under a column that also includes timeshares. This in no way affects the timeshare reference. This is only for the multifamily apartments. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And the -- MR. ARNOLD: And you asked about the rentals. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- rentals. January 18, 2018 Page 23 of 77 MR. ARNOLD: And I'll let Elizabeth mention that, but they do offer a variety of rental. MS. ADLER: We do offer three-, six-, nine-, and 12-month leases. The three-month leases we see more commonly with business -- local businesses in the area who maybe are training in new employees that need a place for them to stay, but more commonly we have -- typically we see -- because we are -- we maintain this and we're on site all the time, we typically see the rents or, excuse me, the leases -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The reason I ask is because we do have an ordinance to prohibit the rent -- the people rent trying to avoid bed tax and do it through -- MS. ADLER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- Airbnb and some of the others. MS. ADLER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have a management office on site that would control that, meaning I couldn't buy three of these units and start renting them weekly? MS. ADLER: No. Correct; you could not. No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I sat through a meeting that you just held this week, and my recollection of the meting was you're just going to do annual leases. You were not going to be doing three-month leases or six-month leases. What is it that you're doing? MS. ADLER: We offer both annual leases, and then we would offer three-, six-, and nine-month as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'll let the residents who were at that meeting speak on this, but that's not my recollection of what you told the community. MS. ADLER: Well, to clarify that, then -- so the way the -- and I'm not sure exactly how that was conveyed, but the rents, then -- the shorter term rents are more expensive. So by offering a shorter lease term, then we increase the rent, which would then ultimately be comparable to the -- an annual lease as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's the LDC allow, four times a year, if I'm not mistaken, for rental -- if a rental -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. There was some -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- otherwise you trigger the bed tax. I just want to make sure. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. My understanding, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd have to look it up. MR. BELLOWS: -- almost a six-month -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's six months. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is it six months? COMMISSIONER EBERT: As far as I know it's six months. Anything less you pay the bed tax on. MS. ADLER: Okay. Well, this is certainly something we will abide by, and we will make sure that our lease terms are to code and to standard. We would not plan on deviating from code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a number of questions. Did you want to finish your presentation first or -- okay. MS. ADLER: I'm going to hand it off to Chris Moore for a moment. He's from Continental Properties as well. MR. MOORE: Hi. For the record, Chris Moore, Continental Properties. I just wanted to add on a little bit about the last neighborhood meeting we had on Tuesday afternoon. Some of the things we discussed on top of adding concrete roof tile versus asphalt shingles were on the site plan. We currently have an emergency access point that lines up with Saba (phonetic) Drive, and the residents asked if we could look to relocate to Cardinal Way. And we're willing to do that as long as it's cleared with the county fire marshal. They also made it clear that within the PUD that we're a part of that there's a requirement for an opaque wall along public streets, and which we're willing to abide by a wall to county standards to match what they have across the street to have the same effect of Thomasson Drive on both sides of the street. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you say that again. MR. MOORE: So along Thomasson Drive, we right now are proposing a five-foot decorative fence. January 18, 2018 Page 24 of 77 It looks like a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Metal -- metal fence? MR. MOORE: -- wrought iron looking fence. And the residents, per the PUD, were required to put an opaque fence there and not a decorative fence. And so that was one of the things that came up on Tuesday that many of the residents were adamant, and so we don't want to skirt that responsibility at all if it was included in the PUD, which they pointed it out it was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're going to use an opaque fence? MR. MOORE: Correct, just on Thomasson Drive. But it will be fenced all the way around the site with our normal fencing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MOORE: And I also wanted to -- I think that hits the majority of the points with the homeowners, but they also wanted to kind of break out the percentage of the units at 550 square feet, because it's 15 percent total, but 8 percent of those are at 660 square feet, and then the remaining are 551, so it's not 15 at 551. And they wanted us to try to break that in our -- I think either this application or the land development plan so if someone else comes in, they couldn't change some of the larger units into smaller units. And I just wanted to clarify: Wayne made a comment that we'd proceed without this. That's not totally true. This is our -- I don't want to use the word "prototype." This is what we've built across the country very successfully, and that's why we're here, you know, asking for this -- what we feel is an insubstantial deviation. If it isn't given to us, we're going to have to re-evaluate if we want to come into an area without our -- what we feel is our strongest product moving forward. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So you will put a concrete wall on Thomasson to match the other side? MR. MOORE: I don't know if it will be concrete, but it has to have a similar look to across the street, because what they did is they used some precast panels that slipped through some pillars. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. MR. MOORE: And then it's kind of stuccoed. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So it's going to blend in. It's not going to be the gate that you can see through to see the parking? MR. MOORE: We're still going to have our gated entrance, but on Thomasson -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: I mean, to me that fence looks like a gate. MR. MOORE: Yeah, it's a see-through -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: See through, and you can see all the cars with the -- MR. MOORE: Right, and our -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: -- trucks, ladders. MR. MOORE: -- intention was to landscape -- we have a 20-foot landscape buffer there, so we originally were proposing the decorative fencing and heavy landscaping to block those vehicles so that -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: So you have no -- you rent to anyone with commercial vehicles and all of that -- MR. MOORE: We do -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: -- trucks with signs and ladders and -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. MOORE: -- continuously. If residents use their commercial vehicle as their personal, we're going to -- I don't want to use the word "force." We're going to encourage them to get a detached garage to store that vehicle in, because we offer detached garages as well as, in selective units, attached garages where you can access and go right from the garage into your unit. So if we know that someone's going to be doing that, we're going to require them to rent one of those garages so it's not an eyesore for the rest of the community. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. MOORE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a number of questions. January 18, 2018 Page 25 of 77 VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no problem. I had a very good conversation with Mr. Arnold a couple of days ago, and I learned a lot from it, but I still have some remaining questions and issues that I'd like to be addressed. First of all, I see that the -- it's really almost like a variance to the zoning here. You're asking for smaller-sized units, but it wouldn't apply to the entire PUD; however, does it create a precedent that would then hang over our shoulders in the future if we grant it for you and don't grant it for others? And what is to prevent the entire MPUD from becoming a 550-square-foot enclave of rental dwellings? I'm looking for uniqueness so that we could justify it when, down the road, others ask for it, and I'm not sure I'm hearing sufficient uniqueness. At least -- you know, for instance, there was a lady by the name of Ms. Meurer (phonetic) who spoke at the NIM, and I think she very succinctly summarized the concerns that I have and that, perhaps, others have, and together they don't add up to what I would call unique. And it seems to me that if we were to approve this, we're setting a precedent for ourselves that would be very hard to argue against other developers coming in and saying, well, we're also entitled to 550 square feet. And all of a sudden you have then reduced the zoning. So I find that a point of real concern. And also, I understand that you're leading with good intentions, and I appreciate that, intentions to police things to assure, with credit checks and background checks and the like, who's moving in, but I worry about covert subleases. And I'm not sure that you have, at least to my satisfaction, outlined sufficient protections and guarantees against there being covert subleases. You know, particularly if you've got, say, a three-month lease or a six-month lease and the lessee then subleases to someone else and gives that person the key fob to get in, you're really not going to be able to police that, I don't think; are you? That's a rhetorical question. But nonetheless you can answer it. Also the traffic situation is of concern to me. And I see some reference in the materials that a TIS was done. I wonder -- I didn't see the -- I didn't see the results of that in here, though. Could you either point me to where that is or tell me what the conclusions were of how much additional traffic would be brought about by -- that you project. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Fryer, if we could have Norm Trebilcock come and answer that question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. MR. ARNOLD: The reality is, we're not asking for any additional units in the Sabal Bay PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. MR. ARNOLD: These units were already authorized and approved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. But you are asking for something, and we're in the business of seeing if we can achieve win-win solutions. MR. ARNOLD: Understood. We'll have Norm try to answer your question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. Thank you. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a certified planner and professional engineer, and my firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project for the Site Development Plan approval. Before you -- you wouldn't have an Traffic Impact Statement for what's being requested here because the traffic's actually vested here with this DRI, so it's already a vested DRI. So the units that are being requested are already incorporated in the system. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's vested based upon the current conditions and restrictions that exist at the time, and now you're asking for a change in those conditions. To me it seems that, at least logically, it should open it up for a full discussion. MR. TREBILCOCK: Except from a traffic standpoint, it wouldn't have an impact there because it's already vested for multifamily-type units already, so this would. In particular -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, let me ask my question specifically. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir; uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How much additional traffic will be brought about by this development in comparison not to the conditions of several years ago but in comparison to present conditions? January 18, 2018 Page 26 of 77 MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Just to -- what I can do is relate to you, you know, there is no net impact from a zoning, a site development, or anything because it is already a vested development, but in terms of just -- so you get an understanding -- no, no, I understand. No, but what I can do is help you with understanding what the traffic impact -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You could help me a lot by just answering my question -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- which is, how much will the traffic increase over present conditions? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So the development will generate in the p.m. peak hour 205 p.m. peak trips two way: 133 entering and 72 exiting trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's an increase over present conditions? MR. TREBILCOCK: Over physical present conditions, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yep, you're welcome. There is no level-of-service problem for that roadway, and there wouldn't be projected to be with the addition of this project as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the only traffic question I had, but I do have some others. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I see that back in 2012 the Board of County Commissioners decided to remove the affordable housing requirement for that property. And I certainly was not around then or at least paying close attention, but I expect that was because, in its wisdom, the BCC decided that there has already been sufficient low-income housing. There's Habitat for Humanity down there, et cetera -- and an earnest wish on the part of the BCC to do everything it can to improve the situation, to restore it, to enable the property values to continue to rise for the people who have vested in that area. And having said that, I find it difficult to imagine who the occupants of a 550-square-foot unit would be that would fall into the category of people who might arguably improve the financial conditions of an area where the school -- where Avalon school has 93 percent economically disadvantaged students. So you can respond, but let me get through my list here, if I can. You've answered the fence question I had, and I've mentioned the subleasing and Airbnb, and I think that's very difficult to police, and I think that the smaller units will invite that kind of occupancy. And I guess that's the sum and substance of my concerns. MR. ARNOLD: If I might try to respond. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. MR. ARNOLD: With regard to the affordable housing commitment that was removed in 2012, the County Commission several years ago now had a policy where they were asking for voluntary donations of dollars per unit or dollars per square foot. The county decided that that was a policy they no longer wanted to seek, and they were allowing all developers who had that commitment in their PUD to have it removed. So it had nothing specifically to do, I think -- and, again, this is not an affordable housing project. This is a true market-rate rental community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. But certain things are beyond your practical control. And I appreciate that it is -- that it's market based, but I'm just concerned that it could turn into something else because it's nearly impossible to police at the level that you would need to police it at. MR. ARNOLD: With all due respect, I think that could be said for any of the units if that's the case. I mean, that could apply to any rental -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the smaller it gets, I think the more likely you're going to have transient type occupancies based on what I would call covert subleases. If I were in that area, I would be concerned about that, and I -- and, certainly, I mean, you do background checks, you do financial checks. All of that is good, but those are checks on the main lessee. And who ultimately occupies, I just think, is a real uncertainty. January 18, 2018 Page 27 of 77 And it takes me back to my main point, and then I'll stop talking here. But my main point is is that are we setting up a precedent that is going to ultimately devolve to the entire PUD being 551 square feet? And what is so unique about this property and this project that can't be brought up by other developers down the road? MR. ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Fryer, any developer can propose anything. The LDC right now allows a studio unit to be 450 square feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, outside the PUD. MR. ARNOLD: So this isn't a precedent -- well, this PUD was set up with a 700-square-foot minimum many, many years ago. And I would tell you that the market has changed. People are downsizing. There's a reason that Continental understands that there's a broad spectrum of people who choose to rent, and it's not necessarily about income. It's about your lifestyle and the size you need. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. In answer to your question, all right, unless you can find special circumstances here, I don't know how you're going to deny other people asking for a similar relief. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's my concern. MR. ARNOLD: But, Mr. Klatzkow, I would say that I think there are some uniquenesses to this project with respect to it's not the entire -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're asking for a studio apartment in a rental unit. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: What's unique about that? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I'm not saying there's anything unique about that, but I'm saying that with regard to the size, I think we've demonstrated that it's, one, functional and, two, it's part of a larger portfolio of what Continental does that demonstrates that it's a satisfactory-size unit. I don't find there to be, as a professional planner, anything incompatible about what we're asking. MR. KLATZKOW: No. The question is whether or not the county's going to, as a matter of course, allow this in future developments or developments coming back asking for a similar reduction. MR. ARNOLD: I think you may find, Mr. Klatzkow, that other applicants will be asking for not only this size but smaller, and I think it's going to be a key to your redevelopment area. So I think this issue's going to be coming before you. And, again, as I said, to me the precedent is 450 square feet for a studio unit is already an acceptable standard in Collier County. This isn't something unique and new. And where the 700 square feet came from, you might as well snatch it out of the air. There's nothing magic about that number. MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's nothing magic about the number. When this PUD first came to the Board and everybody's looking at compatibility and all the other issues, that's part of it, okay. So after the fact; after the fact of the PUD being approved, the new owner, or perspective new owner, wants a change, and that's fine. Everybody can ask for a change. The planning commissioner asked whether or not this could be precedential. I'm saying, unless you find special circumstances to this application, and I haven't heard any, yes, it will be precedential. That's not a good thing; that's not a bad thing; it just is. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you done? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a couple questions. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will wait to listen to the members of the audience, but I, too, have some concerns about this. For one thing, you do put in here that you have short-term leases, three month or whatever. That bothers me because that means that you're going to sit there and collect bed tax. And it also -- you have 24 of the units at 551 and 28 at 660. When there was the 700-foot before -- and we are just coming off from a project that we just okayed before yours -- I know it's different -- but that's continuing care, and their average is 1,400 and you want to come in at 551? And your maximum is 1,400 for a three-bedroom. To me -- and you're in the hospitality business. That's like an extended-stay hotel, the short-term lease. Those are a couple things that do bother me on that. And I will wait and listen to what the people have to say, but I think that's -- 551 is a little too small. January 18, 2018 Page 28 of 77 Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you have any demographics of your renters for the other sites that you have? You said you have one in Fort Myers? MS. ADLER: Yes, we do. Sure. So specific to our Florida properties, demographics as far as income goes, the studio -- the per capita studio income is about $47,000 a year. We have -- as I mentioned before, the two top employers are the -- those that are employed by the most are either medical or health care or some sort of professional business management, so those are the two highest employers that we see in the demographics. And then -- so then specific also to our Florida properties, our target demographic is the young professionals. It is the 20- to 34-year-olds that are in the studios more often, and then we also have retired individuals in our studios as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you have any market analysis that displays the demand for this type of product in the Naples area? MS. ADLER: We have done quite a thorough market analysis of the demand for a rental unit -- rental units in general in Collier County. Specific to studios, it's a little difficult to pull the demand numbers just for individuals looking for a studio of a certain square footage. But we know that the population is growing in Collier County, and we have certainly done a lot of research as far as the demand here for a rental unit for young professionals. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Have you done a demographic study of East Naples? MS. ADLER: We have done a demographic study of East Naples, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And your conclusion is is that this will -- that these units will be attractive to young professionals? MS. ADLER: Correct. The demographic study falls in line with what we typically model in our business strategy internally, and we feel that this is really a very ideal location and spot for potential future residents in the area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't mean to be putting a damper on -- I'm sorry. Did I interrupt? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- on entrepreneurialism and development and people who are willing to risk their capital in this fashion, but in a -- my concern comes from this point of view: We're being asked to go along with you on this business risk, and I have been struggling to identify factors that would justify the county investing in your vision, even though your vision may be entirely correct, and also points that would address the concerns that were certainly expressed by the residents in the materials that we've seen already. And as a co-investor with you, I just don't -- I don't feel as comfortable as I'd like to feel by reducing the square footage in a fashion for -- I agree with the County Attorney. I don't think there's sufficient uniqueness being shown here that would enable us to fend off arguments that we have set a precedent. So those are my concerns. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, and I'll follow-up on the -- Wayne, you mentioned other potential projects, and I'm not asking you to name them, but I know we're in the vicinity of the Bayshore/Gateway area, and I believe, if there are some, I don't know, proposals, I guess, or at least someone looking at the intent to build small studio-type developments in the Bayshore/Gateway "R" district area, is this -- will these be of similar size, or do you know anything about that? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know details of those, Mr. Schmitt, but I have been told by staff members that work for the county that that is and has been discussed with the CRA; that bringing in units smaller than these would be a component of part of redevelopment efforts. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, one of the concerns I have, of course, is we denied a project recently -- and I won't get into the details -- but a lot of it had to do with redesign of an existing approved affordable housing project. And in that development it was based on the size of the unit, but there were different circumstances. And I just -- make sure that we all understand that we were hit with this threshold before. January 18, 2018 Page 29 of 77 MR. ARNOLD: If I might address that, Mr. Schmitt. I think there is a distinction between this project and the one that you-all discussed previously, and that was, you know, originally approved as a partially affordable housing for-sale product, and there was an expectation that it was going to be owner occupied. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. ARNOLD: And in this particular case, this property is not within the CRA boundary but, secondarily, there was no expectation that this would be multifamily or condominium. So I think there are distinguishing factors there and, of course, this is not affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I look at it from the standpoint as a senior citizen who lived in a 400-square-foot unit in Afghanistan for a year, it's -- of course, my wife wasn't with me. I was -- so it -- 400 square feet was a luxury. In fact, I was the boss, and I had twice as much room as everybody else, so... Anyways, it's -- I'll wait to hear from the public. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was going to bring up that project that Joe mentioned. And I guess we can't mention the name? COMMISSIONER FRYER: You can. MR. KLATZKOW: Sure, you can. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Serus Point, half mile to the east -- half mile to the west. That's the project we're talking about, right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I remember being one of the people opposed, but I've been talking to people -- I didn't disclose I talked to Commissioner Fiala during the break. Do I have to disclose that? MR. KLATZKOW: You just did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just did, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You just did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And is that a problem? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The sheriff's coming to take you away right now. You're in trouble. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yep. You're done. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So, anyway, I don't want to get in any trouble here. You know, because I thought I would feel a little hypocritical being opposed to Serus Point and approving this project. And, you know, basically I'm kind of ambivalent in how I feel about this. But for 10 years up north -- when I lived up there I worked construction all over the northeast, and I would rent the smallest possible place for six months to two years, and you just lived there and you work, and you don't do a whole lot of recreating in your own unit, you know. You find other things to do. And I can see that kind of logic. Like, Joe, I guarantee you he didn't spend a lot of time in his place in Afghanistan. He was out. And there's a lot of people like that. You know, they go to the fitness center. They just sleep at home. And I think there might be a need for it. And like you brought up, this isn't ownership. This is rental. And it just seems like this is a -- the more I think about it -- I was opposed at first, and then -- because I didn't want to seem hypocritical, and then kind of ambivalent. But the more I think about it, the more I think this is a good idea. So, just -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: We'll just wait. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Is that it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait to hear from the public. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Can we have the staff now; staff report, please. MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I just have a question. Maybe, Ray -- I don't know that we've ever -- and we struggle with it all the time we've ever gone below 700 square feet. MR. BELLOWS: Well, currently the Land Development Code has the RMF12 and RMF16 zoning January 18, 2018 Page 30 of 77 districts, and the minimum floor area for those types of dwelling units are, for a two-bedroom it's 750 square feet, for one-bedroom it's 600 square feet, and for an efficiency it's 450. So somebody can build that today in Collier County under those zoning districts. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is this in that zoning district? COMMISSIONER FRYER: How about apples to apples? In any other PUDs? MR. BELLOWS: I don't recall any offhand. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Because we try not to do them; that's why. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, that's right. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Could we have the speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The first speaker is Gary Lubben. MR. LUBBEN: For the record, Gary Lubben. I'm a Florida resident living in ICP. I provided previous material prior to this meeting -- and the gist of that message was the preferred -- and I'm speaking for myself. I don't represent the community at large. I speak for myself. And the position I took is this change request should be denied. I think, for the very reasons that Mr. Fryer is indicating, it would establish a precedent. Secondly, prior actions by this board have rejected similar such requests to downgrade the other areas. The third concern related to the inevitable increased density within the East Naples community that would result from any subsequent developer who would attempt to try to build multifamily dwellings in this area. So while it doesn't change the density of this particular parcel, it changes, ultimately, the density of East Naples, which is already dense. And the last point I would make in terms of supporting that preferred course is the current owners or developers in the same MPUD, i.e., the Isles community, should be able to rely on the 2012 MPUD limits on minimum dwelling size, which was 700 square feet. And, lastly, this developer was well aware of the 700-square-foot minimum at the time they entered into a purchase agreement. So there was no surprise, there was nothing new, as to what they were proposing to do. So I have a couple of additional comments. There was referenced a -- and, oh, by the way, I attended with Mr. Arnold and Ms. Fiala to visit the Six Mile Cypress facility, and I actually think we looked at a second-floor studio which, to my understanding, is the 660 square feet. I think numbers are a little bit different, but we did not tour the 525-square-foot property that I believe Commissioner Fiala wanted to see. We saw a second-floor facility, which is larger, modestly, than the 525. So Commissioner Taylor was nice enough to arrange a stakeholder input session. It's not a NIM. It was rather a community town hall meeting which took place last Tuesday, this past Tuesday. It included over -- Commissioners Taylor and Fiala, although Commissioner Fiala did not have an official role. She was just there to listen. Mr. Bellows attended, the county attorney attended, representatives from Continental attended, and nearly 200 participants of the ICP community attended, an alarming or surprising participation, which shows the level of interest that this community has on this particular project. And I'm going to summarize kind of the messages that came out from an hour-and-a-half long discussion. First, as proposed, the Springs property does not ensure a high and consistent level of quality with other residential properties within the MPUD, specifically highlighted as a condition within the MPUD, and the community I'm referencing is obviously Isles community. A matching perimeter wall and exterior vegetation, a streetscape, along Thomasson Drive consistent with the Isles wall is needed. Third point, clarification of the change request is needed to avoid an unintended precedent of up to 15 percent of the dwellings being 551 square feet. The applicant is requesting 24 at 551 and 28 at 660. Adjacent properties -- you know, so we -- minimum, changing the request should read, 7 percent or 25 dwellings, whichever's less, because that's what they're asking for. They're not asking for 15 percent. And the concern is if you grant that unintended consequence, the next developer will say, 15 percent of my units will now be 551, which we think would be in error. January 18, 2018 Page 31 of 77 Fourth point, the emergency exit across the Sabal Drive should be moved from Thomas (sic) Drive to Cardinal Way. Just for the benefit of the council, that exit off of Sabal Drive is the only safe way to go north on 41 or to go to downtown Naples. If you wish to go north on 41 off of the main exit, you're taking your life in your hands. It's extremely dangerous and a very populated roadway, especially in season. Next point. The building's placement on the parcel should be shifted toward Thomasson Lane to the north to afford greater separation from Isles homes that face Thomasson Drive and adjacent property owners have privacy concerns with second-floor Springs apartments that could easily look over that wall that is on the northern boundary of the Isles property and look into those neighbors. That was a concern raised. Next point. Density standards of tenant apartments, two individuals per bedroom, need to be strictly enforced to avoid high density numbers of residents within the Springs project. Next point. Thomasson Drive median landscaping should be addressed as part of any Springs project. Next point. Integration and coordination with the CRA initiatives by the county is vitally needed. And, lastly, increased traffic along Thomasson Drive is an emerging crisis, and traffic planning integrating all the planned development along the Thomasson Drive by the county is urgently needed. I would remind you, the Isles community is one-third full. It's built for 1,650 doors. There's less than 500 today. Take into account that, plus the Springs development, plus three additional parcels that are being developed or proposed to be developed on the corner of Bayshore and Thomasson Drive and the school board having placed a reserve for a junior high school. The traffic requirements that we could see in the not too distant future will be immense, and it's difficult to go westerly on Thomasson Drive today with none of those projects completed. So I want to give credit to the Continental, because I think they came, I think we had a respectful exchange, and they try -- I think they are trying to be good partners. And so what they have offered, Mr. Taylor referenced some of it -- or, excuse me. Mr. Moore referenced some of them. Continental is prepared to construct an eight-foot wall along Thomasson Drive consistent with the Isles wall and will review the specific designs, including landscape, with the Isles residents. That was what was presented to us. Secondly, Continental is willing to move the emergency exit to Cardinal Way subject to fire marshal concurrence. Third, Continental is willing to alter the change request language further limiting the 551-square-foot dwelling minimum to 24 or 7 percent, whichever is less. Fourth, Continental is prepared to apply their impact fees toward Thomasson Drive median landscape improvements, which was an issue raised by the residents of ICP. And, lastly, Continental is prepared to pursue project layout changes to shift the buildings away from Thomasson Drive and toward Thomasson Lane. So what's a potential path forward? Now, again, I repeat what I said at the outset. I think the clear preference that I would have is to reject this change request for the very reasons that you -- many of you raised as to the establishment of a precedent, the preexisting nature of a 700-foot -- square foot minimum, et cetera. But with that in mind, Continental's proposed concessions should be included as conditions if the planning board advances a positive recommendation. Secondly, Continental should be required to coordinate with the planning staff to redesign -- I said "required" -- to redesign their project layout toward Thomasson Lane to increase the buffer along Thomasson Drive. Third, Continental should be required to meet the committed concessions resulting from the November 2017 NIM, which is essentially putting in concrete roofs similar to, in style, what is already there with the ICP. Fourth, Continental's impact fees should be redirected by the county to support median landscaping improvements. Next, Continental should be required to include lease terms expressly defining occupancy limitations on tenants, and no leases less than six months. January 18, 2018 Page 32 of 77 And, finally, and it's probably most important. It's not an issue necessarily for the developer, but I would direct it to the county. And the county should seek integration with the CRA initiatives and ensure careful traffic planning for the Thomasson Drive corridor in totality. Thank you very much. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. (Applause.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, please. No. You can't clap, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sir, could you -- question here. MR. LUBBEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't quite understand the realignment of the design. MR. LUBBEN: If I can try to orient you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, on the visualizer down there. MR. LUBBEN: This is Thomasson Lane. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. LUBBEN: This is Thomasson Drive. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. You want the focus of the design off of Thomasson Lane? MR. LUBBEN: No. Toward Thomasson Lane, away from Thomasson Drive. This is the Isles community. This is Thomasson Drive. This is Thomasson Lane. The discussion that we had with representatives from Continental, if there's a desire to move forward -- again, which we're saying I don't recommend that -- is move all this parcel north. That is a 15- or 20-foot buffer. You've got 600-and-some-odd cars in this complex, the predominance of which are going to be facing Thomasson Drive. And these are people's homes. Second-floor people or apartment dwellers are going to be looking right at this place. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Understand. So -- MR. LUBBEN: Does that explain your -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You basically want all those buildings coming off of Thomasson Lane and reduction in the number of units along Thomasson Drive? MR. LUBBEN: Just shifted, moved northward. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That would result in reducing the size of the lake then? MR. LUBBEN: Not necessarily. This is a 75-foot buffer, I believe. You'd have to ask the developer. This is a -- and it has an easement for a pump station improvement over time. But in the discussions that we had with their representatives, they felt that that was something they could do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I have a second question, follow up, though, with staff on your request regarding impact fees. That has nothing to do with this board or the Planning Commission or zoning. That is really a county -- a staff and Collier County commissioner issue of how they spend their money. MR. LUBBEN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if we could even stipulate anything like that in a PUD. That is something, certainly from a budgeting perspective, the county commissioners can direct staff. But I'm not sure what you were asking of this board in regards to the impact fee issue. MR. LUBBEN: Sure. And that's just likely my ignorance of where the responsibility for impact fee decisions are rendered. I'm only sharing with you that the feedback that I received from the developer was that they would be willing to use those fees in that manner and that heretofore the commissioner -- the BCC had told them that they could not. That's all I'm trying to convey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they really can't. I mean, the staff -- Tiffany (sic), staff collects the impact fees, and the board then directs on where those impact fees are going to be utilized based on your planning. Go ahead, please. MS. SCOTT: If I may, Trinity Scott, transportation planning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I said Tiffany. Trinity, sorry. MS. SCOTT: It's okay. I answer to both. January 18, 2018 Page 33 of 77 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Trinity. MS. SCOTT: And Jeff's going to correct me if I'm wrong, but impact fees can only be utilized for capacity improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MS. SCOTT: They cannot be utilized -- now, that being said, if there is a certain amount of landscaping within capacity improvements, so we're increasing the volume of the roadway, certainly those are included within our project costs. With regard to median landscaping and such, I believe the County Commission, with other projects, we're using ad valorem general fund to fund our landscaping improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Unless there was a developer's cooperation agreement of some sort. MS. SCOTT: Agreement, but that would not be impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Thank you for -- I know that, but I just want to make sure the rest of the folks on the Board understand that. MR. LUBBEN: Did you have additional questions for me? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. MR. LUBBEN: Okay. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Patricia Young. MS. YOUNG: Thank you. Patricia Young. I'm also from the Isles of Collier Preserve, and I'd like to say that I agree with Mr. Lubben. And many of the things that I was going to say he has already said. But there are a few things that I've been hearing that sort of point to the fact that this whole area that we're talking about here, the area where this PDU (sic) is going to be built all the way around to the CRA area. We are really compact and united because of our location. But I heard one of the gentlemen refer to this project that's being reviewed right now as being in the redevelopment area, but it's not. Officially, the redevelopment area stops on Thomasson just at the Avalon school. So this is part of our dilemma. Here we are with these two communities. We've got the Isles of Collier Preserve and now this community that's being considered, which I have to say is very neighborhood friendly in that it's two stories high, and the changes that Continental has talked about being willing to make, the cement roof, the wall, the landscaping, moving the egress, are the things that we definitely need. That said, this whole -- but the three-month rental is really a concern given the area that this is in. Also someone mentioned that these three-month leases would be very nice because this community's near the beach. Well, we don't want to be a transient kind of area. We already have quite an issue with housing where we've got a lot of people living there, and it's been mentioned already the school population is negatively impacted. And these two places, the Isles, again, and the Springs, we're trying to fill the gaps what we're trying -- this is a neighborhood in transition, and I think that that's kind of the framework we need to use as you review. I do have concerns, too, if the county would change the 700-square-foot requirement and lower it because of the implications throughout the county, not just where we are. But given where we are, even more so. And I'd like to say also that this is not -- this is a redevelopment area in parts, not what we're talking about right here. It is the emerging new more middle-class area that's coming up, but it's also a tourist area. So Thomasson Drive is very unique. I mean, we've got the East Naples Community Park with the pickleball tournament which attracts a lot of traffic and brings in a lot of revenue to the county, we've got the Botanical Gardens and, even the Bayview Park, because it's one of the very few boat launch parks in the county. So considering all that -- I don't know what's going to happen here. We like what Continental is doing right now in terms of listening to what the Isles thinks would be an improvement, but we are concerned about the traffic going to all these things, and we're -- the issue with this particular community, the Springs, being rental, and someone brought up Serus Point, which was ownership, that's a whole other bag of worms, okay. And here we are, this is like a microcosm of I don't know what in this particular area. So it needs to be viewed in that way. January 18, 2018 Page 34 of 77 East Naples, yes, has over 45 percent of the rentals in the county, which just doesn't sound right, if nothing else. And maybe it doesn't function well either. But rentals may not be the issue. Here we're talking about three-month rentals. That's a whole other ballgame. So, anyway, I thank you for listening to me and to the other people from the Isles and other areas who are concerned about this, and I hope that you will view this in a big way and maybe even -- I don't know who we just learned is responsible for the roads, but we need to get that little section of Thomasson done. The CRA is going to come in and put their beautiful streetscaping in almost down to the bay, and here we've got about a half mile left with two maybe very nice communities on either side of Thomasson. We need to get that done, and it will bring the tourists in, too. Thank you very much. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. (Applause.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Please. You can't clap, please. MR. BELLOWS: Marc Rosenberg. MR. ROSENBERG: Good morning. Marc Rosenberg, 6864 Bequia. That's in the Isles of Collier Preserve. You know, I came with a ton of things to say, and I've sent -- I sent the commissioners several mailings already, and it's all been said very well. So what I want to do with the few minutes I have is sort of talk about my experience, and I think the experience of other people. You know, when we moved to Naples, we could have moved anywhere, and we picked -- a lot of us picked East Naples or South Naples -- I'm not even sure which it is -- when we moved to the Isles. And when you move to the Isles and you get the sales presentation, one of the things that is mentioned is the closeness of that community to the whole Bayshore redevelopment and the amenities that are being built there. I know that people who buy are -- they talk about the Botanical Gardens, the Performing Arts Center that's coming, the pickleball tournament, all of the amenities that are coming down there, and you get a feeling when you buy down there that you're buying into something very special. You're buying into, in some respect, to the future of Naples, an area where Naples can grow and blossom and have all kinds of new opportunities for people not only to work, but to experience the natural environment, et cetera, also the Rookery and everything else that's located down there. And it was appealing to us, and we knew that we were buying into an area that was in change, that was being redeveloped. And with the Bayshore -- with Bayshore Road and Thomasson, you have two entryways to a gold mine of amenities and opportunities, and that appealed to us, and I think that appeals to everybody who moves into that area. And so when the Springs development came -- project came along, we didn't see anything special about it. We didn't see it compatible with what was going on down there. What we saw was a project that was going to add -- and I believe many more numbers of cars than was expressed. Combining that with all of the other amenities that are either planned or being built and housing that are being built, we see a road that is going to get choked. We didn't want that. We wanted something that maintains the character of the area. Now, when we went back to the Springs people, Continental, and we told them of our concerns, they have responded fairly positively in terms of landscaping and streetscaping and moving the egress, and we appreciate all of that. It shows that they are trying to be part of the community. But my point here -- let's assume that they do everything they say; my point here is the same one that Ms. Young just expressed, is that this is a special road in Naples. It is not just a residential street. It is an entryway to an entire community of housing and amenities. And I would encourage you, despite the fact that you may not be able to say what should be done with the median and what should be done with the road itself, I would encourage you to advocate on behalf of what this area is supposed to be and finish the job that the CRA has started to landscape and make this the entryway into this community as special as the community says it wants to be. If you do that, then the Springs community will be more of a part of a broader plan, more comprehensive plan than just another apartment structure that's sitting out there that may or may not fit in with what you decide in the future. January 18, 2018 Page 35 of 77 So the bottom line is, it's important that you look at the totality of Thomasson from its landscaping and streetscaping to its traffic capabilities to what is being proposed to put there and make sure that Springs and the next project and the project after that fits into a vision that you guys really want that community to be. And if that means working with the CRA or the 41 study or the Isles or anything else, so be it, but please don't take this as one-off projects. Look at it completely, because when we moved there, when everyone else moved there, that's what we saw. We saw a future area that was going to be very special, and we had hoped and we still hope that the people in charge of planning it will view it in the same way. Thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Next? MR. BELLOWS: Sharon Grider. MS. GRIDER: So my name is Sharon Grider. I'm a resident of the Isles. The other day, on Tuesday, at a rather last minute, the developer changed everything around and accommodated a neighborhood meeting for us. And, like I say, did it very last minute. And in that meeting there were 200 people, and there were probably 200 people with 200 different opinions. But I think there was a good majority of them that were concerned about the consistency that this development brought to the Isles of Collier Preserve and the standards required in the PUD. The developer heard that very loudly and has responded to everything we've asked for. So I find myself in really very kind of a weird position almost supporting the developer on this one, because I look at it from my personal perspective. The issue here is really do we reduce the size of the square-foot requirement. You know, I have a 27-year-old son, and he can't live in a small enough place. And it's not so much the cost of the rent. It's just that's what he wants. He doesn't want a lot of baggage, a lot of stuff. For him, this would be perfect. I've listened to the controls they put in place in terms of the kinds of tenants, and I think it probably is truly market rate. East Naples area needs to be pulled up, and the Isles of Collier Preserve, I think, has done a great job on that. I think as long as this isn't affordable housing, low-income, however you want to call it, this is a value-add, and that's how I look at it. Is this a value-add to our East Naples community? And I think it is. And, from my perspective, again, who am I to say 551 square feet, 650 square feet, 700 square feet? It's not for me to decide. And if they think there's a market for that, go for it. So that's really all I want to say. I think it's a value-add for the area and, for that, I would probably support the variance request provided we get all the other things we've talked about. Thanks. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Susan -- Suzanne Orschell. MS. ORSCHELL: Good morning. Good morning. My name is Suzanne Orschell. I'm a resident of East Naples, and I've been one since 1973. And I'm just here as an interested -- person who's interested about the future of East Naples. I think my first concern, again, is with the size of the studio. When I think about 551 square feet, I think that's about a 24-by-23-foot area, so that's basically -- I'm five-foot, so that's kind of like five of me by five of me. That's small. I think that's small. So, again, I requestfully (sic) request that the Planning Commission not approve this as it will -- I guess it potentially sets a precedence for future PUDs. So I don't think -- I don't think we want to go down that road. Also, in regard to the lease, I was looking at some old minutes from the Planning Commission about Briarwood, which is the new development, the PUD, Radio and Livingston, and those folks said, we want to keep a year lease because in order to keep the apartments at a good quality, we want to come -- we don't want to have to come in every three months, change carpet, paint. You know, we want to keep up the condition. I think it would be too expensive for them to turn over every three months. So those are my comments, and I thank you. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Is there any more? January 18, 2018 Page 36 of 77 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ray? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Are you reading something over there? MR. BELLOWS: Tom Despard, and the last speaker would be Gene. MR. DESPARD: Good morning. Not loud enough. Good morning. I'm a developer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your name again, sir. MR. DESPARD: Tom Despard. Excuse me. I live at the Isles. A seasonal resident right now, but more and more time spent here. I'm a developer from up north, and I'm glad I'm not there now. I was glad the developer had a meeting with the Isles, and I appreciate that. I think it's really critical that the -- that the houses and the parking be set back further from Thomasson Drive. I think it's really, really important because they're just -- they're just too close. It's all parking and houses. And I think Continental has agreed to at least look at that and get it back another 10 or 12 feet. Anything we could get there I think would help everybody. As far as the square footage goes, I think we'd rather see seven than five, but being on the other side most of the time as developer, if you have tradeoffs and you can get a better project through tradeoffs, I would do the tradeoffs. I mean, if you want to stick by the absolute letter of the law, then the developer may do the same thing. Even though they look like they're cooperating with everything, if you can specifically -- and we had a list here. My neighbors have done a great job. With the tradeoff possibilities, you're going to get a better project with the tradeoffs than you are by the letter of the law. I can just tell you that as a developer. That's just the way it's going to happen, because they've done their homework. They have other projects all over Florida, and they know what the market is. Now, as far as setting a precedent. You're not setting a precedent. I want to make that very clear. Because every project is specific. And this project, if you get the tradeoffs you want, you can go to the 551 square feet, okay. If down the road somebody says, well, I want 450 or I want 550 square feet, they're going to have to trade off, too, and you have the right, under zoning or whatever it is, to say no. But if somebody comes in with a project that says I want 550 square feet the same as this project, you have a right to negotiate open space, parks, contributions, and all that sort of thing which, again, would make it a better project than not. So I appreciate the Planning Commission, and I appreciate the developer, and I especially appreciate my neighbors. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Gene Sudol, and then the last speaker would be Martin Strasmore. MR. SUDOL: That was Gene, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. SUDOL: Sorry. I couldn't hear. My young age. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm a resident of the Isles of Collier. I'd like to bring that -- my perception from that perspective of being a resident, and also I work in the real estate industry in Naples general area for the last 14 years as a bank evaluator appraising properties and as well as selling and dealing with the buyers. So in a way I live in a community that you planned, and I also work in the industry in the communities that you plan. So my perspective -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you mind identifying yourself, sir? MR. SUDOL: Yes, I'm sorry. Gene Sudol, S-u-d-o-l. And the perspective I have is kind of, not global, but it's pretty wide, knowing communities from Marco all the way up to I guess what we consider now Fort Myers or Estero. And the issue that I have with the developer's plan is not the idea or the concept; it's that the reduction of that space from 700 to 550 is significant. Maybe to the general population for your own personal comfort it is not. If you can't afford it, obviously you look for a place to afford and live in; however, in the industry, it is not a good step to take. And when I questioned the gentleman during the presentation, tell me why. Is there a mistake? Is January 18, 2018 Page 37 of 77 there -- there has to be some mitigating circumstance that they have to deal with to reduce the total square footage for the complex of about 3,000 square feet, because they're impacting only a certain number of them. And if you take that square footage that they're reducing away from the 700, apparently they came up short. And that's all I had to say. I looked at their other two sites that they are currently -- they're both Springs; one in Estero, the other in Fort Myers. They're both near colleges. And, apparently, that seems to be their business model. It works very well. Now, you don't build a luxury apartment complex in a college. And I looked back at what their amenities are. When you compare the amenities that they're offering, the interior amenities: Laminated floors. It is not a luxury community, and it is not a townhouse. It's a misrepresentation of that word. Townhouse -- and you'll see it in their advertising promotions -- is a two-story one owner over two floors. This is a flat, one owner or one renter, one tenant, over the other. Now, you can imagine having a tenant above you with laminated floors. Wooden floors are quite noisy. Laminated floors are obviously -- it's a less expensive amenity. So I don't know if this is truly a luxury apartment. I think it's just a basic unit, which is fine if that's what their business model is and that's what they'd like to market. It is not compatible with our community. We love our community. We love Naples. In fact, the strongest point that I had, and working in the industry, is I said, this is the most beautiful community that I have seen. And I've seen them all. Not one. Not two. Right now we have 65 new ones, believe it or not, in our double county area. And I have a sense for what works and what is available. And I think that's important, because the Isles of Collier stands out. It's an award-winning community. I don't know if this community can stand up and rise to that -- to that level. The other concern I have about the 550 square feet is when I asked the presenter about the occupancy code, he didn't know anything about it. When you had a presentation earlier from the individual responsible for the rental, they mentioned -- or she mentioned three months. How could you not know the code in the community that you're investing millions of dollars in? It's very simple, our code. There's a letter presented by your County Attorney. There is no transient use allowed in our MPUD. How could you plan ahead and all of a sudden come up with this explanation that you have to reduce that ordinance? It was put there to be consistent with the MPUD, and it's going to be a beautiful community. It's going to be an asset to South Naples, and I think in a way that that is my basic issue. The other is -- and it's maybe not relevant to them, but the occupancy issue is a fire code. So if you amend that PUD, you are really changing that occupancy limit. And think about it. How many people will really live in that one-bedroom, 550? If you look at the floor plan of the actual model -- I looked at the one from Springs in Estero; it seems to me that they are moving the size of the living room. But, you know, there's no eating area in that studio. You have to eat at the counter. And if you reduce the size of the living room, you reduce the eating area to the stools under the kitchen bar. So it is a -- to me, a significant reduction in space. The problem I have is, who's going to monitor that one person? I mean, if they go ahead with it and say, okay, if you approve it, who's going to monitor that? You want to take some examples? Go to 701 on Bayshore. That is less than 700 square feet, and there's a lot of couples and a lot of children. In fact, my daughter rents there, and the unit next to her -- I believe they're 550 square feet -- there were seven people living in their; seven. Three children had to stay outside until after 10 because the adults were using their environment, and then they would bring in the sleepwear, and then seven people. The county reacted very well, the Code Department. Chris came in, did the investigation. He said it's almost impossible, as you know, to establish occupancy. You have to be there many hours to substantiate the charge. It's much easier to go to the manager, give them notice. They then file a complaint. It's a lease violation. It's not a code violation. And then that manager has more power than the code enforcer, because they give them the eviction notice, 30 days. So my feeling is, it will turn into that, because it is a significant rent; 12- to 15,000 a year for a single employee in the affordable housing range; you have to be near $75,000 a year to afford that. So I think it's going to be easy for someone to say, hey, let's combine our assets, split the rent, and January 18, 2018 Page 38 of 77 you'll be in a violation mode. So think about that when you approve the reduction in size. So besides the compatibility issue, I think that is a very strong reason why I don't support the change from 700. Stick with it. If they're not ready to develop that at that level, perhaps they have to find another place, but not Naples. And I think that's how you have control. That's why you're in planning. You plan our future, and going back is not planning. It's called correcting or making it -- an adjustment. Now, again, thanks for your time. I appreciate it much. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Gene, I have a question for you. You said you visited the one in Estero. Both -- and you're right, that is by the university. I can see those smaller units, and I can see shorter-term rentals up in Lee County only because of the college kids. So, you're right, they put a couple together, and if they meet the quarter, they do. So I understand that. This is not -- we are not by a college here. This is completely different. The lease probably bothers me the most. And so you're saying these are just occupancy and then the smallness of these, that there's really no room to eat is what you said? MR. SUDOL: There is no eating area. Like we would -- in our industry we'd call it a -- not a kitchen, but breakfast area, or at least a space for a table. But look closely at that plan. The one that I saw up on the screen was from the 636, which is the larger of the undercoated units. Again, it makes sense for that model to work maybe in an industrial area, maybe in an area where they really have to reduce the size to make the model work. Not in Naples. There's no reason to go under the code to do well in our county. We're a highly respected county. People understand our residential value. Why would you step backwards? That's my concern. I'm talking now from the perspective of an agent that works in valuations. There is an intangible called constancy in real estate, which is very simple. No one would buy a million dollar house next to a mobile home. They could both be -- I mean, the mobile home could be a bus at a million dollars. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SUDOL: The bottom line is they don't belong together. All right. Thank you again. MR. BELLOWS: And the last speaker, Martin Strasmore. MR. STRASMORE: Hi. Thank you. There's a last-minute series of thoughts that came up from me listening to all of this. And I want to commend you, particularly Mr. Fryer, because you asked a lot of questions that are in our minds. I do live in the Isles as well, and I moved here two-and-a-half years ago from Connecticut. And I was always concerned -- we saw the same issue in Connecticut in terms of affordable housing. And when I look at the numbers here -- I'm going to give you a lot of different points. This is -- it's not intended to be affordable housing, but it's not really affordable, because we were told on Tuesday what their criteria are, which is 30 percent income -- their income had to cover -- you know, there's a 30 percent rule regarding how much you had to earn and the rent. And when you looked at the prices that they were talking about anything above a studio, it certainly put it out of the reach of, say, the policemen and teachers in this area because I also went online and looked at what their salaries -- average salaries were. So I don't know who they think the market is. And, in general, I have a concern about what Continental's real intentions are and whether we can trust them, honestly. Because I was reading between the lines from what I was listening. I don't know when this was originally approved. Was it 2012? Was that when it was originally approved? Okay. And it was clear at that time that the 700 square foot was the limitation. And now suddenly they come up with the 550, but they also made it very clear that that was their intention all along, because that's what they do in their portfolio. So I didn't quite understand why they went with the 700 when their intention all along was to go for the 550. When they talk about they've done -- what'd they say -- quite a fair market analysis, I don't trust it. I think they're going for something else. And also when they say, well, it would be more successful, I was listening to that and hearing it was dollars per square foot. They could get more money for this. They're in business, I understand, but that isn't what I constitute as successful for a community to increase the dollars per square foot by shrinking the January 18, 2018 Page 39 of 77 amount of square feet. My daughter lives in an apartment in Washington and to her to go to -- I disagree with what was said here about, well, people just want smaller space, but this is -- we're not talking about from smaller space to tiny space. Smaller space, yes; tiny space, no. Okay. So I have also very much a bigger concern which is that this area is an environmental opportunity. And the way that Isles is being developed has taken advantage of that. It's a beautiful space. The preserve has been preserved. We just had a walkabout there the other day. And I look at this and I look at this lake, which means that they're going to take away a lot of trees. I mean, how do you create this lake? You're going to actually cut down a lot of forest. Why? And especially since we're saying that these are people who are hardly going to hang out in their places. Well, all we're doing is degrading the environment to put in a large piece of water which has all sorts of other issues connected to it. I don't get it. I'd like to know how we can go back, not just to stop what they're asking for now, but how we can go back to get this relooked at, replanned to look at it from a better environmental point of view altogether so that we protect this beautiful area that we live in. Those are my main points. I agree with everything that's been said about traffic. Clearly, it's going to be an issue, clearly, no matter what is said now. 2012, 2018, we're talking about six years, and all sorts of things are happening and will continue to happen that will increase the traffic flow here. So those are my main points. Please, do not pass this, and tell me, how could we do more to actually get them to reconsider the whole project and redesign it. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Wayne, I'm sure you have something else you want to say. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, Wayne Arnold, and I'll have Elizabeth join in and speak. And I just wanted to -- no disrespect to Mr. Lubben, but the unit you did tour was a 551-square-foot second-story unit. So I just wanted to correct that. He did see one of the units that we're talking about. And I think we're certainly willing to make the concession, as Mr. Lubben has referenced, and many of his other neighbors had recommended, and we're willing to add those commitments to the PUD as long as they're tied to the Site Development Plan that's applicable for this developer. But I think I'll let -- VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you have a list of them that -- everything they've committed to? MR. ARNOLD: I think I can develop that list in short order. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is one of the commitments that you're going to move the units back from Thomasson Drive? MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to let Mr. Moore answer that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I'm curious, because on Google Earth, from the nearest one in Isles to the other side of the Thomasson Drive is already 180 feet. You've got a 60-foot parking lot, 18, 24, and 18, and then you've got some buffer. It's already, like, 240 feet. If you move it 10 feet back, it's not going -- really, it's not going to really accomplish anything. I just -- MR. ARNOLD: I think -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just so long as you know that. I don't -- you know, you can move it back if you want. MR. ARNOLD: I didn't attend that last neighborhood meeting, but it was my understanding that their hope was to gain a larger landscape buffer in moving those buildings. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You'd be better off putting the landscape buffer on their side, on their side of the road, really. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's already there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, then enhance it, because it's harder to look over a tree January 18, 2018 Page 40 of 77 that's 200 feet away from you and 40 feet tall than a tree that's right next to you and 40 feet tall if you're above it. So it's just something to consider. I don't do this for a living, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You used to. MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to let Mr. Moore answer Stan's question, if we can. MR. MOORE: No. As it relates to the -- pushing the buildings back, there are a couple of things that we had to consider when doing it. I'm going to pick up this mike. There is -- is this on? It's on. Right in this area there's a 75-foot buffer easement that we can't build on. One of the things we looked at is, you know, if we can park in that area, then we can shift everything up, but from the first neighborhood meeting we did push everything back from Thomasson 10 feet. The size of the ponds, pretty stable; we can't reduce the pond size for South Florida Water Management District. But we've -- we're relooking at it again, and any potential to move it back, we obviously will. The wall requirement, obviously, to me, takes away a lot of concern on the additional buffer, because now we're going to be landscaping on the inside and outside of an eight-foot wall. There are some of the units that have balconies on the second floor, not all of them, and that was a concern, but they are screened balconies that certain times of the day you can't even see through the screens. So I hope that addresses the setback. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for you. Is this your first project in Collier County? MR. MOORE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I noticed in reading the -- MR. MOORE: Can I add to that? It hasn't been for lack of looking. There aren't very many zoned pieces of multifamily land in Collier County that would meet our criteria, and even outside of our criteria, there's not a lot of 20-plus acre parcels that allow for a less dense product like we are. We're typically 13 to 15 units per acre, where the three-, four-, five-story can get a 25, 30. So that really limits our availability. This site I could compete against the higher density guys because you're limited to 340 units total per the original PUD. So I just -- it wasn't from lack of looking. It did take us a while, and this site hasn't been on the market long, because Collier County did want to get the Isles up and going, and I understand that was a long entitlement process, so that's how we came to this site. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'm just going to bring up one thing that I did see in here about garages. There was a Ms. Hitch there or something, and she said the attached garages are rented out and -- separately. So -- and I'm going, separately? And they're saying, detached and attached are rented out separately. MR. MOORE: Detached are rented out separately. The attached go with the unit. They literally come out of the car and can go right into the unit. There are some attached that are called floaters -- there are two in each of the B20 buildings -- but they don't have access into a unit. So the ones that are attached to the unit are part of their rent. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other thing is the lease. I'm hearing no one wants the three-month lease. Would be you willing to do these with year lease? MR. MOORE: I don't think a year. That really limits a lot of seasonal people that come down. We weren't trying to go against any code. If there's a code that limits us to six-months leases, we're going to abide by that. The number of three-months leases in our current Florida projects are very minimal. We end up charging two-and-a-half, three times a month rent for those units, so you're not getting that unit for the same cost. So you're paying a large premium for that, which discourages a lot of people, because they could rent for six months for the same time (sic) as three months. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But we do have -- anything less than six months is a bed tax, so that's why I'm asking you about the lease. And I did hear someone mention that you had said at the information meeting the other day that these would be year leases. So I'm just trying to -- MR. MOORE: Yeah. If I said it, it was in error. There's -- it was a two-hour meeting, and a lot was said. There was concern about the smaller units, and I think the gentleman mentioned about the occupancy, and that was the number of people that could physically live in it per county code. So we're not January 18, 2018 Page 41 of 77 looking to get any variance from that either. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. One other thing, as long as we're on the subject, and -- would you be willing to do the 52 units at 660, which is just 40 square feet difference? Would you be willing to do that for this project rather than 700? You do -- the 660 would be your smallest unit? MR. MOORE: I don't know how physically we'd do that to one and not the other, because where this unit's located, we just can't widen or make longer, you know, that particular unit. Is there something that we could do that is slightly above 550 that gets us closer to 660? We can, obviously, look at it. But this is -- we came in knowing that this was the case and, you know, as the PUD was written many years ago, times changes, and that's why we felt there was a demand for this. I don't know -- I think someone mentioned earlier the 700-square-foot number -- where that came from, but we have been -- as Elizabeth said earlier, those smaller units are our highest occupancy units. So if our project's occupied at 95 percent, those units are normally at 97, 98. So that's why we feel there's still a very high demand for a smaller unit. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. Maybe Wayne would know, Mr. Arnold. One of the speakers spoke of preserve, and just to clarify, it's my recollection -- of course, this is part of the Sabal Bay community, and it's my recollection that Sabal Bay, almost 50 percent of the acreage of Sabal Bay is already in preserve, far exceeds any requirement, and much of that was because of the Army Corps of Engineers permitting and impact in wetlands. So I guess if somebody wanted to make this into a preserve, I could only assume that then the community would have to buy it and turn it into a preserve. You have no preservation requirements other than maintaining the right-of-way; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. The site is designated for residential, and there were no preservation requirements applicable to this site. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And just to further what Mr. Moore said about orientation of the building, the top side of that exhibit, not exactly north, but the top side of that exhibit that reflects the green strip, there's a PUD boundary setback of 75 feet. That's the external boundary of the Sabal Bay PUD, and that's why he was talking about there's not a lot of room to do shifting. I don't know the answer to the question about whether or not parking can be located there. I haven't -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It there a right-of-way there as well, a utility right-of-way, or is it just the buffer? MR. ARNOLD: I believe there are some easements that are also located in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Easements. Okay. I'm prepared to make a motion, if anybody else has a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to have a little discussion, but we can have discussion after a motion, if you wish. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I make a motion -- I'm torn with this because -- I'm also the representative on the Affordable Housing Committee for the Planning Commission. Though this is not affordable housing, I've been on that committee for well over a year, and there was subcommittees, and clearly demonstrated that this type of product is desperately needed in Collier County, not as an affordable housing, but simply as a product available. And I'm torn because I really somewhat believe that there certainly is a market, and I believe every project is specific. So I'm going to make a motion to approve subject to the following conditions: That the concrete roof tiles are installed in lieu of any other product, asphalt, tile, racing (sic) metal roof or whatever; as stipulated by the residents, it matches the architectural decor of the surrounding community; subject to approval by the fire marshal, relocate the emergency entrance to off of -- I just lost the name of that street. MR. ARNOLD: Cardinal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Cardinal. I should know that -- Cardinal. And I don't think there would be any problem in doing that. It's just a matter of redesigning the road network and having that January 18, 2018 Page 42 of 77 approved; subject to being able to redesign to accommodate some of the setback requirements off of Thomasson Drive, that the developer look at that. Of course, unless they're going to bring that back to us, but I don't think -- I defer that to staff and the county to review; that they -- there was a lease stipulation that limits the number of occupants based on the -- no more than two per bedroom. That's clearly specified in any lease agreement or lease that is provided to the residents; that we clarify the PUD language to limit the number of 551- plus 660-square-foot units to no more than 7 percent of the total allowed, and that's clearly stated; and no less than six-month lease -- occupancy limit of no less than six months for any lease, and that is the list of my -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Wall. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The wall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, well, they've already agreed to the concrete wall. So, yeah, subject that they will build a -- I'll call it a concrete wall, but it's going to be a concrete-appearing wall, because some of those are precast, some of those are light-weight concrete, and you can even purchase vinyl now that looks very much like -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. MR. MOORE: It's going to be an opaque wall per county standards. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Same wall as the Isles; comparable wall. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comparable wall. And I believe the developer's already agreed to that. So the list of my stipulations. Any -- subject to your -- MR. STONE: Commissioner, if I may get clarification on one of your conditions. You mentioned number of units that could be 551 or 660 square foot. Can you just clarify that again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I was saying -- wasn't there a requirement that the number of units -- whether -- the total number of units would not exceed 7 percent of the allowed development. Isn't that what one of the requests was, or did I hear that wrong? MR. ARNOLD: The way that it's currently written, Mr. Schmitt, it says 15 percent of the units on this tract could be the 551 square feet, which equates to 52 units. So further breaking that down, 24 of those units are really 551 square feet; 28 of the units are 660 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the total would remain 15 -- MR. ARNOLD: Total remains 52 that are less than 700, but breaking that further, the 551 square feet are limited to 24 units. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: The 660-square-feet units will be limited to 28. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Then we stay with that language that stipulates the -- thank you. Clarify it. Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: The other things that were committed to are that it would be gated, just for the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I understand fully that it was a gated community with controlled access. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Two stories. MR. ARNOLD: We're willing to add that. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: They wanted it to be specific, I think, the community. MR. ARNOLD: If we're modifying the PUD language to add these conditions, we're certainly happy to add the gated entry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, let's add that as well. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Two-story, clubhouse with a pool, and a dog park. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Two dog parks. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Oh, sorry. MR. BELLOWS: I just want clarification on the wall. How tall? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Eight-foot. MR. BELLOWS: Eight-foot. MR. ARNOLD: If I could ask a question. I'm not certain that the Isles wall is eight feet. January 18, 2018 Page 43 of 77 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It is. MR. ARNOLD: Because the code in their PUD does not allow an eight-foot wall. It only allows an eight-foot wall where you have commercial abutting residential. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct; that's correct. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's already built. MR. ARNOLD: So I honestly don't know the answer to that. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Who said the eight-foot wall before? Just -- was it -- MR. ARNOLD: It was Mr. Lubben that mentioned the eight-foot-high wall. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: It was? Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Depends if it's on a berm. MR. ARNOLD: That may be part of the clarification. If there's a small berm and then you put a six-foot wall panel on it. The way county measures from top of wall to the unaltered ground elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Toe of the berm, yeah. I didn't think it allowed an eight-foot wall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You can put it on a berm. MR. ARNOLD: And maybe -- Mr. Schmitt, maybe the language is it's to be comparable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Comparable to the surrounding property. MR. MOORE: We committed to the Isles to sit down with them with their materials boards to show them what we'd be proposing before the council meeting, if we get to that point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second the motion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Discussion. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Discussion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I appreciate the work that's been done by the developer and the developer's experts in reaching out to the neighbors and attempting to reach a compromise on the important points. Ordinarily that would be enough for me, because I believe in tradeoffs and I believe in walking out of this room in a win-win with everybody here who feels as though they've succeeded in devising something that is good for everyone. But that's not the issue here, I don't think. The issue for me is that -- it's one of precedent, and I do not think that the case for uniqueness has been sufficiently made to foreclose objections that have merit -- meritorious objections on the part of subsequent developers, that they would be entitled to the same reduction in square feet. And for that reason, I'm going to vote no. Fortunately, for all concerned, the matter's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners, who will have the only say that matters. But for my purposes, I do not think that it is appropriate for us to open the door to reducing the occupiable square feet to 551 for the entire MPUD, and I don't see that sufficient points of uniqueness have been demonstrated that we could successfully argue against falling along that precedent. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also have concerns. My biggest concern is the 551 square feet. I could see the 660. If you put the 52 units at 660, that's close enough to 700, but I also am very concerned about the lease on these. I do not like short-term leases at all. Over here, I think Joe said something like a six-month lease would be the least you would take on this. When you have residents living right across the street yearly and you start doing all these short-term leases, that's not good for the neighborhood. If you could work -- if you could do something for adding up to 660 square feet rather than the 551 and do leases no less than six months, that would be okay with me; otherwise, I will not be voting for it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Patrick, anything? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you have anything? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. No, nothing extra to add. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Nothing to add, okay. Well, I'm torn here. I don't know. I think it's a total PUD and it should stay at 700. January 18, 2018 Page 44 of 77 COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: But I also see that it might be a better project if they have the other agreed -- the things they agreed upon which they won't get otherwise. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think the percentage of the units that are going to be in question -- I heard the number 24 total units that could roughly 500 and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fifty-one. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: -- right -- is a very small percentage given the fact that the next grouping's almost 706. MR. ARNOLD: 660. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And the rest are larger than that. So I agree, but I think that percentage is a very small percentage of the overall project. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Do you ever see a need for rentals of that size? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'm very thankful and blessed to say that in my business that I don't do anything with rentals. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: You don't have any idea? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (Shakes head.) VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Okay. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 3-3. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very good. Well done. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What does that mean? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That means it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. They make the final decision. It's forwarded without recommendations. The petitioner, I assume, will make adjustments and prepare a presentation to the Board identifying our concerns and then it will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final decision. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. So if you have concerns, that's where it would be brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sorry, Commissioner Fiala. You've got to deal with it. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. I think we need to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Take a break. VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: -- take a break for lunch till 1:15. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ray, did you shut the -- Ray? We're going to take a break for lunch. MR. BELLOWS: Do you want an hour break for lunch? VICE-CHAIR HOMIAK: Yes, 1:15. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 1:15. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Chrzanowski was absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Good afternoon, and welcome back from our break. I know that Terri has had a really easy morning because I wasn't here, and now that I've had a large cup of coffee, we will keep her moving -- her fingers moving swiftly for the rest of the day. ***So with that in mind, our next item up is Item 9D. It's PL-20170001083. It's the 15501 Old U.S. 41 CPUD located on the west side of Old U.S. 41 approximately one mile north of the U.S. 41 and Old U.S. January 18, 2018 Page 45 of 77 41 intersection. All those wishing to testifying 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: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have talked to Alexis by phone, I think I talked to her a little bit in the back of the room today, I've gone over some issues with staff, and those are the only -- that's the only disclosures I have. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know I had any. No, none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Alexis, I'll turn it over to you. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. Good afternoon. Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering representing the applicants. Joining me here today is Craig Hazelett, who is the owner and operator of Driftwood Nurseries. He is one of the property owners involved with the application. We also have Frank and his son Frank Norberto, who are the other property owners filing this PUD request. In terms of the team, we have Lindsay Robin, who is a planner at Waldrop Engineering as well; Dane Underhill, who did the environmental reporting with Dex Bender & Associates; and Norm Trebilcock, who performed the traffic study; all available to answer any questions you may have. And I just have a brief presentation to outline the request which is to rezone a 4.85-acre property that's currently zoned agricultural to allow for it to be a commercial Planned Unit Development with a maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial uses. As Mark noted, the subject property is located on the west side of Old U.S. 41 in the northern portion of Collier County. It's located adjacent to the Railhead Industrial Park, which is on the east side of Old 41, as you can see on the aerial. To our north we have multifamily development, to our south we have vacant industrial lands that are part of the Sterling Oaks PUD, and then to the west you can see expansive green space areas which are committed preserve also in the Sterling Oaks Planned Unit Development. This master concept plan that we submitted with the application delineates the two property owners working together to do a unified commercial Planned Unit Development. The Norbertos own the smaller parcel on the southern portion of the site, and it's delineated by the dashed line through the concept plan. To the north of that is where Mr. Hazelett owns the property. We're showing two commercial buildings. The larger is 32,500 square foot maximum, and the smaller on the southern parcel is 7,500 square foot in size. We're proposing to do a shared single point of access from Old U.S. 41 to enable appropriate circulation to the property and have first shared access between the properties. We are proposing perimeter buffers in accordance with the Land Development Code. No deviations are being sought. We have 15-foot Type D along the Old U.S. 41 right-of-way. The buffer to our north where we are adjacent to multifamily residential uses is a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer. To our south, where we abut industrial zoned lands, we are required to do a 10-foot Type A buffer as shown. And what you'll see we've tried to do is get all the commercial uses to the front of the property along the arterial roadway frontage and then preserve the back in open space, use it for stormwater management, and then we have a large FP&L easement that's 100-foot wide running through the property. So that allows a good transition from the roadway having the intensity on the roadway and then transitioning as we move west to those preserve lands within Sterling Oaks. I think it's important to address compatibility whenever you're converting a property to a commercial January 18, 2018 Page 46 of 77 use, especially when you have residential neighbors. We are in agreement with staff, as outlined in the staff report, that the proposed CPUD will be compatible with the surrounding land use pattern around Old U.S. 41. We're adjacent to high-density apartment housing to the north of the site. Arbor Lake Club PUD is the name of that original PUD. It's 11 units per acre in density. So it's not your lower density singe-family use that might need more buffering from commercial-type developments. We also have planned industrial uses to our south in the Sterling Oaks PUD as well as intensive industrial uses immediately to the east of Old U.S. 41. As I've noted, we proposed our buildings along the 41 frontage to orient the commercial development to the roadway. We've preserved well in excess of the minimum preserve requirements in order to reserve that entire western portion of the property to be undeveloped in perpetuity, and then again, landscape buffers along the perimeters. I've kind of walked you through our surrounding uses, so I won't belabor the point of our neighbors. One thing I do want to point out -- and I know this gentleman was kind enough to attend our neighborhood information meeting and had some concerns about impact to Sterling Oaks to our west. So what this plan does is shows where the buildings would be located on our site and the distance between our perimeter boundary and units within Sterling Oaks. And you can see the separation provided with significant vegetation in that space, I should note, ranges from a quarter mile to upwards of half a mile of separation from that community. The other residential neighbor I just want to give some attention to is the Arbor Lakes PUD. Again, 11 units per acre. They have existing landscape buffer on their southern property line, and then we would be required to do a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer where you have commercial adjacent to residential. That includes a six-foot-tall wall, fence, or hedge, as well as trees, and they would have to have an 80 percent opacity within one year of planting. So a pretty significant buffer there. And I'll just also note that there's approximately 80 feet of separation before that first multifamily building in our northern property line. So we'll have spatial separation as well as visual screening provided by the buffer. We appreciate staff's time on the application getting us through the process. They have recommended approval, found the public petition to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan goals, objectives, and policies. They've noted in their staff report this is a logical transition of an intensity along the Old U.S. 41 corridor. With that, we are happy to answer any questions you may have, and we appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll start with our Planning Commission. Any Planning Commissioners have any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I would say that I think that this is the right kind of use for this location. I think it fits in nicely. It's, I guess, kind of an infill, would you call it? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. My only concern -- and I realize that there are arguments here with respect to traffic. But from the AUIR of 2016, we went to a capacity of 29; 2017 to minus 87. And I understand something having to do with the TCMA boundary and two or more moderating or mediating actions that are taken in order to somehow constrain the increase in traffic, but I'd like to hear a little bit more about the traffic and particularly what the projections are for how much additional traffic will be brought about as a result of this in comparison to present conditions. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. I'm going to ask Norm to -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, just for clarification, Ned, when you said in comparison to current conditions, current conditions is that site generates zero traffic. But that's not the condition that we start with. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I don't mean that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean the road. I mean Old 41 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. January 18, 2018 Page 47 of 77 COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and the traffic that passes this now undeveloped site, how that would change in relation to present conditions. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Yes, for the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock, professional engineer and certified planner. My firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project. To cover the proposed uses, I think part of it, to understand the amount of traffic that this could potentially add to the road system is what you're thinking? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Good. So what we're looking at is, you know, in the scenario is you're looking at a general office building, a specialty retail, those uses added together. The p.m. peak hour volume entering would be 61 vehicles per hour, and the exiting would be 115 vehicles per hour. So that's a total of 176 p.m. peak trips. And when we look at concurrency and issues on the roadway, we'll look at that p.m. peak hour, because that's sort of the worst-case scenario for the road system. So then when you look at the different links, we'll then distribute that traffic over the site. So it's going to go in the different directions. And so then we look at the percent of impact on the -- on that section. So our worst impact would be, it would be a 5.7 percent, and then we have another, like, 3 percent. So those would -- those would meet the county's significance test. So this would be considered a significant impact. And because there is a level-of-service issue as you've identified, then it's considered adverse out there. So there is an issue as you've identified, but this is in what -- as what you had correctly identified, too, it's a TCMA area, so there are strategies that are allowed by our planning documents to look at things to mitigate for that. And your transportation staff may want to kind of expound on that a bit, too. But in terms of then probably, as you mentioned, looking at the 2016, I'll just kind of cover the projected volumes, because, like you said, U.S. 41 is really the -- Old 41 is that section. So the background traffic, in 2016 the peak hour/peak direction was 960 vehicles per hour. And so there's a trip bank, and we grew the traffic, so it grows up to 971. And then -- so when you add our project traffic on there, then there would be an anticipated failure. Fast forward to 2017 AUIR, that's already occurred as well. So that's a significant issue that we would have to address. And identifying the TCMA strategies, that occurs at time of concurrency, when we come in to do a Site Development Plan, that would be the time where we would identify the specific strategies and work with staff and use the current traffic at that time to address that. So did I address what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think so, yeah. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, not right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Alexis, let's start in then, because I have quite a few, and I've got some traffic issues, but I'm going to wait for staff to come up to address those. There are some PUD findings issues I have, but I think I'll wait to talk with those with staff. And staff is aware of my upcoming questions; I talked to them yesterday so they'd be better prepared today. And let me get into the PUD. It's actually Exhibit A, the first page of the PUD. You're basically asking, under A1, for all permitted use of C3 and, because C3 does not have a catalog and mail order house -- that's a C4 use -- you're asking for that to be added because it's -- allowed as a CU over 5,000 square feet in the C3 district; is that -- MS. CRESPO: I don't know if it's allowed as a conditional use in a C3 district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, I mean, it's -- to be over 5,000 square feet, it would have to be. MS. CRESPO: It's limited by the 5,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's why you've got it in here at 7,500, right? January 18, 2018 Page 48 of 77 MS. CRESPO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the -- yesterday when I spoke to you, I mentioned some language I found in your narrative that provided the request for this project, and I'll read it to the Planning Commission. It's on Page 54. As shown on the enclosed PUD master plan, the catalog and mail-order house use will be located on the southern portion of the CPUD -- that's the smaller building right here as you see on the plan on the south -- adjacent to the industrial zoned section of the Sterling Oaks PUD. This is the most intensive use based on review of commercial use regulations in the LDC, and it's appropriately located away from the multifamily residential uses to the north of the PUD. Now, the idea then is that the most intense use is to the south, and the commercial building will have less intense uses than that location will, because it's up closest to the residential. But if you go to the C3 section of our -- and I'll pull that out right now -- C3 section of our code, you'll find that there are uses in C3 such as auto and home supply stores, automotive services, child daycare, eating places which can have drinking parts to them, educational plants, food stores -- food stores combined with gasoline become a Racetrac -- hardware stores, and things like that. And I asked Alexis to take a look at these uses, because there are a substantial amount of them that are actually more intense than a mail-order catalog operation that relies on mail orders and has a few deliveries coming back and forth. Now, based on that, I suggest that we don't need all those C3 uses in that location in that commercial building. And you were going to take a look at those and talk with the applicant and come back with some kind of suggestion. Have you had a chance to do that? MS. CRESPO: Yes, thank you. We looked at the fuel pumps. We know that was a significant item that the county's been looking at over the past several years, so we could eliminate that as a permitted use within the northern -- really the southern parcel, because the southern parcel wouldn't meet the criteria to achieve that use. And we understand automotive service stations along those same lines would potentially have the noise and different issues associated with intensive uses, so -- could also eliminate that use. In terms of the retail, we are seeking the flexibility to do some of these -- you know, the home store, for example, food stores. They are limited by square foot in the C3 district, so they're capped at 5,000 square feet. Some of them are capped at 1,800 square feet. So we felt that was a good way of limiting the intensity if it were to be located on that northernmost parcel adjacent to Arbor Lakes, and then coupled with the building separation that we're going to have, the buffers, we were looking for your recommendation to maintain those retail uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's start with the first one. So you're saying you want the opportunity to put an auto store there, auto supply. MS. CRESPO: Auto supply without on-site mechanic-type support uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you think that's less intense than the mail-order house to the south? MS. CRESPO: When we defined it as the most intense use, it was simply from looking at the Land Development Code and stating which C4 would be a more intensive use than a C3 use. So -- but to your point, absolutely there can be C3 uses that generate more trips, noise, light than the mail-order house, so we are in agreement on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you basically felt that intensity was designated by the type of zoning classification it had? MS. CRESPO: That is the way we applied that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it wasn't clear in your narrative, and I think it could have been misleading because it obviously -- intensity from what we normally look at is compatibility. From compatibility, many of the uses in the C3 that would be closest to the residential are actually uses that should be closer to the industrial. I understand that's not the way the ownership of the property is requesting it. We'll see what we can do to get there. January 18, 2018 Page 49 of 77 Automotive services, except that this shall not be construed to permit the activity of a wrecker service. So that's your automotive repair. So you're feeling automotive repair and items like that are allowed on that site or should be a good location? MS. CRESPO: Mr. Hazelett was comfortable removing that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Child daycare. The only reason I'm bringing it up is they have usually outside playgrounds, and they are very noisy. So you're going to mix that with other retail uses potentially going on that site? I mean, you've got 32,000 square feet, obviously, that's a multistory building. Is child daycare something you want to put there? You have to identify yourself for the record. MR. HAZELETT: Craig Hazelett. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you stand up -- were you sworn in when we started? MR. HAZELETT: I was not, no. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. HAZELETT: We have no current plans with the land right now. We're just trying to go along to get, you know, the potential down the road because of going in with the Nobertos on their needs for their plans. So that's why we were joining along with it at the time. And so as of now we have no plan other than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have -- there's, like, 96 uses in C3. MR. HAZELETT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what I'm concerned about is the residential. Now, the Sterling Oaks has some residential, but it's over, what, a quarter mile, a thousand feet away, but immediately next door there's a bunch of apartments. Generally people who live in apartments won't even get a notice in the mail. Even though you've mailed them, you would have mailed them to the property owner and not to the apartment people. They're going to wake up one day and find this building going up and saying, how'd this happen. Now, I just want to make sure that some of these more intense uses that are very disruptive aren't in a location where the neighborhood is going to be surprised. And the biggest one is gas stations and convenience stores, and I'm understanding now that you're agreed that's not going to happen. MR. HAZELETT: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Childcare is another one because of the outdoor playgrounds. If you were to put a childcare situation there with a playground on the north side of that building, it's going to be right in the backyards of those people, those apartments next door. So that's a concern. Eating places. I can assure you we've learned a lesson from the eating places up on -- what's that Immokalee and Collier. What's the name of that project? Pebblebrooke. They came in as an eating place, and they got a sliding glass wall that opens up, and all the noise from the eating place, the neighborhood's suffering from it. I can't see that as something that would be good for this neighborhood. And I'll walk through these. And if you have any -- educational plants. Those are bus barns. We've got one down on Davis -- or Rattlesnake Hammock, I believe it is. I'm not sure you want a bus barn there for school buses. I'm not sure you need that there. Food stores. I think we already talked about food stores. You're not going to be putting a food store in. MS. CRESPO: I don't believe we committed to -- MR. HAZELETT: Yeah. I mean, we haven't really gone -- haven't really looked at the whole list, you know. We just didn't want to limit it, you know, if it was, you know, just sold, you know, the future uses of the land, so -- MS. CRESPO: Is the concern food store in conjunction with automobile fuel pumps? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I'm sure I'm going to get Norm to tell me if when he did the TIS based on specialty retail and general office, if this was converted to a Fresh Market or one of the smaller food stores, would that create a different generation of traffic, a more increased intensity of traffic. I'm sure January 18, 2018 Page 50 of 77 that the deliveries and the delivery trucks and the backup alarm and a compactor and the trash dumpster, all that would probably create more with a food store than it would with what you offered as a general -- I mean, as an office building. MS. CRESPO: I would just note that the food store limitation is 5,000 square feet, so that doesn't even accommodate an Aldi or even -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're right. You're right. Okay. MS. CRESPO: It would be really a mom and pop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a convenience store. MS. CRESPO: It could be a convenience store scale, and because we're willing to eliminate the fuel pumps, it takes away the ability to do the Racetrac scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a good point. MS. CRESPO: And we do have, thank you, a trip cap in our PUD commitments, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're going to have a great discussion about it here -- transportation in just a little bit. Okay. Well, most of the uses that I've mentioned are the ones that I thought would be most concerning for additional generation of noise, light, and traffic in that location. And we're back to basically automotive services, auto supply stores, childcare services, eating places, educational plants, and gasoline or fuel facilities. Are those problematic to you to drop? MS. CRESPO: Eating places? If the eating places were oriented in the southern portion of that commercial building where -- I understand what you're saying if they had the open doors projecting sound directly to the apartments, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if we -- what if you do eating places, but in the PUD you add the standard language we use for no external amplified sound? MS. CRESPO: Very good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would get us past that issue, and that means it's an enclosed dining area. MR. HAZELETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me move on to what might remain in the PUD. There wasn't much of anything in the language itself. It was pretty straightforward. So that's all I've got on the actual PUD language. It was -- other than that, it was pretty simple. So with that, I do have questions of our -- I want to start with our staff on transportation, and then Norm can -- Mike or Trinity or whoever. MR. SAWYER: For the record, again, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. I apologize. I got here late and I didn't get sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we can take care of that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SAWYER: Certainly I'm here, and Trinity is also, so it's probably going to be a combination of both of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Mike, we rarely get an application that has a negative going into it, and an F -- LOS of F on this particular road segment; negative 87. So no matter what you do it's going to be a greater negative than less, because you're not going to take traffic off the road. You're going to do something that's going to create more. The solution to this is something that I find amusing in Collier County, and that's this TCMA provision. Basically, now, because this is in a TCMA -- and I believe it's the same one that our Immokalee Road is, which is a mess, and that our Pine Ridge Road is, which is a mess, and you're telling me that because this is in that TCA (sic) with all these other messed-up roads, we can further mess up this one if they do some simple things like -- can you tell us things they could do? MR. SAWYER: I can actually give you that list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: There are -- again, there's a number of different methods. They need to pick at January 18, 2018 Page 51 of 77 least two. We do that when they come with the SDP for the project itself. There is preferred parking for carpools and vanpools. I park and charge; that would be to decrease the number of vehicles, and it more -- encourage more carpooling and vanpooling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go too far, let's back up. The first one was? MR. SAWYER: The first one is preferred parking for carpooling and vanpooling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they put a parking space out there and it says, if you come with your neighbor to use this food store, that meets their TCMA requirement? MR. SAWYER: That would be meeting one of them, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. MR. SAWYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was the second one? I mean, do you realize this is going to do nothing to help the North Naples congestion? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. There are requirements that they have to monitor these TDM strategies, transportation demand management strategies, and that we do have -- if they're not effective, they must change them. So it is a monitoring process that is stipulated in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan that they must monitor those. If they don't work, they have to go back, change them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this monitoring goes on after they're operating and functioning. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they don't work and they don't change them to something that does or -- what leverage do you have -- I mean, you're not going to shut an operating business down. You'll never succeed doing that. So how do you think you're going to make that work? MS. SCOTT: We're not, but if -- maybe we can go back and talk about the TCMAs a little bit. I did put together a few things, because we always have a lot of questions about TCMAs and also knowing what's going on in the area with Old 41, I think might be helpful -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North Naples is generally a traffic mess right now, and I think that we're going to have a lot of questions anytime something comes in in that area of the county. So that's fine. Let's go forward. MS. SCOTT: So Transportation Concurrency Management Areas were developed back in the early 2000s to encourage compact urban developments in areas where there -- a network of roadway, there's multi modes to service the traffic. We -- every year, annually, I have to report on the performance of each of the TCMAs. They're based on a percentage of lane miles meeting the level-of-service standards. So every year in the Annual Update and Inventory Report one of the final exhibits, attachments within the AUIR, shows what percentages of the lane miles are operating at acceptable level of service. The TCMA shall maintain 85 percent of its lane miles at or above the level-of-service standards. So in that TCMA 85 percent of those lane miles must meet LOS standards. If they are not, then when a proposed development comes in, they must modify that development to be able to ensure that the TCMA lane miles are meeting 85 percent. This is an eye chart, but unfortunately I had to convert to a PDF, and it didn't convert pretty here. The AUIR, the 2017 AUIR, this specific TCMA is operating -- 98.9 percent of the lane miles are currently operating at the acceptable level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 98.9? MS. SCOTT: 98 point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're 1.1 percent away from failure in the entire North Naples area? MS. SCOTT: No, no, no. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: 98.9 are currently operating at an acceptable level of service. So 1.09 percent of the lane miles are operating in a deficient, which happens to be this roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from your perspective then, where is that? Just out of curiosity, is that part of one piece of Pine Ridge Road, say? January 18, 2018 Page 52 of 77 MS. SCOTT: No. It's actually this Old 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is the only segment in all of North Naples that your department feels is operating at a deficient road level? MS. SCOTT: Based on our Annual Update and Inventory Report methodology that we utilize, which is p.m. peak in the peak-hour direction, and we factor out seasonal traffic. We do not build our roads to accommodate season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: So -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Don't drive on the road between October and March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and March. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: April. MS. SCOTT: It was a decision that was made by the Board many, many, many years ago that we could not afford to build our roads for season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was here when that decision was made, and I know it was made at a time we didn't have what we have today. We didn't have virtual gridlock on half the roads that now are in the section that you're now talking about, although you don't believe they are. But if you have to drive, like I and a lot of people do, from our home to this government center, instead of sitting at a light for three light changes for one light, you sit at three light changes for 10 lights because every light's backed up now. I know you may not technically consider that a gridlock, but it is something that I never thought we'd see before we had fixed it better than we have today, but so much for that. MS. SCOTT: So let's move on to Old 41, because it does impact Old 41. So this is the -- like I said, this -- when it converted from a PDF, because the visualizer appears in accepting PowerPoint, these are currently roadways that are -- the ones in red are the ones that are anticipated in the next 10 years to be deficient within the TCMA. The lines in blue are areas where we have either -- something programmed within our work program. You have Orange Blossom, Airport Road, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Veterans Memorial. These are all roadways that are anticipated to be constructed in the next five years. You see Old 41 up there as a dotted line. Before I -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Back to that screen one more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see that little plus next to your arrow up on the top? Go over to that little plus and hit it a couple times. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. Now we'll be able to read it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: So with the TCMA, yes, it's a failing roadway segment. In order for them to come in and be exempt from link-by-link concurrency, which everyone else would do, they must pay -- above and beyond impact fees. They must make a congestion mitigation payment, which is based on the -- whatever the improvement that we identify in that area, which will be widening U.S. 41. We'll get to that in a minute. They will pay for their additional capacity that they're going to take from that roadway. It's a mathematical thing that's within our Growth Management Plan that they pay above and beyond impact fees. Those congestion mitigation payments can be utilized within the TCMA to add additional capacity or to do operational type improvements. We did something like this when Mercato came in. They paid for traffic signal improvements to better time our traffic signals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this development can pay something to mitigate their impacts that would help offset their impacts; is that what you're saying? MS. SCOTT: Yes. They pay above and beyond impact fees. It's a congestion mitigation payment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of value are we talking about on such a small project, and how does that equate to the amount of intensity they're adding on the road if they use the most highest generated January 18, 2018 Page 53 of 77 uses they can out of those 96 uses that are on the -- MS. SCOTT: They're going to pay for what they actually put on the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: And for them it's probably going to be less than $100,000 above and beyond their impact fees, plus they're required to do the two -- a minimum of two TDM strategies, transportation demand management strategies that Mike went through that we have the monitoring. So if they're not working, they need to change them up and figure out something else that's working. But, more importantly, what are we doing with the Old 41? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, more important, what are we doing with the money that they would pay for mitigation? Is it going specifically to Old 41? And since that's FDOT, how can it? MS. SCOTT: Actually, Old 41 is not FDOT. That is a county roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I thought FDOT was the one going to be improving it. MS. SCOTT: They are. We'll get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Before we move on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- may I ask a question? I don't understand, first of all, why the -- I lost my place here. Okay. Oh, it's currently zoned agricultural, so at present, with that zoning, it is still deficient under the AUIR that just came out? MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And then it's proposed because the ordinance says that there are ways of circumventing those limitations; that if two or more mediating or mitigating factors are applied, then that would make it compliant as long as the ongoing testing confirms that it has reduced the number of trips; is that -- MS. SCOTT: Less the congestion mitigation payment, yes, they can proceed forward, in our current rules. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we heard that there will be 176 more peak p.m. trips. Would you consider it a success if they reduce that to 150 or 140? How would you evaluate their actual performance? MS. SCOTT: What -- for me any trip off the road. So if they can encourage carpooling, that's a great thing. If they can encourage -- if we get a transit route along there, if they would do transit subsidies for their employees, things of that nature. Those would be -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do we have any empirical studies that those work? MS. SCOTT: We actually have very few folks who -- we haven't gotten to this situation yet for the most part because our roadways have never -- most of the time they're not coming in on failing roadway segments. Like I said, Mercato was one where they provided $200,000 for a traffic signalization and, yes, that's working very well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, have you ever shopped at Wholefoods? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you find a parking space? MS. SCOTT: No, not in that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what do you do? You circle around the block a bunch of times. Can you get around that block? You can't even get to the light. You can't get across those roads in there it's so congested. First of all, we should never have alleviated them of the parking requirements. And second of all, whatever mitigation they use there certainly isn't working very well because that's a nightmare to drive through that tanglement of traffic that's at that location. MS. SCOTT: It's at their location, but what they did was they provided for it along Vanderbilt Beach Road where we integrated all of our traffic signals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can create the congestion at the location you're at as long as you help somebody else somewhere else in the county? January 18, 2018 Page 54 of 77 MS. SCOTT: The TCMA was definitely -- when it was developed, we recognized that there were going to be certain roadways that were going to fail and that other roadways would work above their level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Trinity. I mean -- MS. SCOTT: Would you like me to continue to Old 41? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as everybody else is okay with it, I'm fine with it. I think some of the newer members haven't heard of the TCMAs probably before. I know I've heard them before. I still am in awe every time I hear about them, so just go on. MS. SCOTT: And they're only in two areas of the county. There's one that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a TCEA in the other area; isn't it? MS. SCOTT: Right. That's U.S. 41 area. But there's -- it's essentially the North Naples area and then around the Golden Gate City area. So they're very specialized in where they're at, and that's the only places where they can get beyond link-by-link concurrency. So with regard to Old U.S. 41, Old U.S. 41 is a county roadway up to the county line, and it's a Lee County roadway north of that, but we certainly have a municipality that falls in that area as well, which is the City of Bonita Springs. So with that being said, knowing that need to coordinate with our folks to the north, this project is in the Collier MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan and the Cost Feasible Plan. It is also in the Lee MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan and their Cost Feasible Plan. And I'll get into specifics of where it's at. So the project limits for this particular project as it stands right now is U.S. 41 -- Old 41, U.S. 41, all the way to Bonita Beach Road, because we realize that it needs to be done as a concurrent project. So our partners are our Collier MPO, our Lee MPO, Collier County, Lee County, as well as the City of Bonita Springs. They all have a vested interest in this roadway. We have opted in partnership with Lee County to utilize federal funding to improve this roadway. It's one of the rare opportunities where we actually utilize federal funds off of the state or federal roadway network. So the project timing, as it stands right now, is in Fiscal Year -- this is FDOT's Fiscal Year '18/'19. They will do the project development and environmental study for both Collier and Lee Counties. It is programmed within their five-year work program. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The study within the coming fiscal -- or the current fiscal year? MS. SCOTT: Yes. It actually starts for them July 1st of 2018 and goes through June of next year. So that project development environmental study typically takes 18 to 24 months. It's a federal process that we must go through. They're a very prescribed process. It requires coordination with the agencies, a vast amount of public involvement, and ultimately gets down to a public hearing in the end. FDOT will make a recommendation, Federal Highway will sign off on the document. It proceeds forward. What it does is it allows that improvement to be eligible for federal funding. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But we're really talking five years, maybe five years plus before, say, the road is widened? MS. SCOTT: We're going to keep going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's even more than that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's more than that. MS. SCOTT: In Fiscal Year 2021 in our Long Range Transportation Plan -- we plan for a Long Range Transportation Plan in five-year blocks; 2021 through 2025, 2026 through 2030, and then it's 2031 through 2040. The last block is a 10-year block. This particular project for design is shown in both the Collier and Lee Metropolitan Planning Organizations' Long Range Transportation Plan, their Cost Feasible Plan in Fiscal Years '21 through '25. So sometime within that block. The phase has not been programmed by the Florida Department of Transportation in their five-year work program. So right now we have the study funded, and we'll start. The design has not been; however, in order to have Federal Highway sign off on the project development and environmental study, the design must January 18, 2018 Page 55 of 77 be programmed. So we anticipate that FDOT in their upcoming work program cycle will most likely add that design in. It's probably going to wind up being in the 2023/2024 time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just design? MS. SCOTT: That's just design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not to construction yet. MS. SCOTT: In both the Collier and Lee MPO, Long Range Transportation Plan, their Cost Feasible Plan, they have construction identified in 2026 through 2030. Understand these are planning documents. They're updated every five years. Potential opportunity for it come in sooner. But as of right now, that is when the roadway would be widened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at possibly a decade or more and in the meantime projects that are not, let's say, going through a zoning process, projects like the RNT project to the north that's not built out yet, the project to the south that's part of Sterling Oaks, the projects across 41 that are all in an industrial park, since I know there's space in there that's not built out yet, all those can come online regardless of what this timetable is because they are already vested because they're basically already zoned and approved. MS. SCOTT: Well, they're actually not vested -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: -- necessarily, as far as from our concurrency standpoint, but they will come in and follow the exact same process that this project would through the TCMA process. So they would be exempt from -- they can request exemption from link-by-link concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a straight-zoned project in the industrial park that exists across the road could come in, apply with an SDP in a building permit, they would still come under -- they'd have to acknowledge some of the TCMA guidelines. For example, their employees might carpool, one or two of them, or whatever the requirements are, and then they're okay. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the road is still failed? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The road in front of them is still failed, but on a TCMA basis, it's not failed. MS. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what they're doing for Old 41 isn't helping somewhere down on Pine Ridge, most likely. It's just something they can do to get mitigated. Okay. That's an eye opener. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: These are the rules of the TCMA and why staff's recommendation is the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Well, you're bound by that. Now -- well, I have a question not of you. I'll get somebody else. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question, Trinity. What happened between -- where is the road between Livingston and Old 41? Where is that on the plan? MS. SCOTT: It says actually -- that is the blue line in this particular area. That is Veterans Memorial. This would be Livingston north/south, Old 41. That is within our five-year planning time frame to build a two-lane section to connect Livingston north/south to Old 41. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And originally that was going to go to 41, period, not Old 41. It was going to go through there straight ahead. MS. SCOTT: We are still working through that. At this time right now we're working -- we have a developer in the area we're trying to work with to try to advance this section. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And so that is 2022, you're saying? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's construction. MS. SCOTT: Construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just to interject for a moment. The developer you're working with, though, is not going to be crossing those railroad tracks. He's going to be coming from the east going January 18, 2018 Page 56 of 77 west; is that not correct? MS. SCOTT: Well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how are you going to get past the trouble that always arises when we have to cross those railroad tracks? MS. SCOTT: We actually have right-of-way programmed within our five-year capital program to go work with the railroad. The one and only crossing we have in Collier County, we're going to go negotiate with the railroad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bring your pocketbook. MS. SCOTT: But we do have that identified in our five-year program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, a question that may help the issue at hand. If that link is opened up over to the Livingston Road north/south, if people want to get up to Bonita Beach Road or I-75 instead of taking Old 41, they could actually cut down this link and go up that way or vice versa to go south on Livingston Road to pick up things on Immokalee Road. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If that happens, how do you see the changes in the concurrency issue with a negative 87 being impacted? MS. SCOTT: You know, it's all about northbound movement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you think this facility that's going to -- that's proposed today -- MS. SCOTT: Potentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is mostly northbound movement. MS. SCOTT: Well, the p.m. peak direction for Old 41 is northbound movement, so that is -- when we're looking at our concurrency segment, we're looking at how are people getting up into Bonita Beach Road. So that is the predominant movement. By having more alternatives in this area, by having Airport Road widened, by having the whole entire area, you're giving people more options. I'm trying to get -- honestly trying to get more people over to Livingston north/south. It's one of our roadways that's just not used as much, particularly in this particular area. So if I can get folks to go from this development and go south and shoot across and go Livingston north/south, then now they're going in the opposite direction of the p.m. peak and getting over to a roadway that has additional capacity on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To relieve the 87 -- the negative 87 on Old 41, have you done anything to indicate how much traffic will be pulled off of that link to possibly go down this new east/west link? MS. SCOTT: No, we haven't. I have not done a specialized traffic model for that area. We're still in design and all of that. When we're doing our traffic modeling, we're looking at all of the improvements together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: For one second. Mr. Chairman, could we get a copy of this or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think transpor -- it's a need only. You could be in a lot of trouble asking for that from transportation. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Please? MS. SCOTT: Of the TCMA area? Absolutely. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could send it to all of us, Trinity, that would be great. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's most -- I've exhausted my questions at this point with you, Trinity. Thank you. Anybody else? MS. SCOTT: Well, I'm glad that I've exhausted you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, my questions. I've got more. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Good luck with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, though. From a -- I know the answer. I just want to make sure I understand it. This is zoned -- and it's for the January 18, 2018 Page 57 of 77 County Attorney's Office. This is zoned agricultural. It's obviously an infill parcel. They have infill consistency. We're not obligated to approve this. It's something they're requesting, but we can -- we don't have to approve it if we don't want to even though it's in the urban area. MR. KLATZKOW: You've a criteria to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: So if you want to deny it, it's got to be based on the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not saying deny. I'm just -- what I'm thinking, Jeff, is I understand the need for the south building, and it's very de minimis, if any, considering impact. It's very minor impact. So that south building doesn't bother me too much. But the north one with 32,000 square feet allowing a myriad of retail, commercial, and office uses could generate a higher amount of traffic. And I'm wondering, we have done this in the past -- and I believe Carolina Plaza was one we did it for. When 951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road were under construction a decade or more ago, we timed them to the expansion of those roadways. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but we knew we were going to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: We went -- we were in the Norm Feder six-lane age at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we were. MR. KLATZKOW: Six-lane Norm. He did a great job for us. And it turned out to be short term, but it was a great job. But at the end of the day, we knew those were coming, we knew when these were coming. From what I'm hearing, this is a hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're asking somebody not to develop based on a hope that down the road we're going to do some road widening? You've got to have something more than a hope and a prayer. I mean, if we were in, like, the five-year plan that it was definite that they were going to be breaking ground -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, those were within the five-year plan. MR. KLATZKOW: -- yeah, that's one thing. But simply on a hope and a prayer -- and this isn't the first one that's going to come through your way. You're going to have rezone after rezone after rezone, all of them on failing roads, and I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my first thought was, we ought to consider -- we can -- I mean, like I said, the building to the south can be handled as one segment of this, but that main building, we may want to not see that permitted until the road system is -- the negative trips are cured. I mean, I'm not sure how -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're asking for a de facto moratorium, all right. And at the end of the day, if we had a plan on when to do this, I could support that, but from what I heard from Trinity is it's a hope and a prayer. And, Trinity, if it's more than that, let me know, but that's what I heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. That's why I asked. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If we have a moratorium, don't we have to have a -- MR. KLATZKOW: You have to have a plan to get out of it, and hope is not a plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And hope is not a method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. That's why I asked the question. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As one famous county manager used to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Hi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On behalf of your client, did you bother to -- I know this is more work, but did you take a look at that relief that the east/west segment of Livingston might provide? MR. TREBILCOCK: We didn't run any separate model for that but, you know, empirically I would tend to agree that kind of thing helps. I mean, you know, a key -- and I know there's a certain skepticism on this concept of the TCMA and what it means and things but, you know, in reality these are major projects that we're investing in as a community and -- as a result. So when we put something in like that, it does have a real positive impact, but we're sort of relying on our step here for Old 41 to get improved, and you can see where we are in the line. January 18, 2018 Page 58 of 77 But that improvement, you know, certainly will have benefits, as mentioned by Trinity, that you're to get some folks that will go scoot out to that north/south reliever as opposed to continuing on Old 41. So, you know, there are benefits there. But, you know, again, we're relying on that, and that's why we have these overall planning policies, because these projects take so long to go from concept to concrete. You know, we're talking a minimum of six years, typically, in a shortened process once you're in the queue. You know, two years for PD&E, two years for PE, and two years for construction, or even right-of-way could add another couple years. So it could be a minimum of six-year to eight-year process. And that's why you guys, as a policy, and the Board established this idea so that we can say, hey, we're going to live with some constraint over here as long as the overall area is not under -- you know, 85 percent of the roads are meeting our level of service because we understand how big these projects are and how difficult they are to implement. And -- you know, so that's the reliance we have also on the system as well, you know, when we look at this. And I know there's some skepticism on some of these measures. If I looked at some projects where we did some of this TD stuff -- and they can be beneficial, you know, in terms of encouraging the carpool and even folks from also working less number of days a week; you know, go, you know, four days a week or something like that to help bring down the traffic. But collectively, if we could get everybody doing that in an area, it would have a real impact, you know. And we do, in terms of govern overall traffic, you know, you do have a trip cap on the overall system, so that allows us -- if we could do other projects, but you really do hold it all down. So, I mean, I hope that helps a bit. I guess -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it does, and I appreciate it. One of the things that could help in North Naples in particular, because in all of Collier County, it's probably one of the areas with the least amount of affordable housing, not meaning approved affordable, just market-rate affordable. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been nice -- this could have even been a residential project for apartments or something. We heard Arthrex getting up not too long ago at the board meeting. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've chosen -- I mean, that would have actually helped because people living there could travel right in that area. MR. TREBILCOCK: But what's neat here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a -- MR. TREBILCOCK: But what's neat here, you know, to your point, is you've got this apartment multifamily right next to us here, and there is that potential of these folks going to this business, because you even talk about the idea of the daycare. You know, that's a two -- you know, that can be real positive, too. So the folks -- you know, everybody needs daycare when they have kids and stuff like that. And so here you have this right next to where you live, potential facility. So that's why I wouldn't, you know, dismiss that. And, again, that's what can be beneficial about this; you know, getting these small businesses in here that can really help, and you do have some multifamily, to your point, along this segment of roadway. So if we could get some businesses to shorten those commutes, that would be awesome. And that's really what this can offer, you know. And they are paying the -- what we call the super impact fees, and that money is coming together, and the county's putting that together to really move projects forward. So, you know, I don't think you're sitting idle. I think these are proactive plans you-all have, you know. And it is, you know, a part of the planning process with you-all, too, that this -- you know, so, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Norm? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If the money would be used to go to what this -- is needed at this particular spot, that's one thing. I moved here in 2000. I've heard about Veterans Memorial since 2000. This is 2018. It was supposed to go over I-75 and come to Logan Boulevard. Never going to happen. They shot January 18, 2018 Page 59 of 77 that down. Developers goofed it up a long time ago. This Livingston to 41 has been talked about, and it is needed for those -- it would help Immokalee Road. It would help many people. MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm with you. I mean, I'm 100 percent. You know, even the area we talked about a while back on Pine Ridge Road, that section, remember, we had a plan of Whippoorwill Lane to elbow in to Livingston Road, and we blinked at it, and now it's not being done. You know, so those -- I agree with you. It's establishing that network. So that's what's neat to see transportation planning putting those links out there, because as much as it's great to get the six-lane facilities, it's really critical, to your point, to get the link -- get the network established throughout. Because, you're right, at one point there was even going to be slip ramps off of 75 to this east/west, but that's gone away, you're right. But we still can get this east/west link in, and I think that will be helpful. You know, I didn't specifically model it but, you know, Commissioner Strain, you know, I do see the benefits the same as Trinity. If you can move folks from this north to south link over to the better capacity one on Livingston, I think that's great, you know. I could see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Diane's point was well made -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that we've had these roads and vision for a long time, but that also supports what Jeff said. Basically, it's a hope that will eventually go in. Some, as Veterans Memorial shows, they don't go in, and we don't have a time for them. And based on that, we cannot condition someone on something that we just have a hope for, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner Strain, this is a policy decision for the Board of County Commissioners. They can fund these improvements. It's not like we don't have the land available for the expansion. It's a funding issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And for today, though, we can't do anything with prolonging a developer from using his land without it being attributed to the five-year plan, and these aren't, so we really can't hold anybody up for a hope -- MR. KLATZKOW: You could continue this for a period of time and ask the Board of County Commissioners if -- you know, if there's any relief on the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, staff's probably going to have more -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, you could do that, but that's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, right now, I think the staff's probably got better information on the road systems -- MR. KLATZKOW: But you're the local planning agency. You're in charge of this stuff at the end of the day. All right. I mean, at the end of the day -- and I've been here for 15 years -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to you and things you've got to say. What are you talking about? MR. KLATZKOW: For fifteen years, I mean, the planning decisions have gone through this board, you know, recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. And, you know, at the end of the day if you feel we've reached a point in time where we've got to hold back on development just a little bit till we've got a better plan in place, you can make that recommendation and continue this item. You've got to bring it back in a relatively short period of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what you could do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean -- yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. It was -- it's the fact that here these people are paying for their segment, but it doesn't go to their segment. It can go elsewhere in the county, and that bothers me. If you're going to put it for that segment -- MR. TREBILCOCK: We could try to earmark, though, to your point, too, you know. It would be a good thing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. January 18, 2018 Page 60 of 77 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the suggestion that the County Attorney made, at least pointing out one thing we could do, is something that we should consider seriously. Another thing, perhaps, we should consider if we can -- if we can do it within the framework of not unreasonably limiting property owners' rights, would be further to constrain the uses more narrowly than we -- I mean, there are 96 uses in C3. Right now we're talking about a mail-order delivery of pool products. If -- which doesn't suggest to me as though it's going to create a lot more traffic, but the purchaser from your client down the road might come in and put a restaurant in or an eating place, and all of sudden enormously much larger traffic. So it seems to me that we ought to consider, to the extent we can, more severely, if you will, constraining the uses and more limited to the exact use that you have in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you guys don't have an exact use in mind for the 32,000-square-foot building; is that correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. I mean, but, you know -- and certainly it's a balance, because they are trying to, you know, move it along, and by working together as a consolidated group here, I mean, there are benefits there by having a, say, a singular driveway instead of a, you know, multiples. I mean, so there's benefits to trying to, you know, keep it together. But also, you know, in trying to market the property, if you don't have -- if there's too much unpredictability, then it becomes a problem, too, you know, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're not going to -- your owners aren't going to build this property? You're going to market it and sell it to somebody? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, market it for a use, for an intended use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: And both property owners are business owners who may utilize the properties for their respective businesses, so that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought you said Driftwood Nursery was one of the operators or owners. MS. CRESPO: Correct. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They run a good operation here already. It would be nice to know that that's what they're going to do here. Then we could focus on that as the reasoning for approval or denial, and I -- that would make it a lot easier. It's the unknown. You-all don't like the unknown of when the road's going in. I'm a little concerned about the unknown of 96 uses, or down to whatever, maybe 91 or whatever we've got left. That's going to create a different impact either way you look at it. MS. CRESPO: We certainly want your recommendation of approval -- MR. KLATZKOW: You could limit the uses. You can't tell them they can't develop, all right, but you can limit their uses to minimize the impact on the road. But there needs to be a plan in place, an overall plan in place rather than just an ad hoc approach to it as, you know, developer from developer that comes in here. But you can say, for example, no more than 50 trips, whatever uses you want. But you need some rationale to do that with, and you don't have that yet. You don't know what buildout looks like as far as the roads go and what we can handle and how much is left to be developed and redeveloped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the same reason, though, why we can't restrict someone, because we can't do it on a hope of developing happening. We have to have it on a timetable. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I need some basis -- you need some basis to say, okay, you know, you can develop what you want to, but no more than 50 trips; otherwise, it's arbitrary. But if you had some study that was done and some plan in place, yes, you can do that on a going-forward basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission at this time? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maybe Nick would like to come down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got -- I mean, Trinity had good information, so did Mike, so we're good. Is there a staff report? January 18, 2018 Page 61 of 77 MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Tim, you've been here a short time, but you sure picked up on staff reports. Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any public speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: One speaker; Michael George. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, come on up and identify yourself for the record, and we'll move forward. MR. GEORGE: Good afternoon. My name is Michael George. I live in Sterling Oaks. I'm here today to file my objection to this proposed change in the zoning ordinance for this property from rural agricultural to commercial PUD. I believe that the Growth Management Planning Department has failed to adequately assess this proposed change and its impact to the predominantly residential nature of the west side of old U.S. 41. The center line of Old U.S. 41 is -- almost evenly divides the corridor between the residential development on the west side and the office, commercial, industrial development on the east side. A recent new development south of Sterling Oaks -- of the Sterling Oaks access and abutting the Meadow Brook Preserve apartments has come into being since the October 25th neighborhood meeting. The project -- this project under consideration is a graphic -- the project there is a graphic example of the intrusive nature of this type of development. The parcel has been stripped bare of all trees and vegetation and approximately a dozen -- half a dozen tall metal poles have been erected. It is not clear what the poles or the development will be, but if these poles support lighting fixtures, the light pollution will adversely affect the adjacent apartment complex. I live in Sterling Oaks, and my community abuts the property in question. The street on which I live, Silver Strand Drive, is directly west of the property. While there is preserve area between us -- between the developed portion of Sterling Oaks and this parcel, it is mainly a wetland with scrub trees of a mixed deciduous nature. It is questionable how much of a barrier this preserve will provide for light and noise pollution that will accompany this commercial mail-order development. In this proposed development, infill, as described by Mr. Fryer, is out of the character with the current residential nature of the west side of Old U.S. 41. In conclusion, I'd just like to state, with all due respect to the Commission, it seems to me that you have spent an inordinate amount of time this morning on what has been described as insubstantial changes to previously approved PUDs. I submit to you that we are on the other end of the planning process, the very beginning, when we are talking about rezoning a parcel that is currently agricultural. So I ask you to consider this very carefully, and I request that you send this proposed zoning change for commercial infill to be sent back to the planning office for further review. I believe that a reevaluation will confirm the negative impacts of this development associated with the rezoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. George, could you -- MR. GEORGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- tell me a bit about Sterling Oaks, the improvements in there, the single-family dwellings, the relative size. What's it like? MR. GEORGE: I think one of the pictures that you have graphically would probably -- right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your nearest unit is well over a thousand feet away from the property line of this property and even further away from the first -- from the building; is that correct? MR. GEORGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your own project to the south of this project has an industrial, light industrial use in that location in that triangle south of this project, right? MR. GEORGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. January 18, 2018 Page 62 of 77 MR. GEORGE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, did you have anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I still don't have a good comprehension of what Sterling Oaks is. MR. GEORGE: It's a residential community of condominiums, single-family homes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Condominiums, okay. How high are the buildings? MR. GEORGE: Two stories at the most. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two-story. Okay. Are they townhouses? MR. GEORGE: Most of them are condominiums and townhouses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And how many -- MR. GEORGE: And then, as you can see here, all of these are single-family homes here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. How many dwelling units are in Sterling Oaks? MR. GEORGE: 740. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right next to Sterling Oaks are a church on 41, there on the access, next to Christus Victor, and they just put in an ALF next to that, and then there is another church to the south. So that's what Sterling Oaks is facing. And they do have quite a bit of preserve in the back. There main entrance is on 41, not Old 41. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member of the public here who wishes to speak on this item who has not already spoken? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have any last-minute comments you wanted to make, Alexis? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. We've heard a lot of good discussion today. We've submitted this application within the frame work of the TCMA. I'm hearing concerns about that and also concerns about the length of uses. We do respectfully want your recommendation of approval. If continuing for two weeks can allow us time to maybe look at those uses, maybe craft conditions that address some of the transportation concerns, bring that back to you for consideration, we'd respectfully request that opportunity. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd put that in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I would, too, and I would -- is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to point out, though, also, we're talking about all the facilities around there. I mean, right across the street is public storage, right across the street is a Sportsman's self-storage. So, I mean, there is fairly intense nonresidential use in that area as well as, so this is -- MR. KLATZKOW: Industrial. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not really an incompatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I think what would help at least get more of a consensus from this board is to try to figure out what plan you really want to apply to that second building, that big building, and then the limitation on that, have Norm take a look at the traffic in regards to those instead of having to do it as the highest use available. Honestly, I think that will go a long way to help this off dead center. So I commend you for your suggestion. I'm in support of it. The rest of us? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's -- all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. January 18, 2018 Page 63 of 77 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just want to be sure I understood; you're going to look at lowering the number of permitted uses? MS. CRESPO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And based on that, see, when your TIS is done, it's supposed to be considered for the most intense use, and Norm could maybe then take a second look at the TIS and provide us with some ideas on how you're going to look at the TCMA requirements so that we have a package to understand how this may look better to us then. I think that's a good idea. And you've got the vote to do it, so thank you very much, and we will see you in -- MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: It's continued to what, the February 1st meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First meeting -- yeah, the first meeting in February. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with everyone? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's just got one other agenda item, right, on the first? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it wouldn't overcrowd the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So is that -- from the motion maker and the second, is the February 1st meeting acceptable to you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And everybody that voted on it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. Thank you. And now we've been at this for an hour and 20 minutes, and we'll give Terri a 10-minute break before we go into the LDC stuff. So let's come back at 2:45; that will be a little longer. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since everybody's here and is anxious to get started -- and I'm bad. I looked at the clock and I thought it said 2:33. It was 2:23, so I was 10 minutes off. So we are going to start back up now instead of 2:45, since everybody's anxious to start, and I don't blame you. MR. KLATZKOW: Do we have any public speakers on any of these things, Mike? MR. BOSI: None have been submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll be asking them as we go through, so... MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but if they're not here because it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But if someone comes in in five minutes, then we'll just -- we're certainly not going to prevent them from speaking. If you don't mind, if that works. ***Item 9E is what we're approaching. It's called the adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code. It's a series of some of our cleanup amendments. Some are new amendments directed by the Board. And, Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. Jeremy Frantz with the Growth Management Department. As you said, this cycle is a mix of amendments that are primarily cleanup but some directed by the Board; some other issues noticed by staff over time. I'll just note from -- in the beginning that we will have a second hearing for some of these amendments that changed the list of uses and the map changes. That hearing is on February 7th. That's a Wednesday, and that's at 5:05 p.m. Also in the memo to the Planning Commission, I noted a couple of amendments that also require EAC review. That's part of this board. And because we have several amendments -- as you know, these January 18, 2018 Page 64 of 77 amendments are a product of several staff members, so we'll have a few of us coming up as we go through the different amendments. We have just a couple of changes to some of the amendments, and we'll point those out as we go. From there we can walk through these amendments any way you'd like. We can make a short presentation on each; we can jump to your questions. However you'd like to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like -- just for the benefit -- there are members of the public here, and they may have a question -- open up each section by just basically stating the section number and what it is and then ask us if we have any questions. And we'll -- I think that's the best, most efficient way to approach it, and we'll go from there. MR. FRANTZ: Sounds good. MR. HENDERLONG: My name is Rich Henderlong, principal planner with the Land Development Code section. The first section that we're covering is Section 1.08.02 for definitions. This is an amendment that reinstates a definition for nonconforming lot of record that was previous -- codified in a previous ordinance, 82-002, amended by Ordinance 91-102. This definition is the definition that the staff uses in preparing letters of zoning verification when they're identifying deficiencies in lot area, lot width for nonconforming lots. In addition to this, since DSAC heard this amendment, there's a section under 9.03.03 that we were proposing some language. Upon further review with staff, we've pulled that from this amendment, so it just addresses the definition for nonconformity uses. And the strikethrough that you're looking at here you will find is almost duplicative of Section 9.03.03 A-4 in the code under types of nonconformity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on that first section? It starts on Page 3. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to do is -- we have sections of these broken down as clarification amendments, GMP amendments, and -- let me get past -- I'm trying to get -- whatever section we're in, we'll complete the section, then we'll vote on them -- we'll call them out and vote on them per section. Does that work for you guys? MR. HENDERLONG: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. What's the next one, Rich? MR. HENDERLONG: The next section is 2.03.03, commercial zoning districts, and 2.03.04, industrial zoning districts. This amendment is intended to codify a memorandum that staff has also used, a series of memorandum, to remove an ambiguity regarding marshal arts as a permitted use in C3, C4, C5, and industrial district. For the C3 zoning district, the amendment differentiates between indoor amusement and recreation services as a permitted use and those outdoor amusement recreational services as a conditional use approval. These uses that have been identified as outdoor services will require a compatibility review with adjacent properties. And then, lastly, the amendment identifies that there is a missing SIC code, 799, that had previously also been codified in another ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on -- and that starts on Page 5. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move to the next one. MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz, for the record, again. This next amendment is amending the dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structures. The amendment began after a variance hearing with the BZA. As we started to carry out that board direction, working with staff, noticed some other problems with these tables. So it's kind of grown from there. There are now a couple of other changes. Those are identified in the narrative. There are a couple of changes to this amendment that I have. I'll put those up on the visualizer now. So in the narrative it identifies that the front yard setback for permanent emergency generators and January 18, 2018 Page 65 of 77 satellite dish antennas are identified as not permanently in front of building. In the draft that was sent to you-all, that language still said not permitted in front yard. So making that change on Page 9 of the amendment -- 8 and 9 of the amendment, and I think that's 18, 19, and 20 of the packet that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Permits -- I assume that came about because -- if you have a side yard. But you could still put it in front of the building if it was just front yard; is that correct? MR. FRANTZ: Right, yeah. The definition of front yard is a required front yard. So there may still be space between the required front yard and the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else in that section? MR. FRANTZ: Those are all the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, I've got just a couple. Under the permanent emergency generator designation, the new setback table, the rear is 10 feet. And the footnote refers to that same LDC Section 4.02.01.D, which is on Page -- oh, you have it here in your pages -- 4.02.01.D. There it is. It's on Page 15 of the pack. And it reads: Permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard subject to a 10-foot rear yard setback and within side yards subject to a maximum encroachment into the setback of 36 inches. Now, if I was reading this, I might be able to read it in the manner that if you have a 10-foot rear yard setback, you can have a generator, but if you've got a 25-foot yard setback, you couldn't. And because the side yards of the ones excepted for the 36 inches, and it doesn't say that in the rear yard, I'm wondering if that could be an issue. I don't believe it's necessarily as clear as it could be, and I'm wondering if it could be written a little differently. MR. FRANTZ: I'd have to work more closely with the staff that apply this section. This wasn't identified as problematic language when we went over it, but I could come back to you at the second hearing and maybe discuss if there's any changes necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, when you added it to that table, in there you said 10 feet, but then you referred back to 4.02.01.D.13 as a footnote to that table. Then I read that and I said, well, you know what? They don't seem to match up, because I think you're saying that any setback, as long as it's 10 feet or more, can have a 36-inch encroachment into the setback as long as it's not a front yard. Maybe you could restate it that way. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. Yeah, we can look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we will hold off on this one then? Okay. Then that takes us to the next one: Clarify procedures for lot line adjustments and lot splits. It's on Page 25, I think it is. Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. This is LDC Section 4.03.04, lot line adjustment and lot split. Basically this amendment is codifying the approval for lot line adjustments and splits in other zoning districts other than just Golden Gate Estates and agriculture, which is how it's been generally interpreted in the past. And, in fact, during the review, in the building review process, staff had experienced problems with a lot split after it had been approved but it was not recorded. And following its approval, the applicant oftentimes would delay the recording until such time it got either one or two of the parcels under contract, a purchase and sell agreement. That has caused problems because if a building permit came in, they would apply for it. It would not be caught until that time. So the amendment is designed to put a time limit to a lot split whereas the current code provides for that time limit of 12 months in the lot line adjustment language and, therefore, we're recommending that -- staff is, is that there be a time limit established for a lot split. And that is also an acknowledgment that the code -- no development order can be issued until such time that the split itself has been approved. It will also assist the department in a timely assignment of addressing and assure that the legal descriptions are properly filed with the Property Appraiser's Office and set on the tax roll. January 18, 2018 Page 66 of 77 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, if we could take a look at the first underline on Page 26, 4.03.04.A, it says: Under lot line adjustment and lot split, generally, only lot line adjustments or lot split requests meeting the applicable land development regulations, including the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the existing zoning district may be approved. My concern there is, lot line adjustments themselves don't meet the lot area or the lot dimensions. They just add to an existing lot or take away from a previous lot. So, really, those are the two things you're trying to protect there, not the split piece itself, right? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that's correct. And, in fact, we have done adjustments. They're usually on a platted lot, and they'll come over, and rather than go to the expense of having to re-plat, that's why the lot line adjustment process is to approve, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've actually done it before. I'm fine with it. I understand how it works. I just -- I'm worried that this is saying something different than what you intend. Only lot line adjustments or lot split requests meeting the applicable Land Development Code regulations including the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the existing zoning district may be approved. You really mean the resulting lots and the remaining lot, right? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. For a lot line adjudgment, we've got to make sure that the setbacks are not violated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do you feel this gets that point across? MR. HENDERLONG: At the time we were discussing it with staff members and having it reviewed internally, it was generally agreed that it would be better to put it together under this general clause and that, yes, it was deemed appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll see where it goes then. If nobody else has a concern, I don't at this point. I just thought it was -- it read kind of odd. So, okay. Let's go to the next one. MR. FRANTZ: So the next one is an amendment to the process for approval of insubstantial changes and minor changes to PUDs. This amendment is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your early work authorization. MR. FRANTZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm skipping one. You're right. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. This is Section 10.01.02, development -- I'm sorry. I got that -- yeah. 10.01.02, development orders required. This -- basically this amendment removing this requirement that there be a separate legal determination or sufficiency review done by the County Attorney's Office, and that language had appeared because the Board did not -- they were taking the agreements back to the Board -- this was prior to 2005 -- and that language is no longer warranted because the EWA permit itself constitutes a legal binding document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one point. The line above that, ACOE, there is no acronym -- that is an incorrect acronym for the Army Corps of Engineers. It should be USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: ACOE is commonly used but incorrect. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you. So noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The binding agreement that was executed by the Board, do we use that agreement verbatim for the EWA? MR. FRANTZ: I'd have to look at the County Attorney's Office to confirm that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. What was your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the EWA section, and it references Ordinance No. 2005-12, and it's apparently that ordinance that set up this binding agreement that was executed by the Board for EWA permitting. And because of that, there's no legal review because the document was already preapproved. So my question is: Is that language of that EWA ever modified or changed to a point where we're January 18, 2018 Page 67 of 77 changing an ordinance and the Board has to review it again? Which means it would need legal review. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The early work authorization permits are not submitted to us for review. We've never been asked to review one. It's something that we would have to look into, read the ordinance, and let you know whether the process needs to be changed and go through our office. I can't answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that wasn't my question. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was, if the ordinance is the agreement, the binding agreement that was executed by the Board as the basis for the EWA, does that -- has that language ever changed? Is it always the same so it's never amended? And that's -- I'm bringing that up because of the next item we're going to be discussing. MR. HENDERLONG: It's a good question. My understanding, Mark, is that the EWA permit itself, those elements that required the binding, for instance, the bonding that has to be put up early, the commitments about the infrastructure, whatever phase they're going to undertake during the construction -- that initial phase, they're at risk. That's part of the conditions that are issued in the EWA permit. But to my understanding, I have not looked at the specific binding agreement. Ever -- each and every one of them are a little bit different or tweaked based upon the issuance of the permit. So maybe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, that's my problem. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're learning by the next one that you have coming up that because of an interpretation I disagree with, that the only people that can change an ordinance are the Board of County Commissioners. So my question is, if we're not going to have legal review because the Board, obviously, is not going to be involved in the EWAs because they already did it by the Ordinance 2005-12, did they dictate the language that's not being -- that's -- because it -- did they dictate the language that's to be used in the EWAs? Is it being used and not changed; therefore, it meets the conditions of the original ordinance that was approved? MR. KLATZKOW: Let me ask it this way. Is your permit a form? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Board-approved form? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you ever change it in a substantive manner? MR. HENDERLONG: To my knowledge, talking with John Houldsworth in the department, no. MR. KLATZKOW: If they're not changing the substantive matter, I don't have to look at it. If they're changing the substantive manner, than yes, I do have to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've been trying to get to. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's where I was trying to go. Okay. Good. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sometimes these EWAs were not followed through on. We had projects where they were not collecting the 2,000 per acre. They just let the developers do it with nothing. And we ran into a couple situations where back then they went bankrupt, so -- and the county -- MR. HENDERLONG: The county requires them to bond it, post the money now. They don't do that. You're correct. I remember those days, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the next one. Anybody else have any questions on that one? (No response.) January 18, 2018 Page 68 of 77 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: So this is the amendment that I was excited to get into. As I started to say, it's amending the process for PUD insubstantial changes and minor changes, and we are basically memorializing the direction that the Board gave back in 2017. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bye, Mike Bosi. I'm sorry to see you leaving when things are getting into heavy discussion here. And Jeremy (sic) French, too. We'll see you guys later. MR. FRENCH: Jeremy's still here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right. Jamie French. I'm sorry. I had -- Mike was trying to subtly go out. I just wanted to make it not so subtle for him. Go ahead. MR. FRANTZ: I don't have anything else on this amendment. I guess I could note also that there is an admin -- an administrative code change associated with this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And normally I would turn to the Planning Commission and ask for any comments, but before you comment, I'd like to express some issues on my own so you know where my position's coming. First of all, this involves the Hearing Examiner's Office, and it started -- well, first, I went back in our codes to -- remember -- for those of you who have been on this board a long time, 91-102, the 1991 code, was changed to what's now called the 04-40 04-4 (sic) code, 2004 code. Both of those codes have always had in them minor changes and unsubstantial changes and substantial changes to PUDs. The minor changes are done by staff. They have been done by staff for decades. The insubstantial changes have been done by this commission for decades. I've been here 16 years, and we've done them. Never had a problem. Never had an objection. Never had an issue involving whether or not what we were doing was correct or incorrect according to the law. We based that on interpretations from the County Attorney's Office. We've had a slough of County Attorneys since then. We've actually got the best County Attorney I've ever worked with in 40 years in Collier County sitting here today. He concurred that the process was correct. My office opened up in 2013. This process was looked at again, and it was also assigned to my office for the very minor things. This board knows very well what's happening with that. When I have anything that even rises to a level of concern by neighborhoods and things or by commissioners, I immediately move it to this board. You heard two of them this morning. In doing so, I'm prohibited from sitting on the Board, which is ironic because the more complicated it gets, I would hope the more involvement I could have. I actually have less. This particular document now is saying that the amendment's going to be -- go to the Board for ordinance amendment, that the decision -- well, it used to be a decision -- that the document produced by this board would have to go -- or the Hearing Examiner would have to go to the Board of County Commissioners for ordinance amendment. Now, that's because the Clerk's Office intervened six months, eight months, I don't know how long ago, after all these years, and decided our process wasn't right, even though I had a slough of attorneys believe it is. There's been no appeals to the process. The process seemed to be working. This kind of upset the apple cart. It's actually -- the tail's wagging the dog in this case so that right now, if we change this so it's an ordinance amendment, that may trigger some other problems that I'm concerned about. First of all, one of the reasons we opened the Hearing Examiner's Office up is to unclutter the system. We have less government and make it a little simpler for the projects that didn't need that higher level of scrutiny. Well, I shouldn't say higher level of scrutiny. Higher level of process that involves so much additional money. In fact, if you looked at the fiscal part of it, fiscal impacts to the applicant include increased time and costs associated with an additional board hearing and required advertisements for PDIs and PMCs. Operational impacts to the county include increased staff time required to bring PDIs and PMCs to an additional hearing before the Board. This whole process was initiated to save money, save time on both sides. We're going completely opposite here. Now, my concern is if we trash the PDI process and the minor change process, which is the part that January 18, 2018 Page 69 of 77 staff does, which is inconsistent, by the way, with every municipality that I could look at, Lee County, Bonita Springs, all the rest of them, they have this -- some of them have them to a greater extent than we allowed them. Some of the insubstantial changes that were required for a public hearing by us are considered staff changes in Fort Myers and Lee County. So to have us singled out in the entire state, from what I can see, to have our system changed is bad enough. But if we labeled this as an ordinance amendment -- it's $1,500 to do a PDI through my office process. If it becomes an ordinance amendment, I'm concerned it's going to rise to that 5- or $6,000 level. The cost to do a PDI, there are 13 items in our admin code that talk about what you need to do for an insubstantial change. I'm looking at them -- there's 14 including electronic copies of all items. Under a PUD amendment -- let me read this. In addition to all PUD -- in addition, all PUD documents are required to be submitted with a PUDA application. So if we do an amendment, we have 47 -- or 37 items to supply, or the applicant does, plus 13 items that they have to confirm on their master plan. Some of this stuff is so minor. You guys don't see it anymore because I'm handling that stuff. It's a couple word changes, an acronym change, a simple reference. It's usually internal to the project. I just don't want to see it become an amendment. Right now to appease the Clerk's Office, we have been applying it as final decisions, and then the Board would affirm the decision. Now, that's different than the Board looking at it as an ordinance amendment because of the way our admin code requires the processes and the dollars involved. So -- and I have great respect for Jeff. He and I are usually always on the same side. I'm very concerned about this one, and it does affect me differently than it does all of you. But if there's a way around this that isn't as cumbersome as I'm feeling this one might be, Jeff, I sure would appreciate it. MR. KLATZKOW: This is board direction. These arguments were made, and this is the direction Board gave staff. I think staff's changes here comports with the Board's direction. As far as the way this is going to be administered, my understanding -- and staff will correct me -- is that the insubstantial PUD amendments and the minor changes will be done as they were always done with the one exception is that there will be an item before the Board of County Commissioners so that the change will be made by ordinance; otherwise the process is identical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But originally we didn't need to do that. We only had to do that because of the Clerk's concern over his interpretation of our enabling act that was new after, what, since at least 1991 till now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I heard it had to do with the state. I heard it had to do with the state, not the county. It's what the state requires this county to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's the Clerk's interpretation that the state requires -- the state requires it because he interprets our enabling act differently. MR. KLATZKOW: The argument the Clerk is making is this, all right: The only way to amend an ordinance is by an ordinance, which is correct; that these insubstantial changes and minor changes are a de facto amendment of an ordinance. That's arguable. Okay. Therefore, if you're going to effectuate an insubstantial change or a minor change, you must do it by ordinance. Now, I understand we've been doing it this way for many, many years. I understand many of the jurisdictions are doing it the same way Collier County's been doing it for every other year. This was explained to the Board of County Commissioners. Their direction was this amendment that you're seeing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they directed staff to bring it back in some manner that's consistent with this different interpretation to appease the ability to end up in court, because no one wants to end up in court in litigation over this issue, and I don't disagree with that. But I am not comfortable that this is the best outcome we could have. MR. KLATZKOW: And it's within -- what you do is you make a recommendation to deny it saying there's nothing wrong with the current process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- my preference is to leave the current process. I mean, I can't sit in this board for the PDIs, and to me, after 16 years of being on this board, that's disappointing, but I understand the reasoning there. For me to be able to sit in this board, if these did become PUDAs, I could, January 18, 2018 Page 70 of 77 but then the cost to the business community is extreme for that, and I'd rather not do that and save the cost and save the overabundance of government and keep it smaller. MR. KLATZKOW: And staff will correct me if I'm wrong. As I'm reading this, we're still going through the PDI process. That process is no different. We're still going through the minor-change process. That process is no different with the one exception that the termination of that process will be an ordinance of the Board rather than a resolution by the Planning Commission or the Hearing Examiner or whatever you do to document the minor change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, then it becomes an ordinance amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but only to document -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- what you've already decided or staff has decided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, I mean, ordinance amendments cost almost four times or more than a PDI. MR. KLATZKOW: No, they don't. It's going to cost an additional $350 to advertise on average, and that will be it. Otherwise the process is exactly the same. My understanding -- and staff will correct me if I'm wrong -- the process is exactly the same as we're currently doing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does that, then, go on the consent agenda? MR. KLATZKOW: Summary, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Summary agenda, I'm sorry, to the Board. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. My expectation is that 99 percent of them will just pass without comment because they're insubstantial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jeff, you know, when we started on the golf course language change and we started on the gas station language change, your first reaction was, go see what the other municipalities are doing, and that was the ammunition we used in which to set our template up. On this one, we should be doing that, because somehow everybody else in the state of Florida's doing it okay, and they're keeping the business community out of this morass of process that now we can't seem to be able to do because the Clerk of Courts doesn't want it to happen. MR. KLATZKOW: I fully understand your position. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just frustrated with it all. It just seems a lot of extra time, paperwork, and money for both taxpayers and businesses in this county, and I, for one, will not go along with that amendment, but that's just me for my own -- the reasons I've extended. So anybody else on the panel have any other comments? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I think it bothers us on the Planning Commission, too, because if Mark has not heard this -- I don't care if it is a PDI, but if it comes to the Board because it's controversial, I don't understand why Mark can't sit here. MR. KLATZKOW: Because Mark is also the Hearing Examiner, and he's got a problem with dual officers. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We got to do away with that dual officer. MR. KLATZKOW: And we're doing away with it partly by this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but, see, therein lies the difference. If you left the insubstantial ones that came to my office as final and they had to come to this board if not and this board processed them as a PUD amendment, then by the mere fact it came before this board, that might provide some relief. Then I could participate. MR. KLATZKOW: Once we go through this process, you can participate in all the PUDIs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then they're not PUDIs anymore. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But the final -- the final -- the finality of it will be the Board of County Commissioners, not you. January 18, 2018 Page 71 of 77 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- it wasn't me anyway with this new process. The Board still saw it, but they saw it as an affirmation of a decision, not an ordinance amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: And that was the measure we had to do in order to get the LDC process to go through. That was the in-between moment we have. But at the end of the day, all that's changing. It's rather than you issuing a recommendation or staff issuing a letter, the Board will be doing this by ordinance. Three hundred fifty dollars to advertise. Am I wrong on any of this? MR. FRANTZ: No, that's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So let me get this right. So Mark can participate -- like, he couldn't this morning. He will be able to now sit on this -- it will be 3 -- it will cost the developer $350 more, but he can sit with us. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that doesn't go to me. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not paying $350 -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, now I think it does. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just for advertising. But -- because that is upsetting to me, too, that here he hasn't heard it. I don't care if it's controversial or not. It would be nice that he could sit up here with us. MR. KLATZKOW: And he sits with you on every item you have that's a recommendation to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what happens is the PDIs all turn into recommendations -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but then become amendments. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they stay recommendations through the lower boards, they can be done as PDIs. MR. KLATZKOW: It's still a PDI. It's just documented by an ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sounds rather simple to me what Jeff just said. It's a PDI, but it's a PDI that ends in a -- MR. KLATZKOW: An amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- sort of a perfunctory amendment -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- or codified in an amendment to the Board and on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in acquiescing to the Clerk of Courts' position on this, which, again, is different than anything we've experienced for decades in other municipalities, we've created a higher burden and cost for both taxpayers and the business community for innocuous things that nobody even shows up for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's just -- it doesn't make any sense. But that's what we're stuck with to get out of this without a lawsuit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it's -- the Board, if the Board directed and we're complying -- staff is complying with the Board in the process, and what Jeff said is this is nothing more than an advertisement cost, basically the same except for the -- it is advertised. MR. KLATZKOW: The cost -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I guess it keeps the fight between the Board and the Clerk to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the point. MR. KLATZKOW: Well -- but the other thing it does -- and it's not a small thing -- is that anyone who wants to know what the current ordinance looks like, it's easy to look up in MUNI code. Minor changes and insubstantial changes, good luck finding what those look like. You'd never know they were there. So January 18, 2018 Page 72 of 77 from that standpoint, it's not a bad process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was under the impression that the reason why the Hearing Examiner could not sit up here on insubstantial changes had to do with the fact that the Hearing Examiner had already touched the matter with respect to the decision making that it -- whether it should or should not come to the CCPC and to prevent one person from making a decision at two different levels. And so what I was going to propose -- and maybe we've already solved it, and if that's the case, I'm fine. But I was going to propose that we clarify the matters that would go to the Hearing Examiner versus coming to the CCPC, the insubstantial changes, that is, having to do with whether there is a level of opposition or something else to kick it up to a higher point. But if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is already in the ordinance that established the Hearing Examiner's Office. That's already defined. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I looked at that, and it talks about conflict of interest, but it also -- it provides the Hearing Examiner with discretion in some cases. In other words, you, in your judgment say that this is more significant and, therefore, should go to the Planning Commission. I was under the impression that in exercising that judgment you were touching the matter and then touching it a second time up here, and that's why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What I've been doing, to be honest with you, is as I see items come through -- I've been on this board so long and I've dealt with so many of the neighborhoods, I can generally tell when something's coming in that may be objectionable. So as soon as I realize that, I tell the applicant early to process it as a PUDA or a PDI before the Planning Commission so they haven't got to advertise twice. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's how -- so I catch it as early as possible, and that's why you guys are ending up seeing so many because I'm trying to be conservative in that approach. I wanted the -- I wanted the system to continue only because it is a time and cost savings, a tremendous time and cost savings, and that was the whole objective. MR. KLATZKOW: One of the architects of the Hearing Examiner -- it was primarily Mr. Casalanguida and me that sat down and created this -- the idea was that for matters that were relatively ministerial in nature, that nobody had any objections to, okay, it would be a benefit for the community to have a process that was quick, relatively cheap, rather than going through the Planning Commissioners and then the Board of County Commissioners, and that's the basic concept behind your Hearing Examiner. Changes that are -- at the end of day no one cares about, all right, should be handled by the Hearing Examiner. And like today, when you had a roomful of people on an insubstantial change, that's where it should come before the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I agree with you. I understand that and agree with it completely. I just misunderstood that the reason that you couldn't participate a second time is because you'd already exercised -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- a judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We hand it off -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But's that's -- okay. So it gets fixed simply by the fact that it gets on the summary agenda, and then -- MR. KLATZKOW: It gets fixed by the fact that the final decision's by the Board of County Commissioners and not by either Mark or the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's it. No more questions on that item that is the first section of our LDC reviews, and it's under clarifications of amendments. I'm going to read the ones off that I know we haven't had any disputed discussion on, and then we'll January 18, 2018 Page 73 of 77 work down to where -- the only one left that I think there might be a different vote on is the last one. So, first of all, we didn't resolve to clarify dimensional standards for accessory buildings and structure, so I won't read that one. So the first -- I'll read them all, and then we'll vote on them. LDC Section 1.02.08.02 and 9.03.03, LDC Section 2.03.03 and 2.03.04, LDC Section 4.03.04, LDC Section 10.01.02. If we can take those four and we've all -- there was no -- the discussion was limited; we were all in favor. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's made by Patrick. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Discussion, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I spoke with Jeremy on this, and he was kind enough to send me these documents in Word format so that I could possibly suggest more changes. I actually found almost nothing that I felt needed changing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's good. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, I thought so, too. But there was one or two things, Jeremy, that I had asked for slight changes on. I think one was mentioning the fact that the CCPC can initiate LDC amendments and you, I think, added that language. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. That's in an amendment that we have not covered yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I just asked about were only those few pages we've already covered. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got three more sections to get to yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then we've got those sections I just read off. There's a motion made and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0 (sic). And then the last one that we went through and we'll ask for a motion on is LDC Section 10.02.13 and 10.03.06. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Chairman, 6 to nothing, not 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six to nothing, I'm sorry. Thank you. On the prior votes, it was 6 to nothing. Yeah, Stan had to leave for family reasons. LDC Sections 10.02.13, 10.03.06. Anybody have a motion on those? That's the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's going to come back again, that stuff that we just discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's what we just discussed. It's not coming back. That's the one with the PDI. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. Seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. January 18, 2018 Page 74 of 77 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed, same sign. Aye. Motion carries 5-1. Under the Growth Management Plan consistency amendments, let's start on those, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So, actually, all three of these amendments are intended to provide consistency with recent Growth Management Plan changes. The -- we can walk through them individually if you'd like. They're fairly straightforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see if we have -- anybody have any -- they're on Pages 41, 47, 49, and 51. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pretty benign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see. Oh, I only have one question, Jeremy, and I mentioned it to you yesterday. I want to make -- I want your acknowledgment that the changes to the ACSC do not impact the Plantation Island area at all. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I had a chance to talk to David Weeks from Comprehensive Planning and indicated that there's no impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only question I had on that section. Does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll read all of the LDC sections. LDC Section 2.03.08 -- 2.03.08 and 3.05.07 and 4.02.14. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Joe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. FRANTZ: And just to clarify, that included those zoning map changes as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Zoning map changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That was all that -- part of that whole section. And that takes us to the final pages, 61 through 73, new standards for the LDC. Jeremy? Oh -- and we have to go back, and we will revote on the EAC ones. After we finish, I'll go back through and read those off, so... New standards? MR. HENDERLONG: Okay. The next item before you is LDC Section 6.06.01.05, soil erosion, sediment control plan amendment. Currently, best management practices are applied for soil erosion and sediment control on large-scale January 18, 2018 Page 75 of 77 projects, and they're met under LDC Section 6.05.01. This amendment extends those practices and the requirements to smaller projects such as a single-family, duplex, townhomes, and underground construction utilities. It will require that the sedimentation control structures be initiated early on and established prior to the commencing of construction. Typically, on the large projects they find the violations or have been -- would occur at the back end before the CO is issued. What this is going to do is advance it. We've discussed it with the Building Department, the Water Pollution Control staff as well, that this will allow the building inspectors, at their first inspection, to begin to look for these control devices so that they're not catching the violation too late to where the damage has occurred and can be remedied. In addition, here for us today are staff members from the Water Pollution Control, the manager, Danette Kinaszczuk, along with Steve Preston and Nicholas Lehmann, if you have any questions for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. It's all pretty straightforward. Thank you. Anything else on the rest of the sections? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All done. Go back to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything -- the other three -- there's a total of three sections. Anything from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion on Section 6.01.05, 9.04.04, and 10.02.09? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. MR. FRANTZ: Mr. Strain, we did not get to 9.04.04 and 10.02.09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have any questions on those. MR. FRANTZ: I just have a minor change on 10.02.09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we have a motion, seconded. Discussion? What's your minor change? MR. FRANTZ: It's very simple. As Commissioner Fryer pointed out, he had caught something missing in the narrative of the amendment to Section 10.02.09. Simply adding that we also get direction for LDC amendments from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's 100 percent right there. Okay. With that amendment, does the motion maker still affirm and the second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Affirm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Now for the EAC review. EAC review, we have four of them. LDC Section 2.03.08, 4.02.14 in the zoning maps, and 6.01.05. Is there a motion as the EAC for those? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. January 18, 2018 Page 76 of 77 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned; made by Joe. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. That wraps up our review on the LDC issues that have come forth. And that takes us to the end of our agenda. There's no new business listed. Anybody have anything? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, just one comment. We were promised -- I'm sure someone will follow up from transportation with that study graphic we saw. Do I need to send -- follow up with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. Trinity's good with that. She'll make sure we get it all. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Old business. Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We'll be inundated with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that brings us to any -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, one last thing; I'm sorry. The evening meeting on February 7th, I was able to check. The meetings in February I can attend, and earlier today I said I could be there February 7th for 5 o'clock. As of right now until I can change it, I cannot. So I'll work on trying to change it. But for now I cannot attend that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. As long as we still have a quorum, we should be able to be fine. Thank you, Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us through new, old, and public comment. Nobody from the public's remaining. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Joe, seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Discussion? Discussion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion on adjournment? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, all. January 18, 2018 Page 77 of 77 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:23 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-A ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-20, AS AMENDED, THE CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO ALLOW UP TO TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL AND MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE AREA OF THE PUD; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOODLAND DRIVE (C.R. 892), APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SAN MARCO ROAD (C.R. 92), IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20160000087]. WHEREAS, on March 23, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 04-20, the Calusa Island Village PUD, in accordance with the Planned Unit Development document attached thereto (the "PUD Document"); and WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Scott and Sandra Allen, has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Calusa Island Village PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO PUD DOCUMENT The PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 04-20, is hereby amended as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 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 , 2018. 2/8/18 Words stfuekcfreo are deleted, words underlined are added. Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LIM jj Al's�,$ ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Exhibit A: Amended PUD sections 2isii s Words strttek dffett are deleted, words underlined are added. Page 2 of 2 od v Exhibit A SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION I, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section I, Legal Description, Property Ownership, and General Description, Section 1.5 Permitted Variations of Dwelling Units of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.5 PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 50 dwelling units is permitted within residentially designated areas of the Calusa Island Village PUD and in the Commercial/Mixed Use Area. This maximum of 50 dwellings may include single-family, two-family, duplex, zero lot line and single family attached / town homes and are the only residential uses permitted in the 5.75 acre residential area. , nitthi family tises are the only dwelling in the Commefeial Mixed Use Afea. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO SECTION II, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section II, Project Development, Section 2.2 General Description of Project Plan and Proposed Land Uses of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The Calusa Island Village PUD will be developed as a mixed-use residential and commercial community, which may feature residential dwelling types, limited commercial uses and accessory residential and commercial uses. uowei...-' multi afea. Page 1 of 7 Words underlined are added; words 94esk4hfeeglt are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDA\Resubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).docx V SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION III, RESIDENTIAL, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section III, Residential, Section 3.2 Maximum Dwelling Units and Section 3.4 Permitted Uses and Structures of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 50 residential dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated "Residential" or in areas designated Commercial/Mixed Use on the PUD Master Plan. The Commercial/Mixed Use Area is limited to four (4) multi -family dwelling units if develoled as a mixed-use area as ds epicted on Exhibit B, Page l of 2, or two 2) single-family dwelling units if developed as depicted on Exhibit B, Page 2 of 2. " ofdifiafieeo 3.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Single Family Attached and Detached Dwellings, Townhomes. 2. Single Family Patio and Zero Lot Line Dwellings. 3. Two-family and Duplex Dwellings. 4. Multi Family Dwellings are the epAy pefmitted use in Geffh,nefeialAfixed Use area and One and two unit dwellings are the only permitted dwelling units in the residential area and may develop in accordance with the multifamily standards contained in Table 1 in Section 3.5. Page 2 of 7 Words underlined are added; words stmek tlreug# are deletions 1-1:\2016\201.6018\WP\PUDA\Resubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PD1 -PL -201.60000087) (12-15-2017).docx SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO SECTION IV, COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE AREA, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section IV, Commercial/Mixed Use Area, Section 4.2 General Description, Section 4.3 Permitted Uses and Structures and Section 4.4 Development Standards of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The approximate total acreage of the Commercial/Mixed Use Area as indicated on the Master Plan is 0.45 acres, of which 0.12 acres is-rnayr be for commercial use. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreages of all development tracts will be provided at the time of site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat approvals in accordance with Division 3.3, and Division 3.2 respectively, of the LDC. If developed as a commercial mixed use. then The this Gen:ffnefeia!,LNC ie Us Area }s -shall be designed as a mixed-use area flia4 as originally intended. to will -accommodate a variety of limited commercial and personal services, including a maximum of four (4) multi -family residential units. Alternatively. up to two (2) single-family units may be developed in the Commercial/Mixed Use Area instead of multi -family and commercial development. (See also Exhibit `B" depicting the conceptual plan for the Commercial/Mixed Use Area). A. In the event a SDP is issued for commercial or multi -family development, the single-family development shall not be permitted. B. In the event a building_ permit is issued for single-family development. the commercial and/or multi -family development alternative shall not be permitted. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Uses Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services (8721). 2. Apparel and accessory stores (groups 5611-5699). 3. Business services (groups 7311, 7313, 7322-7338, 7363-7379, 7384). 4. General merchandise stores (5311-5399). 5. Miscellaneous retail services (5941, 5947, 5961, 5992, 5994). Page 3 of 7 Words underlined are added; words stmsk threugh are deletions O H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDA\Resubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).doex �d� 6. Model homes, including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 7. Museums and art galleries (8412). 8. Personal services (group 7212). 9. Residential multi -family in accordance with the development standards of Section 3.5 of this Ordinance [four (4) dwelling units maximum]. 10. Single-family, limited to two (2) dwelling units 1 per platted lot) as depicted on Exhibit B, Page 2 of 2 in accordance with the Development Standards in Section 3.5. 11.4-9: Real Estate (groups 6531-6541). 12.4-177 Transportation Services (4724) travel agency office only. 12.4-2: Videotape rental (7841). 14.413- Any other commercial use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses that is primarily a limited commercial and personal services as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1, Front Yard: Twenty-five feet (25') 2. Side Yard: Ten feet (10') 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10'). 4. Setback from a canal for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided the Commercial/Mixed Use Area is developed as a unified site plan. B.-,7 Exterior lighting shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. C.-& Maximum height of structures — Two (2) story or thirty-five feet (35') for commercial structures (measured from minimum flood elevation). DA+ Minimum distance between principal structures - Ten feet (10') or greater if required by local fire codes in effect at time of development, however, the proposed commercial structure may be attached to residential structures. Page 4 of 7 Words underlined are added; words s#uek4keugh are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDA\Resubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).doex O� E.4-. Minimum distance between detached accessory structures - Ten feet (10') F. J, Mixed use structures — A conceptual plan for the Commercial/Mixed Use Area and structure is depicted as Exhibit "B" of this Ordinance. This area provides for four (4) multi -family dwelling units and 1300 square feet of net leasable commercial area. A caretaker's residence is allowed to be constructed on the second floor above the proposed commercial structure. The commercial structure shall be designed and utilized to be compatible with adjacent residential structures. G. Single -Family - Up to two (2) single family units may be developed in the Commercial/Mixed Use Area. Should single family be developed. no commercial development or multi -family development shall be permitted on the Commercial/Mixed Use Area. Only two of the three platted lots within the Commercial/Mixed Use Area depicted on Exhibit "B, Page 2 of 2," may be developed with up to one (1) single family dwelling unit on each lot, fora total of two (2) single family dwelling units, pursuant to the single family development standards in Section 3.5, Table I Development Standards for Residential Area of this PUD. Page 5 of 7 Words underlined are added; words struck thfaugk are deletions H:\2016\2016018\Vv'P\PUDAaesubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).docx Qd SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION V, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.8 MISCELLANEOUS A. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. B. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S. issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create rights on 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 SIX: Page 6 of 7 Words underlined are added; words std through are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PLTDA\Resubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).doex AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "B", MIXED USE AREA, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Exhibit `B," Mixed Use Area, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended and replaced in its entirely by Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Page 7 of 7 Words underlined are added; words ugh are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDA\Resubmittal\CalusaIsland Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).doex ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------�����.���--------- ---- ]SMI )§ ��� oz _ �m\� ; %@§ 20 mgo aac�2 z m§g -® q �<z or> umz nMmq@ /R§� MZm 2¥m® xMq§ I§w2 §rm/ /m - c . �> — . ........................... .� NOTES: 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 33, 34 & 35 BLOCK E, GOODLAND ISLES FIRST ADDITION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGES 1-2, OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. 2. MAXIMUM OF TWO (2) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. 3. THIS PLAN SHALL BE TERMINATED AT THE TIME THE FIRST SDP IS ISSUED I SU/1/SET �R/I/ FOR COMMERCIAL / MULTI -FAMILY ALTERNATIVE IN EXHIBIT BI PAGE 1 OF 2 , LOT 34 Qz� SCALE: 1" = 20' PROPERTY LINE LOT 35 O O O V EXHIBIT "B" PAGE 2 OF 2 1 ■ 1 ■ ��950 Encore Way CHECKED BY : PROJECT Naples, FL. 34110 Mixed Use Area PNC 20,6.0,01 6 DRAWN BY : CAD FILE NAME: HOLE MONTES Phone: (239) 254-2000 Single MSK 2029EH—C Florida Certificate of DATE : EXHIBIT - ITEM Ii�is�ri�►M-affm Authorization No.1772 Family Alternative 3/2016 C U_ SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION I, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section I, Legal Description, Property Ownership, and General Description, Section 1.5 Permitted Variations of Dwelling Units of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.5 PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 50 dwelling units is permitted within residentially designated areas of the Calusa Island Village PUD and in the Commercial/Mixed Use Area. This maximum of 50 dwellings may include single-family, two-family, duplex, zero lot line and single family attached / town homes and are the only residential uses permitted in the 5.75 acre residential area. i ewe e multi family uses a_ the , a ,r flit type pefmitted the Ge ..-.,.:.alar:xedr Use A_.... SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO SECTION II, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section II, Project Development, Section 2.2 General Description of Project Plan and Proposed Land Uses of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The Calusa Island Village PUD will be developed as a mixed-use residential and commercial community, which may feature residential dwelling types, limited commercial uses and accessory residential and commercial uses. However-, mt" Page ] of 7 Words underlined are added; words struek through are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDAamubmittal\Calow Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).docx SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION III, RESIDENTIAL, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section III, Residential, Section 3.2 Maximum Dwelling Units and Section 3.4 Permitted Uses and Structures of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 50 residential dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated "Residential" or in areas designated Commercial/Mixed Use on the PUD Master Plan. The Commercial/Mixed Use Area is limited to four (4) multi -family dwelling units if developed as a mixed-use area as depicted on Exhibit B. Page 1 of 2. or two (2) sinvile-family dwelling units if developed as depicted on Exhibit B. Page 2 of 2. " erg) * * s s * * * s * r r r « 3.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Single Family Attached and Detached Dwellings, Townhomes. 2. Single Family Patio and Zero Lot Line Dwellings. 3. Two-family and Duplex Dwellings. 4. A4ulii-Famfly Dwellgs we the enly pemaRted use iR e PFiFAFAP.fPiR'4k.4i%ed Use am& and _ne and two unit dwellings are the only permitted dwelling units in the residential area and may develop in accordance with the multifamily standards contained in Table 1 in Section 3.5. Page 2 of 7 Words underlined are added: words sVaekthrough are deletions H:\2016@Ol6018\WP\PUDA\Rmubmittal\Calow Island Village PUD (PD1 -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).docx SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO SECTION IV, COMMERCIALAUXED USE AREA, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section IV, Commercial/Mixed Use Area, Section 4.2 General Description, Section 4.3 Permitted Uses and Structures and Section 4.4 Development Standards of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The approximate total acreage of the Commercial/Mixed Use Area as indicated on the Master Plan is 0.45 acres, of which 0.12 acres is-mav be for commercial use. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreages of all development tracts will be provided at the time of site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat approvals in accordance with Division 3.3, and Division 3.2 respectively, of the LDC. If developed as a commercial mixed use. then The this Gemmemielq4ixed Use Area is -shall be designed as a mixed-use area diet as originally intended, to wiWaccommodate a variety of limited commercial and personal services, including a maximum of four (4) multi -family residential units. Alternatively, up to two (2) single-family units may be developed in the Commercial/Mixed Use Area instead of multi -family and commercial development. (See also Exhibit `B" depicting the conceptual plan for the Commercial/Mixed Use Area). A. In the event a SDP is issued for commercial or multi -family development, the single-family development shall not be permitted. B. In the event a building_permit is issued for single-family development, the commercial and/or multi -family development alternative shall not be permitted. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Uses 1. Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services (8721). 2. Apparel and accessory stores (groups 5611-5699). Business services (groups 7311, 7313, 7322-7338, 7363-7379, 7384). 4. General merchandise stores (5311-5399). Miscellaneous retail services (5941, 5947, 5961, 5992, 5994). Page 3 of Words underlined are added; words seaeli &ouo are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDAVtesubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).docx 6. Model homes, including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 7. Museums and art galleries (8412). 8. Personal services (group 7212). 9. Residential multi -family in accordance with the development standards of Section 3.5 of this Ordinance [four (4) dwelling units maximum]. 10. Single-family, limited to two (2) dwelling units (1 per platted lot) as depicted on Exhibit B. Page 2 of 2 in accordance with the Development Standards in Section 3.5. 11.1-0: Real Estate (groups 6531-6541). 12.14- Transportation Services (4724) travel agency office only. 13.42: Videotape rental (7841). 14.3-3: Any other commercial use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses that is primarily a limited commercial and personal services as determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty-five feet (25') 2. Side Yard: Ten feet (10') 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10'). 4. Setback from a canal for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided the Commercial./Mixed Use Area is developed as a unified site plan. B.-1: Exterior lighting shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and residential properties from direct glare or unreasonable interference. C.-&.. Maximum height of structures - Two (2) story or thirty-five feet (35') for commercial structures (measured from minimum flood elevation). D. -H-. Minimum distance between principal structures -Ten feet (10') or greater if required by local fire codes in effect at time of development, however, the proposed commercial structure may be attached to residential structures. Page 4 of 7 Words underlined are added; Words stwak-Hxengh are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDAVtesubmittat\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).docz EA Minimum distance between detached accessory structures - Ten feet (10'). F. -J-. Mixed use structures — A conceptual plan for the Commercial/Mixed Use Area and structure is depicted as Exhibit `B" of this Ordinance. This area provides for four (4) multi -family dwelling units and 1300 square feet of net leasable commercial area. A caretaker's residence is allowed to be constructed on the second floor above the proposed commercial structure. The commercial structure shall be designed and utilized to be compatible with adjacent residential structures. G. Single -Family - Up to two (2) single family units may be developed in the CommerciaUMixed Use Area. Should single family be developed, no commercial development or multi -family development shall be permitted on the Commercial/Mixed Use Area. Only two of the three platted lots within the Commercial/Mixed Use Area depicted on Exhibit `B, Page 2 of 2:' may be developed with up to one (1) single family dwelling unit on each lot, for a total of two (2) single family dwelling units pursuant to the single family development standards in Section 3.5. Table 1 Development Standards for Residential Area of this PUD. Page 5 of 7 Words underlined are added; words swuek-tbreugk are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WP\PUDA\Rmubmittal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).docx AMENDMENT TO SECTION V, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section V, General Development Commitments, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.8 MISCELLANEOUS A. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. B. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S. issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create rights on 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 SIX: Page 6 of 7 Words underlined are added: words stmeir tbredgp are deletions H:\201612016018\WP\PUDA\aesubminal\Calusa Island Village PUD (PD1 -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).do" AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT `B", MIXED USE AREA, OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-20, CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Exhibit `B," Mixed Use Area, of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance No. 04-20, Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development, is hereby amended and replaced in its entirely by Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Page 7 of 7 Words Underlined are added; words slFaele thretigh are deletions H:\2016\2016018\WPWUDA\Rmubmiaal\Calwa Island Village PUD (PDI -PL -20160000087) (12-15-2017).dm -<XN) WAIM. 1• - to NOTE: THIS PLAN SHALL BE TEFOOMATEE) AT HANDICAP AND RAMP THE TME OF ISSUANCE OF THE FST BULONG PERMT FOR THE SNGLE FAMILY ALTERNATIVE N EXH61T W, PAGE 2 OF 2. ERCIAL BULDNC DF 1,300 S.F OF \SABLE SPACE) & KEFrS RESDENCE LE0M TOTAL COMMERCIAL AREA -0.12 A<. WCLUOINPAHANDICAP RAMA MRPS, AND STAIRS N AND OF SIRDCNRES ARE AP ARE APPROXIMATEM ��• MI%EO USE AREA '-� CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE DIM COMMERCIAL/MULTI-FAMILY ALTERNATIVE �e 2029EH03 EXHIBIT 8 HOLE MONTESPM�°wvs et EXHIBIT 'B' �r "m PAGE 7 0l 2 2016.018 1 v 2 NOTES: 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 33, 34 & 35 BLOCK E. GOODLAND ISLES FIRST ADDITION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGES 1-2, OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. 2. MAXIMUM OF TWO (2) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. 3. THIS PLAN SHALL BE TERMINATED AT THE TIME THE FIRST SDP IS ISSUED FOR COMMERCIAL / MULTI -FAMILY ALTERNATIVE IN EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 OF 2 R QV i SU/I/-SET OR/1�E 1. _ 20, I I I I i LOT 33 I r~) Ic In :s� 93.62' S 05'22'03" E ------- LOT 34 100.69'-------- LOT 35 100.69 EXHIBIT PAGE 21. 1. „B pr OF 2 950 Encore Way a 4X FI er : PgaECr 01' Na la FL 34110 Mixed Use Area FIND nuN Phone 239 254-2000 DnnNN BY : CM 0M NNIS Single „� OT -ITEM "HOL MONT Florida Grtlllaata of OII0FFfl15+11N66 9AlIE196 Authorisatlon No.1772 F a m i l Alternative °" e ` MOT - ihu a e c AGENDA ITEM 9-C ORDINANCE NO. 2018 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 210 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, 152 HOTEL SUITES, UP TO 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND UP TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES, ALL WITH CONVERSIONS; PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET, ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 5.35± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160003054] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard Grant, Esquire of Grant Fridkin Pearson, P.A. representing Real Estate Partners International, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a General [16 -CPS -01629/1388139/11 111 Mini Triangle / PUDZ-PL20160003054 1/11/18 1 of Commercial District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Mini -Triangle MPUD to allow construction of up to 210 residential dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial retail uses and up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial office uses, all with conversions, in accordance with Exhibits "A" through "G" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Repeal of Conditional Use Resolutions. Resolution Nos. 94-713, 96-377, 97-251, 04-281 and 08-259 are hereby repealed. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2018- becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2018. ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK : Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A — List of Permitted Uses BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA an Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Deviations Exhibit F — Developer Commitments Exhibit G — Master Use and Conversion List [16 -CPS -01629/1388139/1] 111 Mini Triangle / PUDZ-PL20160003054 1/11/18 2 of ANDY SOLIS, Chairman EXHIBIT A MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD LIST OF PERMITTED USES TRACT MXU — MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT A. PERMITTED USES: The PUD shall be developed with a mixture of residential and commercial uses. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land used, in whole or in part, within the Mini -Triangle MPUD, for other than the following: I. Principal Uses a. Residential Uses (see Table 3 for minimum number of required multi -family units): 1. 210 Multi -family residential dwelling units are permitted by right. b. Commercial Uses (see Table 3 for minimum required square footage): 1. 152 hotel suites (or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites) are permitted by right (7011). 2. 74,000 square feet of the following uses are permitted by right: a. Retail (5311-5399; 5411- 5499; 5611-5699; 5712-5736; 5912; 5921; 5941- 5948; 5992 — 5999; 7933, 7991, 7999 limited to yoga instruction, indoor shooting range, and bicycle rental; 8412); and, b. Restaurant, eating and drinking establishments (5812 and 5813), excluding bottle clubs; and, c. Movie Theatre (multiplex) (7832); and, d. Personal and financial services (6111-6163; 6211-6289; 6311-6399; 6411, 7212, 7231, 7241). 3. 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right (7311; 7371; 7373-7375; 8011- 8092, 8111; 8611-8699; 8711-8748). C. The following uses are permitted through the utilization of the Land Use Conversion Matrix set forth in Section B. of this MPUD. 1. Assisted Living Facility (ALF) (8082), limited to 150 units and a FAR of 0.45. 2. Indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self -storage (4225), limited to 60,000 square feet. Access to the indoor air -Conditioned passenger vehicle and self storage must be internal to the site and not visible from an arterial or collector road. Page 1 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx 3. New car dealership, limited to an interior showroom/display, plus delivery and warranty bays (5511), limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet. Access to the warranty bays or repair bays associated with the car dealership must be internal to the site and not visible from an arterial or collector road. 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. II. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures permitted by right in this MPUD, including, but not limited to: a. Residential Uses: 1. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents of the PUD, such as swimming pools, fitness centers, dining facilities, and recreation/amenity buildings. 2. Customary accessory uses and structures to residential units, including parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, signage, and similar structures. b. Commercial Uses: 1. Caretaker's residences one (1) per building, not to exceed three (3), subject to LDC Section 5.03.05. 2. Temporary display of merchandise during business hours provided it does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health or safety as determined by the County. Merchandise storage and display is prohibited within front yards adjacent to Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail (US 41), but allowed within internal public areas and within side and rear yards. 3. Customary accessory uses and structures to commercial development, including parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, and similar structures. Page 2 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx B. BY RIGHT DENSITY AND INTENSITY, LAND USE CONVERSION MATRIX, AND DENSITY AND INTENSITY LIMITATIONS: Table 1: By Richt Densitv and intensity ner Cectinn A T Multi -Family w le Hotel Retail General Office Assisted LivingY Self -Storage units (rooms) (square feet) (square feet) (dwelling units) (square feet) 210 152 74,000 60,000 0 0 Table2: Land Use Conversion Matrix Note(s): (1) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, Land Use Code (LUC) 230 — Residential Condominium/Townhouse. (Z) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, LUC 310 — Hotel. 131 ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, LUC 820 — Shopping Center. (4) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, LUC 710 — General Office Building. (5) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, LUC 254 — Assisted Living based on one bed per dwelling unit. (6) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition, LUC 151 — Mini -Warehouse. (7) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition, LUC 841 — Automobile Sales. Table 3: Densitv and Intensitv Limitations Density and Intensity Limitations TO FROM Multi -General Familytrl HoteltZl Assisted Living Office (4) Assisted 5) Self - Storage (6) New Car (rooms) (dwelling (rooms) (square (square Living! (square Dealership(') units feet feet ) feet dwelling ( units) feet) (square feet) Multi- N/A N/A Maximum 400 200 200,000 combined 150 (FAR of Family(l) 30,000 0.45 (dwelling 1.0 0.8 70 260 2.3 2,010 190 units Hotel rooms 1.1 1.0 90 300 2.7 2,300 220 Retail (1,000 12.6 11.0 1,000 3,380 30 25,460 2,520 square feet General Office (4) (1,000 3.7 3.2 290 1,000 8.8 7,520 740 ....square feet) A. Note(s): (1) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, Land Use Code (LUC) 230 — Residential Condominium/Townhouse. (Z) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, LUC 310 — Hotel. 131 ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, LUC 820 — Shopping Center. (4) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, LUC 710 — General Office Building. (5) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9`h Edition, LUC 254 — Assisted Living based on one bed per dwelling unit. (6) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition, LUC 151 — Mini -Warehouse. (7) ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 91h Edition, LUC 841 — Automobile Sales. Table 3: Densitv and Intensitv Limitations Density and Intensity Limitations Multi -Family (dwellingHotel Retail and General Office Assisted Living Self- Storage New Car units) (rooms) (square feet ) (dwelling units) (square Dealership feet (square feet) Minimum 50 N/A 30,000 combined N/A N/A N/A Maximum 400 200 200,000 combined 150 (FAR of 60,000 30,000 0.45 The "by right" density and intensity identified in Section A.I. may be increased and the uses identified in Section A.I. paragraph c. may be permitted through utilization of the Land Use Conversion Matrix, subject to the following limitations: i. A minimum of 50 multi -family residential units shall be developed; Page 3 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx ii. A maximum of 400 multi -family residential units may be developed; iii. A maximum of 200 hotel units may be developed; iv. A minimum of any combination of 30,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office, and personal services shall be developed; V. A maximum of 200,000 square feet of any combination of retail, restaurant, office, personal services and movie theater uses shall be developed; vi. A maximum of 150 rooms ALF units may be developed; vii. A maximum of 60,000 square feet of Indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self - storage (4225) may be developed; viii. A maximum of 30,000 square feet of new car dealership (5511), may be developed; ix. In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation exceed 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for the SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. X. No building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last undeveloped MXU Tract (of the three MXU Tracts) depicted on Exhibit C, Master Plan, unless a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the minimum 50 multi -family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development or the minimum 50 multi- family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development is included in the requested building permit. C. TRACT GO: GREEN/OPEN SPACE Green/Open Space areas are not fixed on the MPUD Master Plan. They will vary in location throughout the site, and will be located at the time of SDP approval. A minimum of 15 percent of the overall MPUD area shall be provided in usable Green/Open Space. Green/Open Space areas may include: surface and rooftop landscaped and hardscape areas, all outdoor public spaces and common areas, including pedestrian ways, sidewalks, greens, patios, terraces, and the like, and pedestrian ways, sidewalks and landscape areas installed and maintained by the developer whether within the adjacent public rights-of-way or within private easements. Structures intended to facilitate public use and gathering are permitted within Green/Open Space areas. Examples include, but are not limited to: gazebos, fountains, trellises, planters, benches, landscape structures, outdoor art including statues, food -trucks, mobile kiosks, signage, and outdoor dining facilities. Page 4 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\wP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx EXHIBIT B MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS A. RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The table below sets forth the development standards for residential and commercial land uses within Mini -Triangle 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. MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 s.f. MIN. LOT WIDTH 100 feet as measured by frontage on a public right-of-way or internal driveway. MIN. FLOOR AREA 500 s.f for commercial structures and 500 s.f. for residential dwelling units. Hotel suites/rooms and ALF units, are not subject to a minimum floor area requirement. MINIMUM YARDS ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC 20 feet STREET ALL OTHER PERIMETER 0 or 5 feet BUFFERS MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 40 feet STRUCTURES MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 160 feet NOT TO EXCEED ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 168 feet NOT TO EXCEED ACTUAL FAA - HEIGHT LIMIT Building Height shall not exceedl68 feet above mean sea level (MSL). ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC S.P.S. STREET ALL OTHER PERIMETER I S.P.S MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT S.P.S NOT TO EXCEED ZONED MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT S.P.S NOT TO EXCEED ACTUAL o.r.o. — Dame as rrmcipai JtTucTu 'es BH = Building Height B. Parking: 1. Off -Street: Parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, Section F., Table 1 Parking Space Requirements in the BMUD and GTMUD. For uses not specifically listed in Table 1, parking shall be provided as required in the LDC except as otherwise provided for in Exhibit E. 2. Other: Within or along internal private driveways, parallel or angled parking may be provided. Page 5 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx W.O -i ------------- --------- --- - 0 OR 6 - LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: C-4 GTMUD-MXD 0 GENERAL LOCATION OF SHARED I? Pn Qfi-kl ZONED: C-4-GTMUD-MXD DAVIS BLVD (100' ROW) - 15' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TRACT MXU 1.56 AC RACT MXU 0.70 AC TRACT I D 1.5 AC MATCH AREA) 0 OR 5' i LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONED: C-4 GTMUD-MXD GREEN/OPEN SPACE GREEN/OPEN SPACE REQUIRED/ PROVIDED 15% = 0.80 AC NOTE: GREEN/OPEN SPACE AREAS INCLUDING ROOFTOP GREEN SPACE & ARE NOT FIXED ON THE MASTER PLAN. THEY WILL VARY IN LOCATION THROUGHOUT THE SITE, AND WILL BE IDENTIFIED AT TIME OF SDP APPROVAL. NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 FOR EASEMENTS 2. SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR SCHEDULE OF DEVIATIONS A 2* uj SPECIFIC DEVIATION POTENTIAL —INTERCONNECTION POTENTIAL > DENOTES ACCESS INTER -CONNECT TRACT MXU < 1.59 AC L) 40 CITY OF NAPLES ` 0OR5' ZONED: PD LANDSCAPE 0 BUFFER ZONED: C4 U GTMUD-MXD LL So V), 70NED: C-4 rmm,mw-amm—m SCALE I' 41 GTMUD-MXD A DEVIATION MINI TRIANGLE MPUD EXHIBIT "C" MASTER PLAN . .... . . . . ... SCALE: LAND USE SILAIMAR�Y LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO U.S. 41 (AKA TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST) & DAVIS BLVD. SHALL BE IF IN WIDTH AND SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH TOTAL, SITE ACREAGE = 535 THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF LOC SECTION 4.6.02.C-4 & DEVIATION #5, T­RA_CI M �XU (N INEWMSET­ AREA PERCENT% 1-8-5AC7 —72 %'—'-- WHERE THE PUBLIC REALM IS EXPANDED THROUGH HARDSCAPE TRACT ID (INTERNAL DRIVE) = 1.50 AC 28% PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION 4.02.16.E.iii.a)2). TOTAL, 5.35AC 100% SHEET I OF 3 M E— Yfty SUBJECT SITE 1=7 -T MINI TRIANGLENWIft FL 34110 pt— (M 2554 _"O EXHIBIT C MON7FS MPUD F— C -- t. IM MASTER PLAN W. N N O 00 "-3 OC �77 .1 b d N N O i` it tt 3 i DAVM BLVD (10V ROW) kt♦ POSSIE OUTER O.R.30 oh, ISO ,�- POSSIBLE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT INDICATED BY O.R. 3095 PG. 163 � s EASEMENT AS ASSUMED FROM Oft.' 1886 PG. 2396 MINI TRIANGLE MPUD EXHIBIT "C" EXISTING EASEMENT FLAN SCALE. I"= 50' MINI TRIANGLE MPUD EXHIBIT MASTER PLAN 3!Iiil SCHEDULE OF DEVIATIONS Architectural Standards: Deviation from LDC 4.02.16.C.8.d.,which requires that residential uses be constructed concurrent with, or prior to, the construction of commercial uses, to allow for construction of residential uses without restriction as to timing of construction of commercial uses. 2. Deviation from LDC 4.02.16.D.3.b., Frontage, which requires that the primary entrance for any building be oriented to the street, to allow all primary project entrances to be internal to the project via an internal courtyard, although additional primary and secondary entrances may be located along US 41 or Davis Boulevard. 3. Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16 D.71i. (Materials), Which requires that mixed-use building exteriors consist of wood clapboard, stucco finish, cement fiber board products, brick, or stone, to include glass as an allowable external material.P 4. Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16 D.7.Hi., which requires pitched roofs to be metal seam (Sv Crimp, standing seam or similar design), slate, copper, or wood shingles, to include tile as an allowable material. Landscape Standards: S. Deviation from LDC 4.06.05.D.2.a., which limits the use of palm trees in a Type D buffer to a maximum of 30% to allow for up to 70% of the required canopy trees to be Royal Palm trees. Royal Palm trees shall be 25 feet in height, on average, at the time of planting. Parkin 6. Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04., Parking Space Requirements, which requires, for cinema parking, 1 space for each 3 seats or 1 space per 40 square feet of seating areas, whichever is greater plus 1 for each employee/non-spectator who will be present during performances excluding those arriving by buses, to instead require 1 space for each 3 seats, rob plus I space for each employee of the largest shift, regardless of the floor or seating area. r.;Q CD Open Space '0 00 r- Deviation from Section 4.07.02 G. 2., which requires at least 30 percent of the gross area to be devoted to usable open space within PUD districts containing commercial, 0 industrial, and mixed use including residential, to allow for a minimum of 15 percent of the gross area to be devoted to usable open space. Structures and/or improvements intended to c" 00 facilitate public use and gathering, including but not limited to gazebos, fountains, trellises, planters, benches, landscape structures, outdoor art including statues, and signage, o food -trucks, mobile kiosks, and outdoor dining facilities are permitted within Green/Open Space areas. Signs 8. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04 F.3., which permits multiple -occupancy parcels or multiple parcels developed under a unified development plan, with a minimum of 8 oindependent units, and containing 20,000 square feet or more of leasable floor area, 1 directory sign at one entrance on each public street, to allow shared Directory signs between the Mini -Triangle MPUD development and the development immediately adjacent to the west and/or the east on US 41. The shared Directory sign(s) Will be located west and/or east of the oprojects potential shared entrance(s) on Tamiami Trail East (US 41). A shared sign may be located such that it is entirely on either parcel or partially on both parcels, to the west and/or east as the ultimate condition for shared entries may be. The sign(s) will meet all other applicable development standards set forth in Section 5.06.04.F.3. In the event a shared Directory sign is permitted between the Mini Triangle project and a project adjacent to the east and/or the west along Tamiami Trail East (US 41), no other individual Directory sign shall be permitted along Tamiami Trail East (US 41) for the projects sharing the Directory sign. 9. Deviation from Section 5.06.04.F.9., which establishes development standards for on -premise directional signs and limits the number of such signs to a maximum of 4, to allow for up to 6 on -premise directional signs within this MPUD, in accordance with all other requirements set forth in Section 5.06.04. F.9. NOTE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVIATIONS ARE DENOTED ON MPUD MASTER PLAN WITH THE SYMBOL -A, ALL OTHER DEVIATIONS MAY OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE SITE, OR IN LOCATIONS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME. . .... . ...... SHEET 3 OF 3 SUBJECT SITE MINI TRIANGLE rim N.0 -FL 34110 EXHIBIT C ft—, a�% 254-M MPUD F_ C -ft- a IOLE M ON �E S,ramz Pim i =�­� MASTER PLAN MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT C-1, SHEETS 1-9 Sheet 1: Conceptual Site Plan Sheet 2: Typical Street Front Elevation Sheet 3: Typical Street Front Plan View Sheet 4: Optional Street Front Elevation Sheet 5: Optional Street Front Plan View Sheet 6: Typical Garage Elevation Street View Sheets 7-9: Architectural Renderings Page 9 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx .0 GATEWAY MINI TRIANGLE M -PUD SITE PLAN CONCEPT DEW C-1, Shwt 1 concTh l site plea V. N N O_ C0 .S GATEWAY MINI TRIANGLE M -PUD TYPICAL STREET FRONT ELEVATION lExh:ibit cC-1, Sheet 2 tical Stmt Front ]Elevation 0 �: D w CL > :� z Q w J J 0. Z Z Q w 1— w w Z_ w �cn U a v Page 12 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018Nini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx F. 7 N N O GATEWAY MINI TRIANGLE M -PUO OPTIONAL STREET FRONT ELEVATION 20' EXPANDED PUBLIC REALM PLAZA/PATIO AND PLANTINGS &h%it C-1, Sheet 4 Optional Sbvd Front Elevation 6 GATEWAYMINITRIANGLE M -PUD OPTIONAL PROMENADE PLAN VIEW =3i 11 may, E ABQVE IMAGE iS AN. ARTIST RENDERING ANN, SUBJECT If_ QaAN ,r. MIR C-19 Sheet 5 Optional Street ]Front Plan View n ,"l .: C� dCD rUh o 0 o N o 00 w 0 U A GATEWAY MINI TRIANGLE M -PUD TYPICAL GARAGE ELEVATION STREET VIEW Exhibit cC-19 Sheet 6 Typical Gmge Elevation Street View pp - RENDERING RENDERING LOCATION KEY E! Exhibit C-19 Sheet i Fifth Avenue Over& ll View . wd 1 -� •� � ei�i�z�°ilii;"j� �,. �� � . ' 4 ; s *ta r t � "'".. — A ��■� .� � ,raw. Jwl --441 'rte ■ mom +/ y S MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: LOTS 5 THROUGH 11, INCLUSIVE, OF TRIANGLE LAKE, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BY DEED OF CONVEYANCE RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 16, PAGES 163 AND 164, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPTING: THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 5 AND 6, TRIANGLE LAKE, A SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AS PER PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE AND SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID LOT 6, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 33'46" EAST 245.26 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 90 (US41) (PER SECTION 03010-2116) FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION AND WEST LINE NORTH 00 DEGREES 33'46" WEST 24.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,529.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 47'18.3", AN ARC LENGTH OF 158.65 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 53'54" EAST TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 5 AND THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND SOUTHERLY EXTENSION SOUTH 37 DEGREES 59'11 " WEST 20.01 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,509.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREE 42'45.9", AN ARC LENGTH OF 143.17 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS NORTH 53 DEGREE 51'48" WEST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2 A LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING NORTH OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL, OF SECTION 11 IN TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Page 19 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING NORTH OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIXIE HIGHWAY), OF SECTION 11 IN TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR 396.58 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, TO ESTABLISH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING DEFLECT 90 DEGREES FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY TO THE NORTHEASTERLY AND RUN 322.02 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT 43 DEGREES 39 MINUTE 10 SECONDS, FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY TO THE NORTHERLY AND RUN 57.48 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT 69 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 00 SECONDS FROM NORTHERLY TO NORTHWESTERLY AND RUN 63.91 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT 66 DEGREES: 29 MINUTES 50 SECONDS FORM NORTHWESTERLY TO SOUTHWESTERLY AND RUN 338.2 FEET TO THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL; THENCE IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION RUN 98.29 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE POINT BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPTING THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID TRIANGLE LAKE; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID LOT 6, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 33'46" EAST 307.41 FEET TO THE SURVEY BASE OF STATE ROAD 90 (US 41) AND TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID SURVEY BASE LINE, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,459.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 DEGREES 15'59.2", AN ARC LENGTH OF 253.29 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 24'08" EAST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE NORTH 37 DEGREES 13'52"EAST, 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 90 (US 41) (PER SECTION 03010-2116) FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 37 DEGREES 59'11 " EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,529.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 29'17.3", AN ARC LENGTH OF 98.22 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS SOUTH 52 DEGREES 31'25" EAST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 59'11" WEST, 20.00 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,509.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREE 29'20.3", AN ARC LENGTH OF 98.22 FEET, THE CORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 52 DEGREES 31'28" WEST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 1,964 SQUARE FEET. Page 20 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx PARCEL 3 A LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING NORTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL, OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH OF RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, LYING NORTH OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DIXIE HIGHWAY), OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR 298.29 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, TO ESTABLISH THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING DEFLECT 90 DEGREES FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY TO NORTHEASTERLY AND RUN 338.2 FEET, THENCE DEFLECT 113 DEGREES 30'10" FROM NORTHEASTERLY TO NORTHWESTERLY AND RUN 107.18 FEET THENCE DEFLECT 66 DEGREES 29'50" FROM NORTHWESTERLY TO SOUTHWESTERLY AND RUN 295.46 FEET TO THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID TAMIAMI TRAIL, THENCE IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION RUN 98.29 FEET ALONG THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4 LOT 4, TRIANGLE LAKE SUBDIVISION AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38. PARCELS 3 AND 4 LESS AND EXCEPT: THAT PORTION OF LOT 4, TRIANGLE LAKE, A SUBDIVISION, AS PER PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, ALL BEING IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST. BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID TRIANGLE LAKE, THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID LOT 6, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 33'46" EAST, 307.41 FEET TO THE SURVEY BASE LINE OF STATE ROAD 90 (US 41) AND TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID SURVEY BASE LINE, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,459.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 31'43", AN ARC LENGTH OF 105.72 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 46'16" EAST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE, THENCE NORTH 36 DEGREES 29'35" EAST, 50.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 AND THE NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 90 (US 41) (PER SECTION 03010-2116) FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY EXTENSION AND SAID WEST LINE NORTH 37 DEGREES 59'11" EAST, 20.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF Page 21 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx 11,529.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREE 44'11.6", AN ARC LENGTH OF 148.21 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS SOUTH 53 DEGREES 08'09" EAST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 59'11" WEST, 20 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11,509.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00 DEGREES 44'16.2", AN ARC LENGTH OF 148.21 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEARS NORTH 53 DEGREES 08'16" WEST TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 5: LOTS 12, 13, 14, AND 15, TRIANGLE LAKE SUBDIVISION, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 38, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OVERALL ACREAGE = 233,058.41 SQUARE FEET OR 5.35 ACRES, AS MEASURED/CALCULATED. Page 22 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.doex EXHIBIT E MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS FROM LDC This 5.35 acre MPUD is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and specifically within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. Given the desire for this area to be a catalyst for further redevelopment within the broader Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area, and given the urban characteristics of this area, in addition to the specific deviations listed below, additional deviations may be requested from any applicable dimensional or design standards set forth in the LDC, excluding building height, utilizing the process and procedures set forth in LDC Section 10.02.03.F, Site plan with deviations for redevelopment projects. Deviations are as follows: Architectural Standards: 1. Deviation from LDC 4.02.16.C.8.d.,which requires that residential uses be constructed concurrent with, or prior to, the construction of commercial uses, to allow for construction of residential uses without restriction as to timing of construction of commercial uses. 2. Deviation from LDC 4.02.16.D.3.b., Frontage, which requires that the primary entrance for any building be oriented to the street, to allow all primary project entrances to be internal to the project via and internal courtyard, although additional primary and secondary entrances may be located along US 41 or Davis Boulevard. 3. Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16 D.7.i.i., (Materials) which requires that mixed-use building exteriors consist of wood clapboard, stucco finish, cement fiber board products, brick, or stone, to include glass as an allowable external material. 4. Deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16 D.7.i.ii., which requires pitched roofs to be metal seam (5v Crimp, standing seam or similar design), slate, copper, or wood shingles, to include tile as an allowable material. Landscape Standards: 5. Deviation from LDC 4.06.05.D.2.a., which limits the use of palm trees in a Type D buffer to a maximum of 30% to allow for up to 70% of the required canopy trees to be Royal Palm trees. Royal Palm trees shall be 25 feet in height, on average, at the time of planting. Parking 6. Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04., Parking Space Requirements, which requires, for cinema parking, 1 space for each 3 seats or 1 space per 40 square feet of seating areas, whichever is greater plus 1 for each employee/non-spectator who will be present during Page 23 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx performances excluding those arriving by buses, to instead require 1 space for each 3 seats, plus 1 space for each employee of the largest shift, regardless of the floor or seating area. Open Space 7. Deviation from Section 4.07.02 G. 2., which requires at least 30 percent of the gross area to be devoted to usable open space within PUD districts containing commercial, industrial, and mixed use including residential, to allow for a minimum of 15 percent of the gross area to be devoted to usable open space. Structures and/or improvements intended to facilitate public use and gathering, including but not limited to gazebos, fountains, trellises, planters, benches, landscape structures, outdoor art including statues, and signage, food -trucks, mobile kiosks, and outdoor dining facilities are permitted within Green/Open Space areas. Sim 8. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04 F.3, which permits multiple -occupancy parcels or multiple parcels developed under a unified development plan, with a minimum of 8 independent units, and containing 20,000 square feet or more of leasable floor area, 1 directory sign at one entrance on each public street, to allow shared Directory signs between the Mini -Triangle MPUD development and the development immediately adjacent to the west and/or the east on US 41. The shared Directory sign(s) will be located west and/or east of the projects potential shared entrance(s) on Tamiami Trail East (US 41). A shared sign may be located such that it is entirely on either parcel or partially on both parcels, to the west and/or east as the ultimate condition for shared entries may be. The sign(s) will meet all other applicable development standards set forth . in Section 5.06.04.F.3. In the event a shared Directory sign is permitted between the Mini Triangle project and a project adjacent to the east and/or the west along Tamiami Trail East (US 41), no other individual Directory sign shall be permitted along Tamiami Trail East (US 41) for the projects sharing the Directory sign. 9. Deviation from Section 5.06.04.F.9., which establishes development standards for on - premise directional signs and limits the number of such signs to a maximum of 4, to allow for up to 6 on -premise directional signs within this MPUD, in accordance with all other requirements set forth in Section 5.06.04. F.9. Page 24 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx EXHIBIT F MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for MPUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all MPUD commitments until close-out of the MPUD. At the time of this MPUD approval, the Managing Entity is Real Estate Partners International, LLC. 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, 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 convey tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to the County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the MPUD by the new owner and the new tract -owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the MPUD is closed out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of MPUD commitments. 2. TRANSPORTATION a. Maximum Total Daily Trip Generation In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation exceed 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for the SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. b. Transit Stops/Shelter The Owner shall provide easements to Collier County in a form acceptable to Collier County to accommodate 2 transit stops, one on the project's frontage on US 41 and one on the project's frontage on Davis Boulevard. As part of the site improvements authorized by the initial Site Development Plan, the Developer/Owner shall, at its sole expense, install a shelter and related site improvements for the transit stop located on the project's US 41 frontage, utilizing a design consistent with established CAT architectural standards or consistent with project architectural standards (i.e. similar to recently constructed Naples Airport Authority CAT stops developed in theme with NAA architectural standards). Additionally, the Owner shall convey to the County an easement to relocate the existing undeveloped transit stop on Davis Boulevard from in front of the Trio site to this MPUD site. The easement will be similar in size to the US 41 transit stop easement. The easement will be conveyed free Page 25 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx and clear of all liens and encumbrances and at no cost to the County. If Collier County decides to improve the Davis Boulevard transit stop (with shelter and related site improvements), it will be done in an architectural theme consistent with the US 41 stop location. Any part of the required landscape buffer vegetation displaced by the CAT stop improvements shall be disbursed elsewhere within the PUD. The exact location and conveyance of such easements and the specifications for the shelter shall be finalized prior to the initial Site Development Plan approval. At the Developer's/Owner's option, a unique design consistent with the project architecture may be utilized. 3. UTILITIES a. At the time of approval of this MPUD, Collier County Utilities Department has verified that there is adequate sewer capacity to serve this project, however, at the time of initial subdivision plat and/or Site Development Plan (SDP), as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined during the subdivision plat and or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. b. The Mini Triangle MPUD is located within the City of Naples potable water services area. The City of Naples Utilities Department has verified that there is adequate potable water capacity to serve this project. Prior to approval of a subdivision plat or SDP, the Developer shall provide written documentation that the development plans for the plat or SDP, as the case may be, have been reviewed and approved by the City of Naples Utility Department with respect to the provision of potable water service to the project. 4. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT The developer shall provide the Emergency Management Division with a 45kw towable diesel, quiet running, multi -phase, multi -voltage generator to be used at other hurricane evacuation shelter sites as a one-time hurricane mitigation effort. Emergency Management will provide approved specifications to the developer who will deliver the generator to Emergency Management, with all necehssary warranty and manuals, new and tested for immediate operation as well as a certificate of origin for over the road towing, tags, registration, etc. The one-time generator contribution will be provided at the time of the first residential certificate of occupancy. 5. ALF/RETIREMENT COMMUNITY COMMITMENTS a. The Facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. Page 26 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx b. There shall be on-site dining for residents. C. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individual needs including but not limited to medical office visits. d. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall be responsible for coordinating trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music, and other forms of educational and entertainment activities for the residents. e. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. f. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency services providers in the event of a medical or other emergency. g. 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 wheel chair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars. 6. SITE DEVELOPMENT OR PLAT APPROVAL — MASTER LIST At the time of each development order application subsequent to rezone approval, the developer or its successors and assigns shall submit a list of previously approved land uses (approved via site development plan or plat) and the trips, commercial square footage and residential units consumed to date. Developer shall also provide to County a copy of its master list of land uses and converted uses for this PUD with each SDP or plat application in the form attached as Exhibit G. Page 27 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx EXHIBIT G MINI -TRIANGLE MPUD MASTER USE AND CONVERSION LIST BY RIGHT DENSITY AND INTENSITY Use Units/Square Trip feet Generation ' Previously Approved Residential Units: Residential Units Included in this SDP, SDPA, or Plat: TOTAL: Previously Approved Commercial Square Footage: Commercial Square Footage Included in this SDP or SDPA: TOTAL: Land Use Conversions Tracking Chart From To Converted Units/Square Trip Feet Generation' Use/Amount Use Conversion Ratio/Factor Units/Square USE/AMOUNT USE CONVERSION Feet Generation' RATIOXACTOR TOTAL: Total Density and Intensity and Trip Generation to Date Chart: Totals From Both Charts Above Total DUs/S.F./Rooms Trip Generation' Residential Commercial TOTAL ' This is the PM Peak Hour Unadjusted Trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for the specific land use conversion. DU: dwelling unit S.F.: square feet "Example" Land Use Conversion/Trip Generation Tracking Chart: From To Converted Trip Units/Square USE/AMOUNT USE CONVERSION Feet Generation' RATIOXACTOR Multi-family/100 DU's Hotel 0.8 80 hotel rooms to be calculated General Office/40,000 S.F. Retail 290 S.F. Office per 11,600 S.F. retail (to be calculated) 1000 S.F. Retail TOTAL: Page 28 of 28 H:\2016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\1-12-2018\Mini-Triangle MPUD (PUDZ-PL20160003054) 1-12-2018.docx 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 3 Growth Management Department Zoning Division C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M To: Eric Johnson, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: January 23, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review of Mini Triangle PUDZ PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20160003054 [REV: 5] PETITION NAME: Mini Triangle Mixed Use Planned Unit Development REQUEST: This petition requests a rezone of a ±5.35-acre property from the C-4 General Commercial Zoning District and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Development (GTMUD-MXD) Zoning Overlay District to the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District to allow up to 210 multi-family dwelling units (with a maximum of up to 400 multi-family dwelling units through conversions of other uses) with associated amenities such as recreational uses, open spaces, parking, and temporary sales facilities; 152 hotel suites (with a maximum of up to 200 hotel units through conversions of other uses) ; 74,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, movie theater, and personal services and up to 60,000 square feet of professional or medical offices (with a combined retail and office maximum of 200,000 square feet through conversions of other uses); plus, accessory uses of caretaker’s residence, temporary display of merchandise, and customary accessory uses and structures to commercial development including parking structures, gazebos, fountains, trellises, and similar structures. Additional potential uses could be developed only through the application of the Land Use Conversion Matrix and could include a maximum of 150 assisted living facility units, a maximum of 60,000 square feet of indoor air- conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage, a maximum of 30,000 square feet of new car dealership, and any other comparable principal uses. In the proposed MPUD Document, Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses, D. Land Use Conversion Factors contains a table that may be used to convert from one allowable use to another just as long as the uses do not exceed the maximum total daily trips of 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips. To ensure that this development remains mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi-family residential uses and a combination of 30,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office, or other allowable commercial uses shall be developed, regardless of any conversion allowances. Converted uses may result in an increase in the maximum units, square footages, and/or densities stated in the Principal Uses. Because this MPUD allows converting one land use to another, the final uses that may be constructed as a part of this project will be unknown at the time of the approval of the PUD. Submittal 5 includes a specific trigger at which point no further permits would be issued to the developer until the minimums for mixed use are developed (the last undeveloped tract on the PUD Master Plan). The companion Growth Management Plan amendment petition includes a requirement for the PUD to include a trigger to insure the PUD develops as mixed use. 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 3 LOCATION: The property, made up of six parcels, is on the south side of Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and the eastern boundary is located approximately 550 feet east from the intersection of those two roads, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Overlay; Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and within the “mini triangle” of that Overlay as shown on the Future Land Use Map 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); however, the B/GTRO allows up to 12 DU/A for mixed use projects to encourage redevelopment within this overlay. The “mini triangle” is identified in the B/GTRO as a catalyst project for spurring redevelopment with greater density and intensity allowing for greater flexibility in site design and development standards. This PUD proposes 210 multi-family dwelling units, 152 hotel suites, up to 74,000 square feet of commercial, and 60,000 square feet of office. The 210 multi-family dwelling units calculates to a density of approximately 39 DU/A, (210 DUs ÷ 5.35 A = 39.25 DU/A). Should the developer apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total of 400 multi-family dwelling units, this would calculate to a density of approximately 75 DU/A, (400 DUs ÷ 5.35 A = 74.77 DU/A). The 152 hotel suites translate to a density of 28 units per acre, (152 Units ÷ 5.35 A = 28.41 units/acre). Should the developer apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total of 200 hotel units, this would translate to a density of 37 units per acre, (200 Units ÷ 5.35 A = 37.38 units/acre). The existing future land use designations do not allow all of the uses and densities proposed in this PUD. However, there is a companion GMP Amendment and petition to establish a Subdistrict on this site. This PUD must be consistent with that proposed Subdistrict. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold italicized text]. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.] 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 has frontage on two arterial roads; Tamiami Trail East abuts the Mini Triangle site along the south side and Davis Blvd. abuts the site along the north side. The application’s “Subject Site Exhibit ‘C’ Master Plan” depicts a connection to both arterial roadways.] 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. [The application’s “Subject Site Exhibit ‘C’ Master Plan” depicts a road that will help circulate vehicles throughout the property.] 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 application’s “Subject Site Exhibit ‘C’ Master Plan” depicts a ‘potential’ interconnect to the adjoi ning properties to the east and the west.] 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3 Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The Master Plan does not show sidewalks, but the PUD does not include sidewalks in “Exhibit ‘E’ Mini Triangle MPUD List of Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC),” therefore, provision of sidewalks will be consistent with LDC. Exhibit ‘C’ includes an open space table showing that the amount of open space acreage (0.8 acres) provided is equal to the required open space. The blend of densities, civic facilities, and range of housing prices and types were not addressed in this application.] Please note the Mini Triangle MPUD petition is contingent upon approval of the companion small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL-20160003084/CPSS-2016-3. The companion petition is currently seeking to amend the Future Land Use Element [FLUE] by establishing the Mini Triangle Subdistrict in order to allow a high density and intensity catalyst project to spur redevelopment. Consistency with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan will be contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP amendment being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment. Review of PUD Document • Exhibit ‘E’ List of Deviations from LDC, Architectural Standards: o 1. Please reword this deviation (especially the words “without restriction”), it is not consistent with the agreement between staff and the applicant to establish a “trigger” for ensuring a mixed use project. This deviation is also listed on Exhibit C, Subject Site Master Plan “Schedule of Deviations”. CONCLUSION This rezone petition may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section PUDZ-PL2016-3054 Mini Triangle R5dw.docx p 0 200 400 600100 Feet Ha rb or LN Curtis STHo l id ay LN Frederick STKirk wo o d AV E Cl ark CT Li n w o o d WAY Monroe AVE Zoning: RSF-4 Zoning: CITY OF NAP LES Zoning: RMF -6 Zoni ng: C-4-GTMUD-MXD Zoning: C-4-GTMUD-MXD Zoni ng: C-5-GTMUD-MXD D av is BLV D Tamiami TRL E 5th AVE S GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) FOR MINI TRIANGLE MPUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ³ SUBJECT PROPERT Y:Min i Trian gle MPUD Density:12 (only as a mixed use project) RSF-3 RMF-6-GRMUD-R Densit y:4 Density:3 Density:6 Density:12 (only as a mixed use project) Density:6 RMF-6 Den sity :6 Densit y:12 (only as a mixed use project) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA •Bayshore Beautification MSTU // Haldeman Creek MSTU A ends item 4d--ll�ovember 7 2017 rneefin2 minutes BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2017 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman, Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00 p.m. at the Government Center, 3339 Tamiami Trl E, 5th Floor Training Room. I. Roll Call: Advisory Board Members Present: Maurice Gutierrez, Peter Dvorak, Karen Beatty, Mike Sherman Steve Main, Ron Kezeske, Shane Shadis and Larry Ingram. CRA Staff Present: Shirley Garcia, Operations Coordinator, CRA; Tami Scott, Senior Project Mgr., Tim Durham, County Managers Office and Debrah Forester, CRA Director. II. Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Gutierrez. III. Adoption of Agenda: A motion to approve the amended agenda was made by Peter Dvorak second by Ron Kezeske. Passed Unanimously. IV. Adoption of Minutes: not available at this meeting. V. Community/ Business Presentations: a. Gateway Triangle, Bob Where, FAICP Hole Montes Engineering: Bob went over the zoning changes and the small scale comp plan amendment they will be seeking fiom the County. He noted that they are continuing to work with staff on some minor revisions. The property will be a mixed-use catalyst project to ignite the Triangle area and they are requesting a few changes on the allowable uses to be able to market the property and to allow flexibility for the businesses interested in that location. Jerry Starkey went over some of the allowable use changes they are requesting that would meet the demands of the current market while enhancing the project in an upscale setting. Bob Mulhere provided an overview of the code deviations being requested. After discussion, Ron Kezeske made a motion to recommend approval of the item to the Board was made by, seconded by Shane Shadis and passed unanimously. b. Storage Facility, Elizabeth Fountain, JR Evans Engineering: This project will be located on Tamiami Trl E, the abandoned Klumsky plaza next to Luigi's Italian Restaurant. The storage facility is an approved use on the site, it will have a/c and carpeted floors with indoor storage units. The architectural t4- - �� -B&Orw Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA • Bayshore Beautification MSTU Haldeman Creek MSTU design will enhance the design of the building. Tami Scott noted that the project is approved under the current zoning and the developer is here for informational purposes only. c. Racetrac, Shadowlawn and US41, Sara McGowan, PM: Ms. McGowan went over the history of Racetrac, they have 6 stores in Collier County. The project location will require a distance waiver due to the proximity of the existing Gas Station on the corner of Bayshore and US41. They spoke about their property on Palm and US41 and have decided to explore another site due to the neighboring residential owners opposing the station so close to their homes. They have stated they would abandon the idea of building their gas station on Palm if they are able to get the distance waiver on Shadowlawn�n& US41. The advisory board expressed concerns due to proximity of the elementary school as well as the amount of traffic that would increase on the street. The project manager is working with Collier County Transportation Department to ensure there will not have a negative impact on the street with traffic issues. They will submit to Hearing Examiner for Distance Waiver and site plan deviations in the first quarter of 2018. After discussion, the Committee requested that they come back to them once they finalize the traffic impacts before they make a recommendation on the development. VI. Old Business: a. Modifications of deed restrictions: Tami Scott introduced the item and explained the proposal before them is to consider modify the deed restriction to allow up to 96 months fiom the original purchase to get a certificate of occupancy for each home on the remaining vacant lots. Peter Starling, Esq. attended to provide information on the reasons for the extension to the restrictions on the deed. The Advisory Board members raised questions regarding ownership and questioned the additional time extension. Ron Kezeske recommended that the language on the deed be modified that was more detailed and descriptive to benefit the CRA and the Community. Maurice Gutierrez suggested assisting with the cost of the improved stoirawater that was just completed on Karen or additional sidewalks and/or streetlighting. Peter Dvorak made the motion on getting a legal opinion on who owns the lot and once determined to bring it back to the advisory board, Ron Kezeske second the motion. Passed Unanimously. b. Redevelopment Plan Update: CRA Director Debrah Forester went over the scope of services and the total costs of $142,730 for the redevelopment plan update and is recommending an approval to bring it back to the BCC(CRAB) at the December 12th meeting. Ron Kezeske made the motion to recommend approval to the BCC/CRAB of the fees and scope of work, Mike Sherman second the motion. Passed with one obstained. 2 Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA •Bayshore Beautification MSTU Haldeman Creek MSTU c. 17 Acre update: Tim Durham updated the advisory board that Minker officially withdrew their proposal and the other two developers will go before the BCC/CRAB on November 14th, time certain has not been identified yet. The item will be to request direction from the BCC/CRAB to move forward on negotiating with one or two developers simultaneously. d. Bayshore Drive Alternative Parking: Staff updated the Board with a design with 2 realistic parking areas that could be done in the middle of the street with removal of the median. The parallel parking would allow 10 spaces and angled parking would allow 19, with a 2 ft. landscape area on both ends. After much discussion the Board thanked staff for the research and will table this item to look at more options during the redevelopment plan update. VII. New Business: a. Grant extension request Western Bike Shop: The owner of the Western Bike shop attended to request an extension due to permitting and Hurricane delays in completing the renovations in the amount of time allowed under the grant terms. Ron Kezeske made a motion to approve the one year extension, Steve Main second. Passed Unanimously. VIII. Proiect Updates: Project Manager's Report: updates are in the agenda packets for informational purposes. IX. Correspondence and Communications: a. Letter of support to Mr. Turi: Staff did not hear back from the letter that was mailed. b. SHIP Disaster relief program- Brochure to assist community members with some disaster assistance. c. Art among the blossoms: Art event at Green Door Nursery Nov. 18th X. Advisory Board General Communications: Karen Beatty raised a concern regarding the mural approval and implementation process. The committee discussed items related to approval and how to enforce what was improved and how do you/can you regulate art. Questions raised include how do you enforcement completion date of a mural; should there be a "theme"; grant funding to assure quality. There have been some community comments made to the Advisory Board members that the murals are different than what was approved. The consensus of the board was to request that staff to review the process and to reach out to the businesses that have previously been approved and report back to the committee. XII. Citizen Comments: 3 Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA . Bayshore Beautification MSTU Haldeman Creek MSTU XIII. Next Meeting Date: December 5, 2017 at 6pm. XIV. Adjournment —The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Chairman Maurice Gutierrez 2 Tamiami TRL E FrederickSTTamiamiTRLEMini Triangle MPUD Lidar LIDAR 2007Feet 7.6 - 8 7.1 - 7.5 6.6 - 7 6.1 - 6.5 5.6 - 6 5.1 - 5.5 4.6 - 5 4.1 - 4.5 3.6 - 4 3.1 - 3.5 2.6 - 3 2.1 - 2.5 1.6 - 2 1.1 - 1.5 -9.4 - 1 *ALL GRADES NAVD ¹ Created by: GIS Team - GMDN12/2017 0 0.025 0.050.0125 Miles 4. 1:4apiyes Datill . . rwo NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 1895229 CPSS-2016-3 and PL20 Pub Dates January 26,2018 it iVt ela,1 Sign ture of affiant) 1 :;""`•,, KAROLEKANGAS l Or NotaryPudk-State ofFkrlda Sworn to and subscribed before me 1 cooaelsslon1GG126O41 , This January 26,2018 a;'-,P , ,c°""",,E,.,xpires;„9kat2021 Signature of affiant) NAPLESNEWS.COM I FRIDAY,JANUARY 26,2018 I 23A NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER Notice is hereby given that on Wednesday,February 7,2018,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,3rd Floor,BuildingORDINANCE(S) F," Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commiuion will hold a public meeting on February 15, Naples, Florida 34112,the Collier County Planning Commission, 2018,commencing a,,, TM. m the Board of County Commlesl°nere Chamber,Third Floor County Government sittingas the local planningagency and as the Environmental AdvisoryCOeer,3299 East Tamiami Trail.Naples,FL. 9 Y The purpose of the hearing ismconsider: Council, will consider an amendment to the Collier County Land Development Code.The meeting will commence at 5:05 p.m.The title AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,theproposed ordinance is as follows:FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.8A05,AS AMENDED.Tiff ofCOLLIERCOUNTYGROWTH SPECIFICALLYAPLAN THE FUTURTHE E LAND USE AR OFCOLLIERcANDD1FEM COUNTY,FLORIDA,SEE MPAN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COSTRUCTIONN OF UP TO ADDINGMAPSERIESBYRESIDENTIAL-DWEEILING UNITS,MIXED s!OSUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW,00OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE SQUAREFEET OFGROR AREAOFCOXNIERCIAL RETAIL USES ANDUPT060,em SQUARE NUMBER 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND FEET OF GROSS FLOOROR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USPS,ALL WITH CONVERSIONS; PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE EASTIN SECffnOCORNERII,,TOWNsl 50 SOUTHRANGON E25EAST,BOULEVARDTINGO 413 ACRES; ANILAMI ND LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BY PROVIDING FOR:SECTION ONE,FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE IPL20160003084/CPSS.201631 RECITALS;SECTION TWO,FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE, a ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AN ORDINANCE of THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWER COUNTY, CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: FLORIDAG ORDINANCE No.200441,AS ENDED THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND CHAPTER ONE-GENERAL PROVISIONS,INCLUDING SECTION DEVELOPMENTENT CODE, AMWHICHESTABLISHEDTHECOMPREHENSIVEZONINGREGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING TIE 1.08.02 DEFINITIONS;CHAPTER TWO-ZONING DISTRICTS AND APPROPAPRIATEZONING CHANGIZONINGHERMDESCBDRELPROPERTYFROGEAL COMMERCIAL DISTIICiUSES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.03 COMMERCIAL ZONING THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY DISTRICTS,SECTION 2.03.04 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,tc-4GINIUD.ULRD1 ZONING DISTRICT TOA MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIXEDUSESUBDISTRICTOFTHEGATEWAYTIU.GLEMIXEDUSEDISTRICTOVERLAY(APUD- SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION AALOWW COONNSTRRUCTIONIOFRUPP TCT OSIB PROJECT KNOWNDWWELLINNGG 1 IS,152 HGLE OTEL SUITES, S, 2.03.08 RURAL FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS;CHAPTER THREE UP To 74,006 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND ane - RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION 3.05.07TO60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES,ALL WITH CONVERSIONS;PROVIDING FOR MAXNIUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET,ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON PRESERVATION STANDARDS;CHAPTER FOUR-SITE DESIGN THE INSECTI CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND I'S TRAILEASTSECTIONII,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01 ANDYACE,PRVIDINGPai"coNDInoNAL USE RESOLUTIONS:BPROVIDINGATE216wwaDIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.02.03 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FERAICT FOR LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, LIGATION SECTION 4.02.04 STANDARDS FOR CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL 0 DESIGN,SECTION 4.02.06 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN 8. `+,, sAIRPORT ZONES,SECTION 4.02.14 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DAVIS BLVD g DEVELOPMENT IN THE ST AND ACSC-ST DISTRICTS,SECTION 4, a 4.03.04 LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT;CHAPTER SIX w4„ INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC tFACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 6.01.05e pp,\ SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN; CHAPTER N NINE-VARIATIONS FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS,INCLUDING SECTION 9.03.03 TYPES OF NONCONFORMMES, SECTION All interested,partiesionesi 00GMo ZZppooeennaarr be heard.Copies a the proposed ORDINANCE(SI will be made 9.04.04 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR AFTER-THE- NAples,betweenthoho0heM M.and5i40iPM)MuMeyihroughMAYFurtherm«Rao,° them"aiarllswllil`>a FACT ENCROACHMENT;CHAPTER TEN-APPLICATION,REVIEW, ode available for inspection at the collier County clerk's Office,Fourth Floor collier County Government center, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES,INCLUDING SECTION3299EastTamiamiTrail,Suite 401 Naples o k prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GED Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning section.Written 10.01.02 DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRED,SECTION 10.02.09misfiledwiththeClerktotheBoard's Office prior to February 15,2018,wit be read and considered at the public nearing. REQUIREMENTS FORTEXT AMENDMENTSTOTHELDC,SECTION 8e person decides to appeal any deciEon made by the Collier Cowry Planning Commission with respect to any 10.02.13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD)PROCEDURES, matter comidened at such meeting or nearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he SECTION 10.03.06 PUBUC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGSyneedtoensurethataverbatimrecordoftheproceedingsismatte,which record includes the teslimorry andmayevidence FOR LAND USE PETITIONS; SECTION FOUR, ADOPTION OF n you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation In order to participate in this proceeding,you AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY OFFICIAL ZONING are entitled,at no cast to you,m the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier county Facilities ATLAS, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING:Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 341123356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted!atoning devices Es the hearing impaired are available in the Boas ZONING MAP NUMBERS 522930,2033N,2033S,2034N,2034S TO of County Commissioners Office. REMOVE THE ACSC DESIGNATION FOR CONSISTENCY WITH cP.CuM'PnnlieroulanigCommission THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN;SECTION FIVE,CONFLICT January28,2018 ND-1895229 AND SEVERABILITY;SECTION SIX,INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;AND SECTION SEVEN, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING EFFECTIVE DATE. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER Location of amendments to allowed uses: AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby gives that a public hearing will be held by the County County Ylae,cor, CRONE Cw,rO Commission(CCPC)at 9:00 A.M.,February 15,2018,in the Board of County Commissioners PI°`tea Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail.Naples i• FL.,to consider 8,1M110WI AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER II•I:COUNTY,AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-20.AS AMENDED, lli iw;ITHE FLORIDA.FL ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUG), 1 ALLOW UP TO TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS AN ALTERNATIVE Si TO COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL/ MIXED USE AREA OF THE PUD:AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, r..` FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOODLAND DRIVE(C.R. a 892),APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SAN MARCO ROAD(C.R. 92),IN SECTION 18,TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH.RANGE 27 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.[PUDA-PL20160000087]. Location of amendments to Official Zoning Atlas: u ir o m LOCATION OF ZONING i ATLAS CHANGE Sen Marco RD jNbili ci i :1 4!.. i) O PROJECT 1 l. oglIOZICATIONcOi i 1'/';('''.. 1, c,- tiL Gwc s r) All interestedpsparties are is are to appearle and be heard.Copies of thestheproposedamendmentsareavailableforpublicinspectioninthe All interested parties are invited toappear and beheard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE Zoning and Land Development Review Section,Growth Management will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office.Fourth Floor,Collier Department,2800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida,between County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday. to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Furthermore,materials will be made available for inspection at the Services Section,prior to February,15,2018. Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Suite 401,Collier County If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County PlauniBR Cmmimien Government Center,East Naples,one week prior to the scheduled with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of hearing, that proceeding.and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost is to he based. to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the If you arca person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate Collier County Facilities Management Division,at 3335 Tamiami Trail in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing Trail East,Suite 101.Naples.FL 34112.5356.(2391 25241380,at lease two days prior to the impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioner's Office. meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman Mark Strain.Chairman January 26,2018 ND-1883723 January 26,2018 ND-1897588 .,,m," COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department January 26, 2018 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on February 15, 2018, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLL IER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-4-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANN ED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (MPUD-GTMUD-MXD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 210 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, 152 HOTEL SUITES, UP TO 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND UP TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES, ALL WITH CONVERSIONS; PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET, ON PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 5.35± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160003054] You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing. NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE W RITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW, A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLIC ABLE. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitle d, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. P lease contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are avail able in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the staff member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, Eric Johnson Eric Johnson Principal Planner Tamiami TRL E Bayshore DR5th AVE SGoodlette-Frank RD SDavis BLVD X2.1 X2 À1 À3 À1 À2 X222 À4À17 À1 À2 À19 À1 À9 À18 À42 À11 À16À1.1 À33 À31 À12À12.1 À12 À5.1À5 À14 À13 À37 À38 À39À35 À12À15 À16 À9 X32 X15 X11X12 X15.2 X12.4 X12.3X12.2 X13 X12.1À2À1À19 À16À14À12 À65.1 À30À32 À1À1 À65 À63 À33 À35À58 À56 À5 X15 À4 X14 À49.1 À50 X13 À35.1 TRACTTRACT 2 189 178 11 167 15612 13 145 34 32 1110987 313064 6362 6 6160 59 5 3358 353457 56 525150 321 4321 TRAC T E 1 5 201918176 7 218 23 24 25 26229 10 31323433 2728293011 TRACT "D"434241 13 14 44 13 15 38 403935 45 12 16 11 10 PH 3 PH 4 32A 33A 34A 43A42A41A40A 4 10 LE CENTREOFF FIFTH LANDCONDOMINIUM 555453 12 3736 32 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 3 35A PINE STCLARK ST BROOKSIDE DRIVECOMMERCIAL DRUS 41 AVENUE AFIRST ST AVENUE BV PU V V CU CU SV RSF-4 C-4-GTMUD-MXD C-5-GTMUD-MXD RSF-3 RMF-6 CITY OFNAPLES CITY OFNAPLES C-4-GTMUD-MXD C-4-GTMUD-MXD RMF-6-GTMUD-R Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL20160003054 PROJECTLOCATION SITELOCATION ¹ 1 JohnsonEric From:Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com> Sent:Monday, February 05, 2018 9:07 AM To:JohnsonEric Cc:Robin Singer Subject:Mini Triangle Project Eric, one more comment from a transportation perspective: There are concerns as to the density of the project and traffic impacts, particularly upon US 41 and intersecting streets within downtown Naples. The typical method (used by State and County) is to consider a new project for the average time of year (or 100th or 200th highest hour). To do this, standard adjustments are made to traffic data. The City just completed a downtown mobility study that determined seasonal traffic conditions were 20% higher than FDOT standard adjustments. For planning purposes, the City has been looking at peak season and maintaining levels of service during this particular time. This is, of course, a more conservative approach than how FDOT and Collier County consider level of service impacts; but the more conservative approach works to insure that a road segment doesn’t fail any time of year. The City strongly urges the County to apply a conservative approach to the traffic analysis to minimize the chance for level of service failure at any point during the year by the project. Gregg 1 JohnsonEric From:Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com> Sent:Friday, February 02, 2018 11:52 AM To:Robin Singer; JohnsonEric Cc:Roger Reinke; Bill Moss; Alison Bickett; Andrew Holland Subject:RE: Mini Triangle staff report Eric, Robin, Additional comments from City transportation review: 1. Sidewalks surrounding the project are specified at 5-foot along US41 and no less than 5-foot along Davis Blvd. Additionally there is outdoor dining proposed along sidewalks. Based on this Department’s prior reviews of projects with minimum sidewalk widths of 5-feet, and particularly where outdoor dining is available, 5-feet is insufficient and does not provide comfortable walkability for a development that is designed to reduce vehicle trips by its mixed use zoning. City staff has found that outdoor dining encroaches into pedestrian walkways and can impede pedestrian mobility. Wider sidewalks are recommended. 2. The project access points do not provide for right-in turns lanes into the site. In regards to right-in turn lanes, an engineer allocates vehicle trips to access points based on professional judgment. The threshold for a turn lane on US41 is missed by 12 vehicles out of a total of 388 total vehicles entering the site in the peak hour. Without the deduction for pass-by and internal capture, the p.m. peak total entering the site would be 447. The need for a turn lane on US41 is just below the minimum threshold. This may result in a diminished level of service for US41 and Davis Blvd., however it is noted that this section of US41 is in a transportation concurrency exception area, meaning that level of service impacts do not apply to this roadway segment. From a safety perspective, vehicles slowing down or backing up within the outside travel lane of Davis and US41 may create a higher potential for rear-end collisions from vehicles travelling 45 MPH and then having to slow down and adjust to turning vehicles. It is noted that this condition generally exists along both roadways at this time. 3. Turn lanes or bus pull-out loading areas created outside of vehicle through lanes are frequently used by transit buses for drop-off and pick-up. The existing bus stop is located within the 45 MPH travel lane of US41, a less than desirable condition. A bus pull-out or turn-lane is recommended. Gregg From: Robin Singer Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 10:09 AM To: Bill Moss <bmoss@naplesgov.com> Cc: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>; Bob Middleton <RMiddleton@naplesgov.com>; Allyson Holland <AMHolland@naplesgov.com>; Pete DiMaria <pdimaria@naplesgov.com>; Thomas Weschler <tweschler@naplesgov.com>; Craig Mole <CMole@naplesgov.com>; Roger Jacobsen <rjacobsen@naplesgov.com>; Roger Reinke <rreinke@naplesgov.com> Subject: FW: Mini Triangle staff report Bill, 2 I have previously distributed plans for this project in the County. They are again asking for any comments from the City. Robin From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov] Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 9:14 AM To: Robin Singer <RSinger@naplesgov.com> Cc: BosiMichael <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Mini Triangle staff report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Robin, Good morning. I wanted to reach out to you one last time. Attached is the proposed ordinance for the rezoning petition for the Mini-Triangle project. This petition will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 15. If you want to add any comment or narrative to the staff report on behalf of the City of Naples, now is the time act. We’ll be going to print early next week. Thanks! Respectfully, Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner - Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive North, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.2931 Fax: 239.252.6503 Note: Email Address Has Changed Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.org Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 JohnsonEric From:Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com> Sent:Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:31 PM To:JohnsonEric Cc:OrthRichard; Andrew Holland Subject:RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) Hi Eric, Please consider the following comments: The receiving water body that will receive the project stormwater discharge (through standard stormwater conveyance systems) is Naples Bay. Naples Bay is an impaired water body and sites discharging to impaired water bodies are required to provide 50% more stormwater quality treatment than sites not discharging to an impaired water body. The City recommends that the site’s water management system provide this additional water quality treatment, as should be required by the SFWMD. Assuming this project applies for an Environmental Resource Permit through the District, City staff will monitor its progress and review submittals specifically for the additional water quality treatment requirement. Discharged into or through the US-41 or Davis Blvd rights-of-way should be review by FDOT as those roads are designated State roadways. City staff also urges the use of pervious pavements throughout the project. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Gregg Strakaluse, P.E. Director-Streets & Stormwater Department City of Naples, FL 239-213-5003 From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:07 PM To: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com> Cc: OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Gregg. Do you want to add any stormwater narrative from the City’s perspective to the County’s staff report for the Mini-Triangle PUDZ? The below was provided to me by Richard Orth from the County, who is the stormwater reviewer for these types of rezoning petitions. I copied Richard in case you needed to have a discussion. Drainage: The proposed PUDZ request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project’s stormwater management system uses stormwater best management practices. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff 2 will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. From: JohnsonEric Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 1:38 PM To: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com> Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) I should be thanking you. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. From: Gregg Strakaluse [mailto:gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 1:38 PM To: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) Thanks much Eric! From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 12:54 PM To: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com> Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks for responding, Gregg. I honestly don’t know if FDOT provided any comments. I would have to defer Michael Sawyer, who works as a Transportation Planner for the County. Mike’s phone number is 239-252-2926. With respect to stormwater, Richard Orth was our reviewer for this project. Richard can be reached at 239-252- 5092. Attached is the TIS you requested. Let me know if you need anything else. Much appreciated! 3 Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. From: Gregg Strakaluse [mailto:gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:15 AM To: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>; Bob Middleton <RMiddleton@naplesgov.com> Cc: Robin Singer <RSinger@naplesgov.com> Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) Thanks Eric, I’ll take a look at stormwater. From a traffic perspective, has FDOT provided any comments about LOS impacts on US41 from the project? Could I get a copy of the TIS? Gregg From: JohnsonEric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:15 AM To: Bob Middleton <RMiddleton@naplesgov.com> Cc: Gregg Strakaluse <gstrakaluse@naplesgov.com>; Robin Singer <RSinger@naplesgov.com> Subject: FW: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bob, It was nice talking to you this morning about the Mini-Triangle PUDZ. Attached are PDFs associated with the applicant’s latest submittal. Please review and let me know if you have any concerns. This petition is scheduled for public hearing on February 15, 2018, and I am nearly finished with my staff report to the Planning Commission. I was wondering if you could provide me with your input. Eric Fey works with the County’s Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, and he says potable water will be served from the City of Naples. He defers to you. The below excerpts are from my staff report. Please review for accuracy and add a sentence or two regarding potable water of you’d like. Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure within and adjacent to the property, and sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be evaluated at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review and must be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project 4 will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance. In the Adequate Public Facilities Letter dated March 27, 2017, the City of Naples has stated likewise concerning water distribution system improvements necessary to serve this project. When evaluating each petition, I am also tasked with responding to the below criteria. I’ll need your input on these… 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject site fronts on Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard. Wastewater collection mains are readily available within the Tamiami Trail East right-of-way and extending into the property from Commercial Drive, and there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed PUD. Staff does not have concerns about drainage provided that all future development will comply with the requirements of the SFWMD. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Developer sponsored upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system will be needed to accommodate the proposed development. The scope of system improvements will be determined at the time of SDP or PPL permit review. I am copying Gregg Strakuluse to keep him in the loop. Richard Orth is the County stormwater reviewer for rezoning petitions, and he already gave me his narrative and responses for the staff report. Gregg, feel free to review and provide comment if you’d like. There is also a drainage component to criterion #1 above. Drainage: The proposed PUDZ request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project’s stormwater management system uses stormwater best management practices. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Thanks, guys! Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. From: FeyEric Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 2:48 AM To: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov> 5 Cc: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) Eric, Coordinate with the City of Naples regarding water service. As for wastewater service, I suggest the following responses to the criteria: 1. Wastewater collection mains are readily available within the Tamiami Trail East right-of-way and extending into the property from Commercial Drive, and there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed PUD. 7. Developer sponsored upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system will be needed to accommodate the proposed development. The scope of system improvements will be determined at the time of SDP or PPL permit review. Here is my suggested narrative: Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure within and adjacent to the property, and sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be evaluated at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review and must be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance. In the Adequate Public Facilities Letter dated March 27, 2017, the City of Naples has stated likewise concerning water distribution system improvements necessary to serve this project. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E. Senior Project Manager Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division Continuous Improvement NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-5361 Phone: 239.252.1037 Cell: 239.572.0043 From: JohnsonEric Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:46 AM To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle PUDZ (water sewer) 6 Eric, I’m not sure how to respond to these criteria. Is the below acceptable to you as it relates to your discipline? 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject site fronts on Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard. Staff does not have concerns about drainage provided that all future development will comply with the requirements of the SFWMD. Confirmed by Rick Orth Water and wastewater transmission mains are readily available within the Tamiami Trail East and David Boulevard rights-of-way, and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed MPUD. However, the applicant will be required to make the necessary upgrades to the mains at the time of SDP or PPL (see Recommendation on page x of this staff report). Eric Fey to confirm … 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subject property and surrounding area is located within a redevelopment area of the County. Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater service is available to the site and surrounding area. However, with respect to wastewater, the County does not possess the collection capacity to service the project without the applicant making the necessary upgrades to the gravity sewer system directly adjacent to their site. The evaluation of the infrastructure and necessary upgrades will occur at the time of SDP or PPL (see Recommendation on page x of this staff report). Eric Fey to confirm … RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of XXXX contingent upon the following: 1. Any landscaping proposed within the Tamiami Trail East and David Boulevard rights-of-way require approval from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2. The language for Deviation #2 on sheet 3 of 3 of Exhibit C shall be the same as that in Exhibit E. 3. Eric Fey to provide. In advance, thanks! 7 Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. From: JohnsonEric Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 4:04 PM To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; SummersDan <Daniel.Summers@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Lockhart, Amy' <lockha@collierschools.com>; ShawinskyPeter <Peter.Shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov>; BeardLaurie <Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: DeselemKay <Kay.Deselem@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ)2 These are included as well. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. From: JohnsonEric Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 3:08 PM To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>; OrthRichard <Richard.Orth@colliercountyfl.gov>; SummersDan <Daniel.Summers@colliercountyfl.gov>; 'Lockhart, Amy' <lockha@collierschools.com>; ShawinskyPeter <Peter.Shawinsky@colliercountyfl.gov>; BeardLaurie <Laurie.Beard@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: DeselemKay <Kay.Deselem@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: FW: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ) Good afternoon. Attached is the latest submittal for the Mini-Triangle PUDZ. You weren’t included in the review queue for this submittal because you didn’t have comments from the previous submittal. This submittal is on a 5-day review because the petition is scheduled for CCPC on February 15. Feel free to review the attached and let me know if you have any issues by next Friday (January 19). I’ll need Summer’s, Richard’s, and Eric’s narrative for the staff report by Monday, January 22. In advance, thank you. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. From: SernaBritoAlma Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:46 PM 8 To: bobmulhere@hmeng.com; stephaniekarol@hmeng.com Cc: JohnsonEric <Eric.Johnson@colliercountyfl.gov>; SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov>; MoxamAnnis <Annis.Moxam@colliercountyfl.gov>; FaulknerSue <Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov>; MastrobertoThomas <Thomas.Mastroberto@colliercountyfl.gov>; AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>; SawyerMichael <Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>; BosiMichael <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov>; VelascoJessica <Jessica.Velasco@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ) Good afternoon, Re: Application acceptance for your project knows as: PL20160003054 - Mini Triangle (PUDZ) Please be aware this is a Minor Submittal it has a 5 business day review. Attention: Hole Montes, Inc. Robert Mulhere, FAICP Your application has been accepted and sent for processing. You can check for updates to your application online here: http://cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb/Planning/StatusReference?referenceNumber=PL20160003054. This email was sent from Collier County, FL - 2017.4 SP6. Thank you, Alma Serna Brito Project Coordinator, Client Services Growth Management Department Operations & Regulatory Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Client Services: 239.252.1036 Phone: 239.252.7344 How are we doing? The Operations & Regulatory Management Division wants to hear from you! Please take our online SURVEY. We appreciate your feedback! Before printing this email, assess if it is really needed. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. September 26, 2016 CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY 160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104-3568 ADMINISTRATION (239) 643-0733/ FAX 643-4084 OPERATIONS 643-0404/FAX 643-1791, E-MAIL administration@flynapies.com Mr. Jerry Starkey Chief Executive Officer Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther lane Naples, FL 34109 RE: Proposed Gateway Triangle Development Dear Mr. Starkey: Please accept this correspondence as the City of Naples Airport Authority's (NAA) modified position on the Real Estate Partners International, LLC (KEPI) proposed Gateway Triangle Development. The NAA's Board met on September 15, 2016 and discussed the issue in a public setting, considered staff and public comments, and by unanimous vote adopted the following revised policy regarding the proposed Gateway Triangle Development: The NAA will not object to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport (NMA) for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) contemplated in the Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: REPI shall grant the NAA a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants in a form acceptable to the NAA; provided, however, if REPI agrees to reduce the maximum height for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) to 150 feet, or less, above the established elevation of the NMA, then the NAA shall waive its requirement for a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants. • REPI shall provide in the declaration of condominium a disclosure approved by the NAA notifying all prospective purchasers of the proximity of the NMA and the common noises and disturbances incident thereto. NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Printed on Recycled Paper. �� The Best CGffle >AirpM in fhe Cmnfry Mr. Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, LLC September 26, 2016 Page 2 • REPI shall construct all buildings and other structures in the Gateway Triangle Development using noise attenuation techniques and materials. • The existing communications tower shall be relocated in a manner that does not adversely impact the safe and efficient use of NMA. • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of NMA. • Upon receipt of the FAA's determination or any other relevant due diligence, the Board will review the finding and determine whether any revisions to the policy are appropriate. Furthermore, the NAA will not object to any temporary crane used during the construction of the proposed Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for such temporary crane. • REPI shall adhere to all conditions stipulated by the FAA and coordinate as required with the NAA throughout construction. If REPI does not accept the NAA's policy, then the Board directs the Executive Director to make recommendations on available remedies. We look forward to working with you in hopes of developing an amiable compromise that protects the interests of the NAA, the aviation community and general public. Please continue to provide us with any information, in addition to the FAA's final determination, that is relevant to the NAA's policy regarding the proposed development. Sincerely, Christopher A. RLan Executive Director cc: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Bill Owens, Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, NAA Counsel LDCA-PL20160003642 – Mini-Triangle Page 1 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 STAFF REPORT TO:COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION; GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE:FEBRUARY 15, 2018 SUBJECT: LDCA-PL-20160003642, MINI-TRIANGLE ______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT/AGENT: Applicant:Agent: Real Estate Partners International, LLC Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP 1415 Panther Lane Hole Montes, Inc. Naples, FL 34109 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Land Development Code (LDC) amendment to Section 4.06.02 – Standards for Development in Airport Zones. This amendment applies to lands currently owned by the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed LDC Amendment is associated with a companion Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment (PL-20160003084), which creates a new “Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict” in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, and a companion Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) rezoning request (PL-20160003054). The proposed Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict is generally located at the intersection of U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard, and Commercial Drive in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: As stated in the application, this LDC Amendment request is intended to accomplish the following: AGENDA ITEM 9-D LDCA-PL20160003642 – Mini-Triangle Page 2 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 To expressly identify an exemption (applicable to the Mini Triangle project) to the LDC Airport Zone height limitations, generally utilizing the same format as was previously used to identify an exemption for the Marco Shores Golf Course Community, and to renumber/reformat the related paragraphs. The proposed LDC Amendment (see Attachment 1 – Application and LDC Amendment Request) establishes an exemption from the Standards for Development in Airport Zones for the proposed Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict in order to support the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Plan for a Catalyst project in the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area. The companion MPUD petition establishes maximum building heights which exceed the standards in LDC section 4.02.06 and the applicant seeks to add this exemption in the LDC to ensure there is no confusion regarding allowable building height for the project in the future. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: When reviewing LDC Amendments, LDC section 10.02.09 establishes that, “the LDC may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the consistency of the LDC with the Growth Management Plan.” Comprehensive Planning staff has found the proposed LDC Amendment to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County GMP, contingent upon the companion GMP Amendment being adopted and in effect. Accordingly, the LDC Amendment ordinance should have an effective date linked to the effective date of the GMP Amendment. STAFF ANALYSIS: When reviewing LDC Amendments, LDC Section 10.02.09 also establishes that, “amendments to the LDC may be made no more than twice during the calendar year.” No other LDC Amendments have been made this calendar year. While there are no other specific criteria applicable to LDC Amendments, Zoning staff considers a variety of legal issues, planning principles, internal consistency of the LDC, and other guidance when evaluating LDC Amendment requests. Staff considered issues related to building height and land use restrictions as described in the following sections, when reviewing the proposed LDC Amendment. Building height LDC Sections 4.02.06 A-K establish the maximum height for structures or obstructions within several “imaginary surfaces.” The proposed LDC Amendment eliminates the height limitations in these sections for the Mini-Triangle project. The proposed LDC Amendment seeks to clarify that once adopted, the MPUD will be the controlling regulation regarding maximum building height for the project. Additionally, all development within the County’s Airport Zones is required to notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In response, the FAA has issued a “Determination of No Hazard” for three proposed structures in the Mini-Triangle project. The “Determination of No Hazard” letters identify that the structures “would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would LDCA-PL20160003642 – Mini-Triangle Page 3 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 not be a hazard to air navigation.” Finally, the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) Board has also provided input on the project in a letter dated September 26, 2016, which states that the NAA Board will not object to the proposed project subject to several conditions (see Attachment 2). Finally, the proposed amendment to LDC Section 4.02.06 limits the scope of the exemption to that which is allowed by the FAA’s “Determination of No Hazard” or any subsequent letters and the height requirements of the proposed MPUD, both of which establish a maximum building height of 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Given that the maximum height for the project is established in the MPUD, the LDC Amendment is not necessary to achieve the applicant’s stated goal of allowing buildings taller than 150 feet. The inclusion of this exemption from LDC Section 4.02.06 does not create any conflict with any other LDC provision, and may provide additional clarity regarding the applicable standards throughout the life of the project. Therefore, staff has no objection to the proposed exemption from the LDC’s maximum height standards in LDC Sections 4.02.06 A-K. Land use restrictions LDC Section 4.02.06 M includes land use restrictions applicable to development within airport zones. Given that the requested exemption is limited to the height requirements within the section, the land use restrictions in LDC Section 4.02.06 M will still apply to the Mini-Triangle Project. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Collier County Code of Laws Section 2-1037 charges the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) with, “[providing] input to staff regarding the creation of new rules, processes and procedures associated with the development industry,” and with, “[reviewing] proposed ordinances and codes that may affect the community development and environmental services division prior to their submittal to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.” Accordingly, DSAC reviews and provides recommendations on all LDC Amendments prior to Board approval. The Development Services Advisory Committee-Land Development Review (DSAC-LDR) Subcommittee reviewed the petition on November 13, 2017, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment (with one abstention). The full DSAC reviewed the petition on December 6, 2017, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment (with one abstention). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on February 2, 2018. LDCA-PL20160003642 – Mini-Triangle Page 4 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition LDCA-PL20160003642 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1. Application and LDC Amendment Request 2. NAA Board letter of no objection "M HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way Naples, Florida 34110 -Phone 239.254.2000 • Fax: 239.254.2099 December 21, 2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY Paula J. Brethauer, Intake Project Coordinator Collier County Government Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Mini Triangle LDC Amendment Application HM File No.: 2016.052 Dear Ms. Brethauer: Attached please find all required submittal information for the above -referenced LDC Amendment Application. The Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) were established, in March of 2002. The Bayshore/Gateway area comprises approximately 1,800 acres. The CRA was established in order to breathe new economic life, in the form of private investment, in an area that was experiencing declining property values, and was suffering from inadequate infrastructure (such as, but not limited to stormryvater facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and connectivity, landscaping and street lighting, and so forth), The CRA funding comes primarily from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). In establishing this .CRA, the Board of County Commissioners intention was and is to utilize TIF funds to reinvest in the CRA, in the form of infrastructure improvements and in supporting private investment in the area. The objective is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. When this revitalization of the CRA as a desirable place to visit, live and work occurs, the taxpayer's investment is recouped through rising property values and increased ad Valorem tax dollar revenues. Often it takes years to accomplish these objectives. A strong economy can accelerate redevelopment and on the opposite end of the spectrum, an economic turndown or other factors (such as stringent inflexible development standards), singularly or in combination, can stymie a redevelopment initiative or bring it to a screeching halt. In December of 2015, Collier County issued a Request for Proposal with the intent of obtaining proposals from interested and qualified buyers for the County owned 5.35 acre mini triangle property. At a regularly schedule advertised public hearing, the CRA Board considered the qualified proposals and selected RE Partners International, LLC. Subsequently, a contract was formalized and executed. The contract was amended several times. The contract includes specific timelines and performances standards for both parties, and identifies allowable intensity and density. Both the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA Board (County Commission sitting. as the CRA Board) approved the conceptual development plan. The contract provides .for 21:0 multi -family residential units, 152 hotel units, 74,000 square feet or retail and personal service uses, and 60,000 square feet of office use. HA2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\PB 161221 Itr tr LDC Amendment Initial Submittal.doex Naples • Fort Myers Paula J. Brethauer, Intake Project Coordinator Re: Mini Triangle LDC Amendment Application HM File No.: 2016.052 December 21, 2016 Page 2 The next step is the entitlement process, which includes three companion petitions, a small scale GMPA, an MPUD rezone petition, and the attached LDC amendment application. The LDC amendment is necessary to clarify how height' will be measured for the Mini Triangle property. We enclose the following: ■ One (1) copy of the Cover Letter (this is the cover letter); s One (1) fee chock in the amount of $3,000; • One (1) _copy of Completed Land Development Code.Ainendmerit Application; • One (1) copy of -LDC Amendment Request; and • One (1) CD with all documents in pdf format. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES., INC. Y Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services RJM/sek Enclosures as noted. cc: Jerry Starkey w/enclosures Fred Pezeshkan w/enclosures Richard Grant, Esq. w/enclosures H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\PB 161221 Itr tr LDC Amendment Initial Submittal.doex COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net Co -r County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 APPLICATION,. FOR AMEN DM ENT _ O T low .. .:.....:.: DvEt®rnNdoor` . CDC Se'Ciiijri 10:0.2:€39 �:; , Otiof the Adh�ir�i ratiCdde: . C B . t kVA . PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME For Staff Use DATE PROCESSED P�.C.A'.C7NTATCN.tIVP RTICaI1R ` Name of Applicant: Robert J. Where, FAICP, Vice President Firm: Hole Montes, Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way Telephone: 239-254-2099 City: Naples state: FL ZIP: 34110 Cell: NSA Fax: 239-254-2099 E -Mail Address: bobmulhere@hmeng.com Please describe LDC amendment request on attached template 5 U. 81VI I TT'A L;:( E [QI l I RE.Np EIV T5.... See Chapter 2 B. of the Administrative Code for submittal requirements. ® Completed Application N Completed LDC Amendment Request (attached) Fee Requirements: N Amendment to the LDC: $3,000.00 All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners The completed application, all required submittal materials and the fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department/Development Review ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 6/5/2015 Page 1 of 2 Text underlined is new text to`he added. TeA Bold text Indicates a defined term LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST ORIGIN: Planning and Regulation Department, BCC Directed or Applicant AUTHOR: Individual who will appear before the Board and advisory committees to present the amendment request and is prepared to address questions. DEPARTMENT: AMENDMENT CYCLE: 20_,-, Cycle _ LDC PAGE: LDC 10:123-125 LDC SECTION(S): 1.O8.02 Definitions 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts. . 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD).Procedkjres IMPORTANT: Please be sure to identify each section of the e CSG tl at YOUla:ri �o change in any way (e.g. additions, deletions) to insure proper advertising of. he. {proposed chai7ges. CHANGE: Must be reviewed and revi96d-.as. necessary to.refl4kt cha;+ges to the amendment as requested by other staff and advisory board mem be1-s ` REASON: [see above] FISCAL & 0 P ERATI 0 NAL-. I M PACTS.-. RELATED CODES 4R REGULATIONS: GROWTH MANAGE.MENT.:PLAN:iMPACT: Discuss with Comprehensive Planning staff. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Please 'record date the amendment is created AND all subsequent dates on which the amendnie' nt is revi ed Amend the LDC as follows: This is where the actual LDC text changes begin. From this point on, the font changes to 11 -pt. Anill and the Code formatting outline begins. 6/5/2015 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST LDC Section(s): 4.02.061. Standards for Development in Airport Zones Author: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning Services Change: To expressly indentify an exemption (applicable to the Mini Triangle project) to the LDC Airport Zone height limitations, generally utilizing the same format as was previously used to identify an exemption for, the Marco Shores Golf Course Community, and to renumber/reformat the related paragraphs. This will ensure that anyone searching the LDC will be aware of this exemption. Reason: Assuming the GMPA and MPUD are approved by the BCC, the proposed amendments are necessary to: Reflect the height exemption (from the applicable Airport Zone building height limitations), so that anyone utilizing the LDC to determine limitations for properties with the designated "Airport Zones" would see that the Mini Triangle has a limited exemption (from the height limitations) and would then understand the need to review the referenced .ordinance number for the Mini Triangle MPUD to determine the exact nature of that exemption, These proposed LDC Amendment would receive final consideration and approval only after the proposed SSGMPA and MPUD are approved. Fiscal & Operational Impacts: There are no specific fiscal impacts or costs associated with the proposed LDC Amendments. However, if the property is developed as permitted under the Mini Triangle Subdistrict there will be, a significant return on the taxpayers investment in the CRA via increased tax receipts to the CRA .This is exactly the outcome desired as the end result of creating a CRA and investing an increment of property tax revenues to promote redevelopment and improvement in the CRA. Additionally, as was intended, development within the Mini Triangle wilt act as a catalyst for further investment and redevelopment in the lager Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Related Codes or Regulations: This LDC is submitted with companion petitions SSGMPA (PL-20160003084/CPSS) and MPUD (PI -20160003054) Growth Management Plan Impact: The proposed LDC Amendment is necessitated in the event the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and companion MPUD are approved). The proposed change is consistent with that subdistrict and with the overall GMP. Amend the LDC as follows: 4.02.06 - Standards for Development in Airport Zones L. Exemptions. 1. Development of the Marco Shores Golf Course Community that comports with the location and height requirements of Ordinance No. 81-6, as amended by Ordinance No. 85-56 and Ordinance No. 94-41, is exempted from the provisions of section 4.02.06 only to the following extent: Page 1 of 2 H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\2-2-2018\LDC Amendment (2-2-2018).doex 50 a_4 -_The agreement between Johnson Bay Development Corporation Collier 51 County Airport Authority and the BCC, dated August 8, 1995. 52 b_2_Prior issuance of a Federal Aviation Administration "Determination Of No 53 Hazard To Air Navigation." 54 2. Development of the Mini -Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban Desi nation 55 Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan that comports with height 56 requirements of Ordinance 2017- is exempted from the height provisions of 57 section 4.02.06 only to the following extent: 58 a. Prior issuance of a Federal Aviation Administration "Determination Of No Hazard To 59 Air Navigation", including such letters dated January 1 2017 or subsequent letters 60 addressing structures within the }Mini -Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban 61 Designation, Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan. Page 2 of 2 H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\2-2-2018\LDC Amendment (2-2-2018).docx '•'�;`=,.•-.. •'::ALT Page 2 of 2 H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\2-2-2018\LDC Amendment (2-2-2018).docx September 26, 2016 CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY 160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104-3568 ADMINISTRATION (239) 643-0733/ FAX 643-4084 OPERATIONS 643-0404/FAX 643-1791, E-MAIL administration@flynapies.com Mr. Jerry Starkey Chief Executive Officer Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther lane Naples, FL 34109 RE: Proposed Gateway Triangle Development Dear Mr. Starkey: Please accept this correspondence as the City of Naples Airport Authority's (NAA) modified position on the Real Estate Partners International, LLC (KEPI) proposed Gateway Triangle Development. The NAA's Board met on September 15, 2016 and discussed the issue in a public setting, considered staff and public comments, and by unanimous vote adopted the following revised policy regarding the proposed Gateway Triangle Development: The NAA will not object to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport (NMA) for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) contemplated in the Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: REPI shall grant the NAA a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants in a form acceptable to the NAA; provided, however, if REPI agrees to reduce the maximum height for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) to 150 feet, or less, above the established elevation of the NMA, then the NAA shall waive its requirement for a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants. • REPI shall provide in the declaration of condominium a disclosure approved by the NAA notifying all prospective purchasers of the proximity of the NMA and the common noises and disturbances incident thereto. NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Printed on Recycled Paper. �� The Best CGffle >AirpM in fhe Cmnfry Mr. Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, LLC September 26, 2016 Page 2 • REPI shall construct all buildings and other structures in the Gateway Triangle Development using noise attenuation techniques and materials. • The existing communications tower shall be relocated in a manner that does not adversely impact the safe and efficient use of NMA. • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of NMA. • Upon receipt of the FAA's determination or any other relevant due diligence, the Board will review the finding and determine whether any revisions to the policy are appropriate. Furthermore, the NAA will not object to any temporary crane used during the construction of the proposed Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for such temporary crane. • REPI shall adhere to all conditions stipulated by the FAA and coordinate as required with the NAA throughout construction. If REPI does not accept the NAA's policy, then the Board directs the Executive Director to make recommendations on available remedies. We look forward to working with you in hopes of developing an amiable compromise that protects the interests of the NAA, the aviation community and general public. Please continue to provide us with any information, in addition to the FAA's final determination, that is relevant to the NAA's policy regarding the proposed development. Sincerely, Christopher A. RLan Executive Director cc: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Bill Owens, Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, NAA Counsel CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY 160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH• NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104-3568 A ADMINISTRATION(239) 643-0733/FAX 643-4084 OPERATIONS 643-0404/FAX 643-1791.E-MAIL administration@flynaples.com September 26, 2016 Mr. Jerry Starkey Chief Executive Officer Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther lane Naples, FL 34109 RE: Proposed Gateway Triangle Development Dear Mr. Starkey: Please accept this correspondence as the City of Naples Airport Authority's (NAA) modified position on the Real Estate Partners International,LLC(REPI)proposed Gateway Triangle Development. The NAA's Board met on September 15, 2016 and discussed the issue in a public setting, considered staff and public comments, and by unanimous vote adopted the following revised policy regarding the proposed Gateway Triangle Development: The NAA will not object to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport(NMA)for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) contemplated in the Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: • REPI shall grant the NAA a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants in a form acceptable to the NAA; provided,however, if REPI agrees to reduce the maximum height for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment)to 150 feet, or less, above the established elevation of the NMA, then the NAA shall waive its requirement for a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants. • REPI shall provide in the declaration of condominium a disclosure approved by the NAA notifying all prospective purchasers of the proximity of the NMA and the common noises and disturbances incident thereto. NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Primed on Recycled Pager�« jtiks#iiifte Altve#Ott Ole Counift.,•, Mr. Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, LLC September 26,2016 Page 2 • REPI shall construct all buildings and other structures in the Gateway Triangle Development using noise attenuation techniques and materials. • The existing communications tower shall be relocated in a manner that does not adversely impact the safe and efficient use of NMA. • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment)to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of NMA. • Upon receipt of the FAA's determination or any other relevant due diligence, the Board will review the finding and determine whether any revisions to the policy are appropriate. Furthermore, the NAA will not object to any temporary crane used during the construction of the proposed Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for such temporary crane. • REPI shall adhere to all conditions stipulated by the FAA and coordinate as required with the NAA throughout construction. If REPI does not accept the NAA's policy, then the Board directs the Executive Director to make recommendations on available remedies. We look forward to working with you in hopes of developing an amiable compromise that protects the interests of the NAA, the aviation community and general public. Please continue to provide us with any information,in addition to the FAA's final determination, that is relevant to the NAA's policy regarding the proposed development. Sincerely, Christopher A. R s y Executive Director cc: Nick Casalanguida,Deputy County Manager Bill Owens, Bond, Schoeneck&King PLLC,NAA Counsel Ann P. Jennejohn From: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39 AM To: FrantzJeremy Subject: Land Development Code Amendments Update Coter County Growth Management Department 2017/18 LDC Amendments Update Meeting Current Collier LDC News Releases Schedule Amendments Upcoming Public Dates CCPC Meeting Meetings to Discuss or Thursday 018 Review LDC Amendments ; March 1, 9:00 AMM Review CCPC Meeting BCC Meeting Tuesday ***Item continued from Feb 15, 2018*** March 13, 2018 Agenda (Item 9C) 9:00 AM Materials An LDC amendment to exempt the proposed Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict from the height provisions in Location LDC Section 4.02.06. ; 3289 Tamiami Trl. E. Collier County BCC Meeting Government Center 3rd Floor - Building F ***Agenda and materials available prior BCC Meeting Room to the meeting date*** Cottle?. County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION; GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2018 SUBJECT: LDCA-PL-20160003642, MINI-TRIANGLE APPLICANT/AGENT: Applicant: Agent: Real Estate Partners International, LLC Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP 1415 Panther Lane Hole Montes, Inc. Naples, FL 34109 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Land Development Code(LDC)amendment to Section 4.06.02—Standards for Development in Airport Zones. This amendment applies to lands currently owned by the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed LDC Amendment is associated with a companion Growth Management Plan(GMP) amendment (PL-20160003084), which creates a new "Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict" in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, and a companion Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) rezoning request (PL-20160003054). The proposed Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict is generally located at the intersection of U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard, and Commercial Drive in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: As stated in the application, this LDC Amendment request is intended to accomplish the following: LDCA-PL20160003642—Mini-Triangle Page 1 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 To expressly idents an exemption (applicable to the Mini Triangle project) to the LDC Airport Zone height limitations, generally utilizing the same format as was previously used to identify an exemption for the Marco Shores Golf Course Community, and to renumber/reformat the related paragraphs. The proposed LDC Amendment(see Attachment 1 —Application and LDC Amendment Request) establishes an exemption from the Standards for Development in Airport Zones for the proposed Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict in order to support the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Plan for a Catalyst project in the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area. The companion MPUD petition establishes maximum building heights which exceed the standards in LDC section 4.02.06 and the applicant seeks to add this exemption in the LDC to ensure there is no confusion regarding allowable building height for the project in the future. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: When reviewing LDC Amendments, LDC section 10.02.09 establishes that, "the LDC may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the consistency of the LDC with the Growth Management Plan." Comprehensive Planning staff has found the proposed LDC Amendment to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County GMP, contingent upon the companion GMP Amendment being adopted and in effect. Accordingly, the LDC Amendment ordinance should have an effective date linked to the effective date of the GMP Amendment. STAFF ANALYSIS: When reviewing LDC Amendments, LDC Section 10.02.09 also establishes that, "amendments to the LDC may be made no more than twice during the calendar year."No other LDC Amendments have been made this calendar year. While there are no other specific criteria applicable to LDC Amendments, Zoning staff considers a variety of legal issues,planning principles, internal consistency of the LDC, and other guidance when evaluating LDC Amendment requests. Staff considered issues related to building height and land use restrictions as described in the following sections, when reviewing the proposed LDC Amendment. Building height LDC Sections 4.02.06 A-K establish the maximum height for structures or obstructions within several"imaginary surfaces." The proposed LDC Amendment eliminates the height limitations in these sections for the Mini-Triangle project. The proposed LDC Amendment seeks to clarify that once adopted, the MPUD will be the controlling regulation regarding maximum building height for the project. Additionally, all development within the County's Airport Zones is required to notify the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). In response,the FAA has issued a"Determination of No Hazard" for three proposed structures in the Mini-Triangle project. The "Determination of No Hazard" letters identify that the structures "would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would LDCA-PL20160003642—Mini-Triangle Page 2 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 not be a hazard to air navigation." Finally, the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) Board has also provided input on the project in a letter dated September 26, 2016, which states that the NAA Board will not object to the proposed project subject to several conditions (see Attachment 2). Finally,the proposed amendment to LDC Section 4.02.06 limits the scope of the exemption to that which is allowed by the FAA's "Determination of No Hazard" or any subsequent letters and the height requirements of the proposed MPUD, both of which establish a maximum building height of 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Given that the maximum height for the project is established in the MPUD, the LDC Amendment is not necessary to achieve the applicant's stated goal of allowing buildings taller than 150 feet. The inclusion of this exemption from LDC Section 4.02.06 does not create any conflict with any other LDC provision, and may provide additional clarity regarding the applicable standards throughout the life of the project. Therefore, staff has no objection to the proposed exemption from the LDC's maximum height standards in LDC Sections 4.02.06 A-K. Land use restrictions LDC Section 4.02.06 M includes land use restrictions applicable to development within airport zones. Given that the requested exemption is limited to the height requirements within the section, the land use restrictions in LDC Section 4.02.06 M will still apply to the Mini-Triangle Project. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Collier County Code of Laws Section 2-1037 charges the Development Services Advisory Committee(DSAC)with,"[providing] input to staff regarding the creation of new rules,processes and procedures associated with the development industry," and with, "[reviewing] proposed ordinances and codes that may affect the community development and environmental services division prior to their submittal to the Board of County Commissioners for approval."Accordingly, DSAC reviews and provides recommendations on all LDC Amendments prior to Board approval. The Development Services Advisory Committee-Land Development Review (DSAC-LDR) Subcommittee reviewed the petition on November 13, 2017, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment(with one abstention). The full DSAC reviewed the petition on December 6, 2017, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment(with one abstention). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on February 2, 2018. LDCA-PL20160003642—Mini-Triangle Page 3 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition LDCA-PL20160003642 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1. Application and LDC Amendment Request 2. NAA Board letter of no objection LDCA-PL20160003642—Mini-Triangle Page 4 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 PREPARED BY: a/41Co- JMY . FRANTZ,LDC MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: U 8 MICHAEL BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: a (9-- -6 -/ MES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LDCA-PL20160003642—Mini-Triangle Page 5 of 5 2/5/18 CCPC Hearing Date 2/15/18 NMI HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS'PLANNERS•SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way•Naples,Florida 34110•Phone 239.254.2000•Fax:239.254.2099 December 21,2016 VIA HAND DELIVERY Paula J.Brethauer, Intake Project Coordinator Collier County Government Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Re: Mini Triangle LDC Amendment Application HM File No.: 2016.052 Dear Ms. Brethauer: Attached please find all required submittal information for the above-referenced LDC Amendment Application. The Baysliore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)were established in March of 2002.The Bayshore/Gateway area comprises approximately 1,800 acres. The CRA was established in order to breathe new economic life, in the form of private investment, in an area that was experiencing declining property values, and was suffering from inadequate infrastructure (such as, but not limited to stormwater facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and connectivity, landscaping and street lighting, and so forth), The CRA funding comes primarily from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). In establishing this .CRA, the Board of County Commissioners intention was and is to utilize TIF funds to reinvest in the CRA, in the form of infrastructure improvements and in supporting private investment in the area. The objective is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. When this revitalization of the CRA as a desirable place to visit, live and work occurs, the taxpayer's investment is recouped through rising property values and increased ad Valorem tax dollar revenues. Often it takes years to accomplish these objectives. A strong economy can accelerate redevelopment and on the opposite end of the spectrum, an economic turndown or other factors (such as stringent inflexible development standards), singularly or in combination,can stymie a redevelopment initiative or bring it to a screeching halt. In December of 2015, Collier County issued a Request for Proposal with the intent of obtaining proposals from interested and qualified buyers for the County owned 5.35 acre mini triangle property. At a regularly schedule advertised public hearing, the CRA Board considered the qualified proposals and selected RE Partners International, LLC. Subsequently, a contract was formalized and executed. The contract was amended several times. The contract includes specific timelines and performances standards for both parties, and identifies allowable intensity and density. Both the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA Board (County Commission sittingas the CRA Board) approved the conceptual development plan. The contract provides for 21:0 multi-family residential units, 152 hotel units, 74,000 square feet or retail and personal service uses,and 60,000 square feet of office use. H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\PB 161221 Itr tr LDC Amendment Initial Submittal.doex Naples•Fort Myers Paula J.Brethauer, Intake Project Coordinator Re: Mini Triangle LDC Amendment Application HM File No.: 2016.052 December 21,2016 Page 2 The next step is the entitlement process, which includes three companion petitions, a small scale GMPA, an MPUD rezone petition, and the attached LDC amendment application. The LDC amendment is necessary to clarify how height will be measured for the Mini Triangle property. We enclose the following: • One(1) copy of the Cover Letter(this is the cover letter); • One(1)fcc check in the amount of$3,000; • One(1) copy of Completed Land Development Code Amendment Application; • One(1) copy of.LDC Amendment Request; and • One(1)CD with all documents in pdf format. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES,INC. Robert J. Mulhere,FAICP Vice President,Planning Services RJM/sek Enclosures as noted. cc: Jerry Starkey w/enclosures Fred Pezeshkan w/enclosures Richard Grant,Esq.w/enclosures H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\PB 161221 Itr tr LDC Amendment Initial Submittal.docx Cokr County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239) 252-6358 .. . AP PLICATIbN FOR AMENDMENT TO O THE LAND*DEVELOPMENT CCIDE L'DC Section 10 02 09 Ch 2 B of theiAdministrative Code .''''.-V.1`4: PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME For Staff Use DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President Firm: Hole Montes, Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way City: Naples State: FL zip: 34110 Telephone: 239-254-2099 Cell: N/A Fax: 239-254-2099 E-Mail Address: bobmulhere@hmeng.com Please describe LDC amendment request on attached template SUBMITFAL-:R QUIREMENTS See Chapter 2 B.of the Administrative Code for submittal requirements. El Completed Application ® Completed LDC Amendment Request(attached) Fee Requirements: El Amendment to the LDC:$3,000.00 All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners The completed application, all required submittal materials and the fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department/Development Review ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 6/5/2015 Page 1 of 2 Text underlined Is new text to be added. • ' - . • -at to ire-deleted. Bold text Indicates a defined term LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST ORIGIN: Planning and Regulation Department,BCC Directed or Applicant AUTHOR:Individual who will appear before the Board and advisory committees to present the amendment request and is prepared to address questions. DEPARTMENT: AMENDMENT CYCLE:20_,Cycle_ LDC PAGE: LDC 10:123-125 LDC SECTION(S): 1.08.02 Definitions . ``,• 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development(PLiD) ioce urea v ' tl IMPORTANT: Please be sure to identify each section of the LOC-that you=-plan to change In any way (e.g. additions,deletions)to insure proper advertising of the proposed Changes.- .- CHANGE: Must be reviewed and revised aknecessary to reflect changes to the amendment as requested by other staff and advisory board members REASON: [see above] FISCAL&OPERATIONAL IMPACTS • RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: GROWTH MANAGEMENTAAN`IMPACT:Discuss with Comprehensive Planning staff. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE:Plea e'record date the amendment is created AND all subsequent dates on which the amendment is revised Amend the LDC as-follows:This is where the actual LDC text changes begin. From this point on, the font changes to 11-pt.Arial and the Code formatting outline begins. 6/5/2015 Page 2 of 2 1 1 LDC AMENDMENT REQUEST 2 3 LDC Section(s): 4.02.06.L. Standards for Development in Airport Zones 4 5 Author: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning Services 6 7 Change: To expressly indentify an exemption (applicable to the Mini Triangle project) to the 8 LDC Airport Zone height limitations, generally utilizing the same format as was previously used 9 to identify an exemption for, the Marco Shores Golf Course Community, and to 10 renumber/reformat the related paragraphs. This will ensure that anyone searching the LDC will 11 be aware of this exemption. 12 13 Reason: Assuming the GMPA and MPUD are approved by the BCC, the proposed 14 amendments are necessary to: 15 16 Reflect the height exemption (from the applicable Airport Zone building height limitations), 17 so that anyone utilizing the LDC to determine limitations for properties with the designated 18 "Airport Zones" would see that the Mini Triangle has a limited exemption (from the height 19 limitations) and would then understand the need to review the referenced ordinance number 20 for the Mini Triangle MPUD to determine the exact nature of that exemption, 21 22 These proposed LDC Amendment would receive final consideration and approval only after the 23 proposed SSGMPA and MPUD are approved. 24 25 Fiscal & Operational Impacts: There are no specific fiscal impacts or costs associated with the 26 proposed LDC Amendments. However, if the property is developed as permitted under the Mini 27 Triangle Subdistrict there will be a significant return on the taxpayers investment in the CRA via 28 increased tax receipts to the CRA .This is exactly the outcome desired as the end result of 29 creating a CRA and investing an increment of property tax revenues to promote redevelopment 30 and improvement in the CRA. Additionally, as was intended, development within the Mini 31 Triangle will act as a catalyst for further investment and redevelopment in the lager Bayshore 32 Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. 33 34 Related Codes or Regulations: This LDC is submitted with companion petitions SSGMPA 35 (PL-20160003084/CPSS) and MPUD (PI-20160003054) 36 37 Growth Management Plan Impact: The proposed LDC Amendment is necessitated in the 38 event the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and companion MPUD are approved). The proposed change 39 is consistent with that subdistrict and with the overall GMP. 40 41 Amend the LDC as follows: 42 43 4.02.06 -Standards for Development in Airport Zones 44 L. Exemptions. 45 46 1_Development of the Marco Shores Golf Course Community that comports with the 47 location and height requirements of Ordinance No. 81-6, as amended by Ordinance No. 48 85-56 and Ordinance No. 94-41, is exempted from the provisions of section 4.02.06 49 only to the following extent: Page 1 of 2 H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\2-2-2018\LDC Amendment(2-2-2018),docx 50 a__ The agreement between Johnson Bay Development Corporation Collier 51 County Airport Authority and the BCC, dated August 8, 1995. 52 b. 2_Prior issuance of a Federal Aviation Administration "Determination Of No 53 Hazard To Air Navigation." 54 2. Development of the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban Designation, 55 Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan that comports with height 56 requirements of Ordinance 2017- , is exempted from the height provisions of 57 section 4.02.06 only to the following extent: 58 a. Prior issuance of a Federal Aviation Administration "Determination Of No Hazard To 59 Air Navigation", including such letters dated January 1, 2017, or subsequent letters 60 addressing structures within the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban 61 Designation, Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan. Page 2 of 2 H:\2016\2016052\WP\LDCA\2-2-2018\LDC Amendment(2-2-2018).docx CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY 160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH• NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104-3568 A ADMINISTRATION(239) 643-0733/FAX 643-4084 OPERATIONS 643-0404/FAX 643-1791.E-MAIL administration@flynaples.com September 26, 2016 Mr. Jerry Starkey Chief Executive Officer Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther lane Naples, FL 34109 RE: Proposed Gateway Triangle Development Dear Mr. Starkey: Please accept this correspondence as the City of Naples Airport Authority's (NAA) modified position on the Real Estate Partners International,LLC(REPI)proposed Gateway Triangle Development. The NAA's Board met on September 15, 2016 and discussed the issue in a public setting, considered staff and public comments, and by unanimous vote adopted the following revised policy regarding the proposed Gateway Triangle Development: The NAA will not object to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of the Naples Municipal Airport(NMA)for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment) contemplated in the Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: • REPI shall grant the NAA a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants in a form acceptable to the NAA; provided,however, if REPI agrees to reduce the maximum height for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment)to 150 feet, or less, above the established elevation of the NMA, then the NAA shall waive its requirement for a recorded avigation easement, height restriction and/or covenants. • REPI shall provide in the declaration of condominium a disclosure approved by the NAA notifying all prospective purchasers of the proximity of the NMA and the common noises and disturbances incident thereto. NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Primed on Recycled Pager�« jtiks#iiifte Altve#Ott Ole Counift.,•, Mr. Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, LLC September 26,2016 Page 2 • REPI shall construct all buildings and other structures in the Gateway Triangle Development using noise attenuation techniques and materials. • The existing communications tower shall be relocated in a manner that does not adversely impact the safe and efficient use of NMA. • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for any building or other structure (including all rooftop appurtenances such as communications towers, antennas, elevator shafts, access doors and equipment)to a height up to (but not exceeding) 160 feet above the established elevation of NMA. • Upon receipt of the FAA's determination or any other relevant due diligence, the Board will review the finding and determine whether any revisions to the policy are appropriate. Furthermore, the NAA will not object to any temporary crane used during the construction of the proposed Gateway Triangle Development, subject to all of the following conditions: • FAA issues a determination of no hazard for such temporary crane. • REPI shall adhere to all conditions stipulated by the FAA and coordinate as required with the NAA throughout construction. If REPI does not accept the NAA's policy, then the Board directs the Executive Director to make recommendations on available remedies. We look forward to working with you in hopes of developing an amiable compromise that protects the interests of the NAA, the aviation community and general public. Please continue to provide us with any information,in addition to the FAA's final determination, that is relevant to the NAA's policy regarding the proposed development. Sincerely, Christopher A. R s y Executive Director cc: Nick Casalanguida,Deputy County Manager Bill Owens, Bond, Schoeneck&King PLLC,NAA Counsel TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 - Cycle 3 GMP "Small Scale" Growth Management Plan Amendment CCPC Adoption Hearings February 15, 2018 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENTS: CCPC Staff Report: PL20160003084/CP-2016-3 2) TAB: Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text (and/or maps): PL20160003084/CP-2016-3 3) TAB: Legal Advertising DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 4) TAB: Project/Petition DOCUMENT: PL20160003084/CP-2016-3 Coiter County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: February 15, 2018 RE: PETITION PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-03, SMALL-SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20160003054) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Applicant: Jerry Starkey, Manager Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther Avenue Naples, FL 34109 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, F.A.I.C.P. Holes Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Agents: Richard C. Grant, Esquire Grant Fridkin Pearson, P.A. 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501 Naples, FL 34108 Owner: Collier County CRA 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, a ±5.35-acre site made up of six parcels, is located on the south side of Davis Blvd. (SR 84), the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), approximately 500 feet east from the intersection of those two roads, and 300 feet west of Commercial Drive, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. (East Naples Planning Community). Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 1 of 16 Go fer Com.nty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: February 15, 2018 RE: PETITION PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-03, SMALL-SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20160003054) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Applicant: Jerry Starkey, Manager Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther Avenue Naples, FL 34109 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, F.A.I.C.P. Holes Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Agents: Richard C. Grant, Esquire Grant Fridkin Pearson, P.A. 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501 Naples, FL 34108 Owner: Collier County CRA 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, a ±5.35-acre site made up of six parcels, is located on the south side of Davis Blvd. (SR 84), the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), approximately 500 feet east from the intersection of those two roads, and 300 feet west of Commercial Drive, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. (East Naples Planning Community). Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 Page 1 of 16 Ch CD R I ;11.111:.',1, SUBJECT SITE Davis BLVD --- Davis BLVD D 44Z 4 • • M �/ 4 'it/ r n Kirkwood AVEC # �,�* S �;. ! 1.; ' : gold if sprey At ' ...4� >►+ii = ! ! sem rR �p t• � � � `� in �.i I�j! <� �l Linwoorkaka t. 1 r •elle "l Z d! t, :41-- - ti i A '� .:} . `tis , 1 44111 l• REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new Subdistrict, the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict; amend the text; and create a new map for this Subdistrict, "Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict" in the Future Land Use Map series, which will identify the newly created Subdistrict, affecting fewer than ten (10) acres, by: 1) Amending Policy 1.5 Urban — Mixed Use District to add the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict; 2) Amending Urban Designation provisions to add the new Subdistrict name where various Subdistricts that allow residential and non-residential uses are listed; 3) Amending the Urban — Mixed Use District to add the new Subdistrict provisions; 4) Amending the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay text to allow higher densities, intensities, and uses within the new Subdistrict area. 5) Adding the title of the new Subdistrict map to the itemized Future Land Use Map Series listing; and 6) Amending the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict, adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Ordinance Exhibit "A". Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 2 of 16 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petition is to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan to establish a new Subdistrict to allow 210 multi-family dwelling units, 152 hotel suites/rooms, in addition to a maximum of 74,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, movie theatre (multiplex), bowling center and physical fitness facilities and personal services, and 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses. Through a conversion formula, other uses allowed are Assisted Living Facility (150 units maximum), 60,000 square feet of indoor self-storage, and 30,000 square feet of new car dealership. Also, through conversion, a maximum of 400 DUs is allowed or 200,000 square feet of commercial uses. And a minimum of 50 dwelling units (DUs) and 30,000 square feet combined of retail, restaurant, office, or other allowable commercial uses are required. A companion petition [PL20160003054] will rezone this property from C-4-GTMUD-MXD to Mini Triangle MPUD-GTMUD-MXD. The zoning action will implement the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. STAFF ANALYSIS: SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The Future Land Use designation of the subject site is Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Overlay; Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and within the "mini triangle" of that Overlay as shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) (the mini triangle encompasses lands bounded by Davis Blvd., Tamiami Trail East, and Commercial Drive). The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the FLUE allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses, but it is limited to C-1 through C-3, plus hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies — which include allowing development per the existing zoning. The±5.35 acre subject site is zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD (General Commercial, Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District— Mixed Use Subdistrict) allowing uses from the Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1), Commercial Convenience District (C-2), Commercial Intermediate District (C-3), and General Commercial District (C-4) zoning districts, OR the site could be developed as mixed use as provided for in GTMUD-MXD Zoning Overlay (residential uses and select commercial uses from the C-1 through C-3 Districts). The project site's current C-4 zoning allows only for commercial uses, no residential. Surrounding Lands: North: The FLUM designates land located north of the subject property, across Davis Blvd. (SR 84), Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. This area is zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD and is developed with retail, restaurant, and hotel uses. Further to the north, lands are designated Urban Residential Subdistrict and zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family 4 dwelling units per acre. This northern area is developed with a small marina and single-family homes. Lands lying across Davis Blvd. (SR84) Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 3 of 16 to the northwest of the project site are within the City of Naples and developed with a restaurant and a hotel. South: Immediately adjacent to the south and southwest (across Tamiami Trail East (US 41), lands are within the City of Naples and developed with Naples Bay Club, a private club. To the southeast across Tamiami Trail East(US 41) lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD. To the southeast along US 41 (across from the project site), lands are mostly undeveloped. Lands further to the south are designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and zoned RSF-3, Residential Single Family 3 dwelling units per acre. This land is developed with single family homes. West: Immediately adjacent to the west, lands are mostly undeveloped and designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD. The applicant and agent currently hold a pre-approval letter for a site development plan for a hotel development. The zoned height is 112 feet(the maximum zoned height allowed in the GTMUD-MXD for the mini triangle area) with an actual height of 131 feet 6 inches. Further to the west is Tamiami Trail (US 41), and the Gordon River Bridge with commercial development along the corridor, all within the City of Naples. East: Immediately adjacent to the east, lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD and C-5-GTMUD-MXD (Heavy Commercial), and developed with Budget Car and Truck Rentals and several unoccupied commercial businesses until east of Commercial Drive. East of Commercial Drive is a mix of retail uses. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and current zoning in the area immediately surrounding the subject property are a mix of Commercial developments with intensities as great as C-4 and C-5, as well as low density residential uses. Background and Considerations: The subject site is located within that portion of the B/GTRO designated as the "mini triangle" catalyst project site. The intent is for this mini triangle to be redeveloped — it is at the gateway (entrance) into the B/GTRO when leaving the City of Naples on Tamiami Trail East—with hopes that it will be the catalyst for further redevelopment in the Overlay. The FLUE encourages mixed use developments. FLUE Policy 7.5 states, "The County shall encourage mixed use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan." The FLUE goes on to say, "The Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non- residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments." Although this Subdistrict is not located within a Mixed Use Activity Center, it proposes many of the same characteristics (will allow both residential and commercial retail/office uses; is located on, and near an intersection of, two arterial roadways; and provides an interconnection with one abutting project (future hotel project to the west of the project site at the tip of the "mini triangle"). Also, this Subdistrict is located proximate to major employment centers and goods and services located along the Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail (US 41) corridors. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 4 of 16 This petition proposes the creation of the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. The project site lies within the "mini triangle" area of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states that the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The total area comprises approximately 1,800 acres currently developed with a wide range of residential and commercial uses. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the Bayshore/Gateway area was created by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (March 2000) to address deteriorating physical and economic conditions that were prevailing within Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area at that time. The objective of the CRA is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. The applicant as contract purchaser, proposes to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow residential development in the Subdistrict in addition to the previously allowed C-4 General Commercial development. In the companion zoning petition, it states that additional potential uses could be developed only through the application of a Land Use Conversion Matrix and could include a maximum of 150 assisted living facility units, a maximum of 60,000 square feet of indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage, a maximum of 30,000 square feet of new car dealership, and any other comparable principal uses. The proposed companion MPUD (Mixed Use Planned Unit Development) Document, Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses, contains a table that may be used to convert from one allowable use to another so long as the uses do not exceed the maximum total daily trips of 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips. To ensure that this development remains mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi-family residential uses and a combination of 30,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office, or other allowable commercial uses must be developed, regardless of any conversion allowances. Converted uses may result in an increase in the maximum units, square footages, and/or densities stated in the Principal Uses. Because this companion MPUD proposes allowing the conversion of one land use to another, the actual mix of uses that will be constructed in this project will be determined by the developer, subject to the limitations and restrictions included in the Subdistrict and MPUD. The MPUD will implement the Subdistrict. Submitted Documentation: Synopsis of supporting documentation submitted for the GMPA includes: Environmental Report: Prepared by Collier Environmental Consultants, Inc. (no date), included soil analysis, Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS Code) map and Vegetation Inventory, and photos of the site. Conclusion of report stated, "These parcels have NO listed Species, Native Habitat or other environmental issues." Traffic Impact Statement: Gateway Mini Triangle: Prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA., last revision was dated 3-29-17. The land uses considered in this report (for the GMPA) included only the maximum uses being requested of 210 multi-family dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, 74,000 square feet of retail and personal services, and 60,000 square feet of office. The companion PUDZ contained the land use conversion matrix and associated traffic impacts. The traffic impact for the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of 875 two-way P.M. peak hour unadjusted trips, with or without using the conversion matrix. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 5 of 16 Ten Principles for Rebuilding Neighborhood Retail: Published by Urban Land Institute in 2003. This publication examines the impact of declining neighborhood retail within urban neighborhoods and communities and the challenges of rebuilding. It states that conveniently available goods and services is a key factor that people consider when choosing a place to live. Blending of older retail and new redevelopment that is realistically market-based to achieve long-term sustainability along with planning principles was also discussed. Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development: Published by United States Environmental Protection Agency and dated February 2014. It states that infill projects are being successfully developed all over the country; the trend is more people will choose to live in infill locations, especially as they age; and, costs and time of developing can be higher, but there is an increasing demand. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact: Published by Urban Land Institute and dated 2005. It states that America's changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices and retail outlets; and, most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. It also explains higher density facts vs. myth. Density: This petition proposes a residential component allowing 210 multi-family dwelling units or up to 400 DUs through the conversion ratio proposed in the MPUD. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A); however, the B/GTRO allows up to 12 DU/A for mixed use projects to encourage redevelopment within this overlay. The "mini triangle" is identified in the B/GTRO as a catalyst project for spurring redevelopment with greater density and intensity allowing for greater flexibility in site design and development standards. The 210 multi-family dwelling units calculates to a density of approximately 39 DU/A (210 DUs _ 5.35 A = 39.25 DU/A). The petitioner states that in order to have a viable redevelopment project, this greater density is needed and the CRA Advisory Board supports this request. The companion zoning petition includes a Land Use Conversion Matrix that would allow the developer land use flexibility to increase one land use while decreasing another use. The developer could apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total of 400 multi-family dwelling units; this would calculate to a density of approximately 75 DU/A (400 DUs = 5.35 A = 74.77 DU/A). The 152 hotel suites translate to a density of 28 units per acre (152 Units = 5.35 A = 28.41 units/acre). Should the developer apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total of 200 hotel units, this would translate to a density of 37 units per acre (200 Units = 5.35 A= 37.38 units/acre). Height: The proposed Subdistrict text includes an exception to the provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC) in regards to building height (LDC Section 4.02.16 — Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area). The C-4-GTMUD-MXD allows for a maximum zoned height of 56 feet and 112 feet for a Mixed Use Project (MUP). A building's actual height is often greater than its zoned height. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property, in part, to achieve taller building heights than what is currently allowed under the C-4-GTMUD-MXD. The MPUD proposes a maximum zoned height of 160 feet and an actual height of 168 feet. The MPUD's requested zoned height is approximately 48 feet taller or 42.9 percent greater than what is allowed in the C-4-GTMUD-MXD. The proposed height is 168 feet Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 6 of 16 from Mean Sea Level, per the zoning petition. A Federal Aviation Administration letter of 'No Hazard' was included in the petition packet. Compatibility: There is a wide range of uses in the area surrounding the Subdistrict. They range from C-1 through C-5 uses along both Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East (US 41) to single family homes further to the north and south. The FLUE encourages development to transition from higher intensities to lower intensities. Use intensities often diminish as development moves away from arterial roadways. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed at time of zoning, and may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc., as well as use limitations and restrictions. Development Scenarios Table: Uses and Development Permitted by FLUE PermittZd n Existing Standards (B/GYRO) Zoo ning Petition Request C-4-GTMUD-MXD Mixed Use with residential, retail, restaurant, office, personal service; with land use conversions would also allow Assisted Living Mix of residential and Facility, air-conditioned commercial uses (limited passenger car and self to C-1 through C-3)plus All permitted uses in C-4 storage, and new car hotel/motel use(0.60 General Commercial dealership. General FAR);theatrical producers square feet limitation only (except motion picture), Zoning District OR (74,000 square feet for Land Uses residential and limited bands, orchestras, and commercial (generally C-1 total retail or 60,000 entertainers, with some through C-3)uses per square feet for total office) individual uses limited in GTMUD MXD Overlay with a maximum of square feet; OR uses 200,000 square feet,via allowed by existing C-4 conversion, for a zoning. combination of retail, office, personal service, restaurant, or movie theater uses; Hotel at 28 units/acre(152 units)or 37units/acre(200 units, via conversion) Non Mixed Use Project: Actual- 168 feet above Proposed/Permitted Actual—56 feet; Mean Sea Level; Height none Mixed Use Project:Actual Zoned— 160 feet — 112 feet None—residential-only is Maximum 39 DU/A(210 not allowed by C-4 OR 12 DUs) unless MPUD Proposed/Permitted 12 DU/A in mixed use DU/A in mixed use conversion matrix is Residential Density development development per GTMUD applied and then MXD Overlay maximum is 75 DU/A(400 DUs) Traffic Impacts- Determined at time of Maximum trip generation Limitations none SDP of 875 two-way peak PM unadjusted trips Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 7 of 16 Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The petitioner states, "Over the past several years, there has been rising interest in redevelopment within the CRA and several significant improvements have already occurred or are in the planning stages. These include streetscape and pedestrian and bicycle pathway enhancements, street lighting, crime reduction, façade improvements, and of course the beautiful Botanical Gardens." The applicant's justification for the requested amendment is that development of a "catalyst" project that, with a mix of commercial and residential uses, will create a certain "synergy" of activity and sense of place, and that such a development will be a catalyst for future investment in the greater Triangle redevelopment area. The petitioner states that"in terms of design and development standards, including but not limited to lot coverage, building setbacks, building heights, access, frontage, density and size, floor area, site design, building orientation is absolutely necessary to address the unique nature of redevelopment and to create an interest on the part of private investors despite the increased market risk." The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan identified the high density/intensity mixed use "mini triangle" project as the type of project, serving as a catalyst, that would encourage additional private investments in the area. The location of the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict will produce projects with high visibility, as it serves as a gateway between Collier County and the City of Naples incorporated area and the city's main business center. The subject site is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways, Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East(US 41). This Subdistrict location is within 5 miles of high employment centers such as NCH downtown, multiple shopping areas (including Coastland Center), Naples High School, and many other employment locations. With easy access to two arterial roadways and commuting times and distances potentially reduced, this location can be attractive to prospective residents in the Subdistrict. This project location is also well situated for a mixed use development offering new employment opportunities as well as goods and services being readily available to surrounding residential developments and the proposed residential development within the Subdistrict. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent GMPA Criteria in 2017 Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: The process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) the following statutory standards be met, [followed by staff analysis in bracketed text]. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a 5.35 acre property.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small-scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [To date, no small scale GMP amendment has been adopted in calendar year 2018] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly-related text changes.] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 8 of 16 (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [Internal consistency will be maintained between and among elements if the amendment is approved.] In addition, Chapter 163, F.S., Section 163.3177(6)(a)3.g. requires the Future Land Use Element to include "criteria to be used to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses". Such criteria are typically expressed through measures of 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, traffic generation/attraction, etc. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a GMP amendment, then present and defend as necessary, that data and analysis. Refer to application Attachment "B", Mini Triangle Subdistrict, Justification & Supplemental Information, Updated Version Dated September 25, 2017. Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: The Environmental Planning Section, Summer Araque, Principal Environmental Specialist, reviewed and recommended approval of the petition in February 2017. This project is urban redevelopment and the site currently does not include any Preserve. The site consists of six (6) parcels that have been previously cleared and developed. According to the Environmental Report that was submitted with this petition, the parcels consist of warehouses, office buildings, and paved parking and offer no environmental function. These parcels have no listed species, native habitat or other environmental issues. The project site is void of vegetation other than a few remnant landscaping plants and some invasive exotics. No historical or archaeological impacts were addressed in this application. This site is previously cleared. Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, completed his review and recommended approval of this petition in January 2018 with one informational comment: "Approval of this petition should not be construed as a service commitment nor as representation that capacity is or will be available in the downstream wastewater collection/transmission system without necessary improvements by the developer." Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and recommended approval of this petition in January 2018. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 9 of 16 A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on October 18, 2017, 5:30 p.m. at The Club at Naples Bay Resort (the Cypress Ballroom), 1800 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34102. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) petition. The applicant's team gave a PowerPoint presentation and then responded to questions. A total of approximately 20-25 members of the public, along with approximately 8 members of the applicant's team and County staff, attended the NIM. Commissioners Penny Taylor and Donna Fiala also attended. The consultant discussed the purpose of the project and the site's existing conditions. He explained the application was for a mixed use development on the 5.35 acre site that included: • Maximum project generated vehicle trips capped at 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips • Minimum of 50 multi-family dwelling units (DUs) with a maximum of 400 multi-family DUs; • Maximum of 200 hotel units • Minimum of 30,000 and maximum of 200,000 square feet of a combination of two or more of the following uses: retail, restaurant, office, any other allowable commercial uses. The Consultant provided a conceptual site plan as well as architectural renderings of the project site. The public asked many questions about the project details. Concerns raised included: • Height: A citizen asked what a 160-foot building looks like, how many stories? The Consultant informed him that it would be approximately 15 — 16 stories. • Height: Why doesn't the permitted maximum height of 112 feet work for this project (given the close proximity to the Naples Airport), especially since the Trio Hotel project next to the west of the project site used the permitted maximum? The developer stated that he met with the Airport and they determined the height was acceptable. The developer mentioned that there has been an existing 196-foot tall telecommunication tower on the site for years. He also mentioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had issued a no-hazard letter rendering on the project site. • Traffic Impact: Questions about the ingresses and egresses to the project. Also questions about pedestrians, parking, impact on adjoining roads (Davis Blvd. and Tamiami Trail East), and traffic signalization for the ingress/egress for site. The meeting ended at approximately 6:10 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • Transportation-related questions/concerns were brought forward by a few citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting; however, Transportation Planning has recommended approval of this project and there will be a maximum of 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips for this project. The Consultant has stated that with current zoning built out, more than 875 PM peak trips would be generated. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 10 of 16 • Several citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting voiced concern/questions about the proposed 168-foot building height; however there has been a 196-foot telecommunications tower on the site for years. A "no-hazard" letter from the FAA is part of the petition packet. There is no maximum height specified in this petition; that detail is included in the companion rezone petition. • The uses are generally compatible with surrounding development. • The Mini Triangle site, located at a major intersection and proximate to residential development and commercial development, has been identified and approved by the CRA as a catalyst project area which includes mixed use and high density. • The CRA Advisory Board recommended approval of this project. • The CRA Board, by virtue of its contract with the petitioner, has conceptually approved of the general scope of this project. • Staff accepts the petitioner's assertion that the greater densities and intensities requested are necessary for the project to be viable. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on January 31, 2018. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. (HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve and for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to the following non-substantive edits (needed for proper format, etc.): [Single underline/strike through = Petitioner's proposed text; Double underline/ = Staff's recommended edits [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 11 of 16 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict 4 -11u.mutie-arnd=intrenu The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the this Subdistrict as a subset of the Ba shore/Gatewa Trian le Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan4 (approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution 2000-181). In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a "Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept". The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a Catalyst Project(or projects)that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards. In order to provide for this greater intensity, density, and flexibility the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to MPUD. u kltowab� rr d o t t [[[[f 1'FRBit-BaE��FE3�E�rnft All uses allowed within the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD) shall be allowed within this Subdistrict subject to the intensity and density limitations identified in •ara•ra•hs Aa. throu.h Ff. below. To ensure a mixed use develo.ment a minimum of 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following commercial uses shall be developed: professional office, retail, restaurant and personal services. The PUD shall establish a date, timeframe, or condition by which the minimum 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development shall be constructed. This date, timeframe or condition shall not be construed to limit approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or related amendment(s) thereto, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements depicted thereon, including but not limited to site access, sewer and water lines and facilities, strefawaerter=m4Aletig facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage, and fence or walls. Aa.210 multi-famil residential units are allowed b ri•ht within this Subdistrict. 1b. 152 hotel suites/rooms (or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites) are allowed by right within this Subdistrict. Gc.74,000 square feet of the following uses, as specifically permitted by right or as a by conditional uses in the C-4, General Commercial District, are allowed by right within this Subdistrict: 1. Retail; 2. Restaurant; 3. Movie Theatre (multiplex), bowling center and physical fitness facilities; and 4. Personal services. [Bullet points replaced with numerals] Dd.60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right within this Subdistrict. :-: =_: = = := tt - -- Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 12 of 16 Ee.The following additional commercial uses are allowed only if the uses listed in paragraphs Aa. through Dd. above, are converted to an additional use using a conversion formula in accordance with paragraph Ff. below. 1. Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) — not to exceed 150 units and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45; and, 2. Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self storage, not to exceed 60,000 square feet (SIC Code 42252); and, 3. New Car Dealership, not to exceed 30,000 square feet (SIC Code 55112); and, 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses [Bullet points replaced with numerals] Ff. The densities and intensities identified for specific uses in Paragraphs Aa. through Dd. above may be increased through application of conversion formulas to be established during the MPUD rezone, subject to the following minimum and maximum limitations listed below. Any increase in density or square footage identified in Paragraphs Aa. through Dd. above by using a conversion formula will result in a corresponding reduction of dwelling units and/or hotel suites/rooms and/or retail and/or office square footage, and additionally: 1. In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation in the Subdistrict exceed 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips; 2. In no case shall the maximum number of dwelling units for the project exceed 400; 3. In no case shall the maximum number of hotel rooms for the project exceed 200; 4. In no case shall the maximum combination of retail, office, personal service, restaurant, and movie theater uses for the projcct in the Subdistrict exceed 200,000 square feet; 5. To ensure that the development is mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi- family residential uses and a minimum combination of 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following shall be developed: retail, restaurant, professional office, of andpersonal services [Bullet points replaced with numerals] G..Develo•ment within this Subdistrict shall be sub'ect to the •rovisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, as applicable, except in the case of building height,which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16, as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16, as may be approved as part of the MPUD. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** ** Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 13 of 16 B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: *** *** ** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** ** e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the "vested" Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) - _ _-_ _-_-__ _ -_ — •_ _ •-__ ___ _- _ _ . The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. 9) ''- °---- °- - - -- __- __ _. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. TEXT BREAK *** *** ** *** ** *** Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy(5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) (5.11. 5.12. 5.13. 5.14) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve — Conservation Designation Map Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 14 of 16 Lely Mitigation Park— Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 Page 15 of 16 PREPARED BY: Q —44.4 •r1 „ .� -r DATE: / "an? Pie Op SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: zp DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION DATE: MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: DATE: c-^'"/'/ '$ ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Petition Number: PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Staff Report for February 15, 2018 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the March 27, 2018 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, CHAIRMAN Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive •Naples, FL 34104 •239-252-2400 Page 16 of 16 ORDINANCE NO. 2018- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 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 AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE MINI-TRIANGLE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 210 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, 152 HOTEL SUITES, UP TO 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND UP TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES, ALL WITH CONVERSIONS; PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 5.35 ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160003084/CPSS- 2016-31 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Real Estate Partners International, LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Mini-Triangle Subdistrict; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and [16-CMP-00975/1388043/1]95 1 of 3 PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3—Mini-Triangle SSGMPA 1/11/18 Words underlined are added,words strusIE-through have been deleted. WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on February 15, 2018 considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 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 determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence 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. [16-CMP-00975/1388043/1]95 2 of 3 PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3—Mini-Triangle SSGMPA 1/11/18 Words underlined are added,words stfueli-thr-eugh have been deleted. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, ti Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment& Map Amendment [16-CMP-00975/1388043/1]95 3 of 3 PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3—Mini-Triangle SSGMPA 1/11/18 Words underlined are added,words struck through have been deleted. EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed Small Scale Amendments to the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Related to 5.35 Acres Located within the "Mini Triangle" Portion of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Amend the FLUE DESCRIPTION SECTION,Section I,URBAN DESIGNATION,Subsection A. Urban Mixed Use District,Page 49,as follows: 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict I. Purpose and Intent: The Mini Triangle Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the 5.35 acre site specific Mixed Use Subdistrict, as a subset of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Area LCRA) as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan'. In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a "Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept". The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a Catalyst Proiect (or projects) that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gatew y Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards. In order to provide for this greater intensity, density, and flexibility the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to MPUD. II. Allowable Uses and Restrictions: All uses allowed within the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD) shall be allowed within this Subdistrict subject to the intensity and density limitations identified in paragraphs A. through F., below. To ensure a mixed use development, a minimum of 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following commercial uses shall be developed: professional office, retail,restaurant and personal services. The PUD shall establish a date, timeframe, or condition by which the minimum 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development shall be constructed. This date, timeframe or condition shall not be construed to limit approval of a Site Development Plan(SDP)or related amendment(s) thereto, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements depicted thereon, including but not limited to site access, sewer and water lines and facilities, stromwater facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage,and fence or walls. A. 210 multi-family residential units are allowed by right within this Subdistrict. B. 152 hotel suites/rooms (or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites)are allowed by right within this Subdistrict. 'Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan,approved on June 13,2000 by Resolution 2000-181 Underlined text proposed to be added;Egli text proposed to be deleted. Page 1 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\I-24-20181Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx C. 74,000 square feet of the following uses, as specifically permitted by right or as a conditional uses in the C-4,General Commercial District, are allowed by right within this Subdistrict: • Retail; • Restaurant; • Movie Theatre(multiplex),bowling center and physical fitness facilities;and • Personal services. D. 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right within this Subdistrict. E. The following additional commercial uses are allowed only if the uses listed in paragraphs A. through D. above, are converted to an additional use using a conversion formula in accordance with paragraph F below. • Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) — not to exceed 150 units and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45; and, • Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self storage, not to exceed 60.000 square feet (SIC Code 42252); and, • New Car Dealership, not to exceed 30.000 square feet (SIC Code 55112); and, • Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses F. The densities and intensities identified for specific uses in Paragraphs A. through D. above may be increased through application of conversion formulas to be established during the MPUD rezone, subject to the following minimum and maximum limitations listed below. Anv increase in density or square footage identified in Paragraphs A.through D. above by using a conversion formula will result in a corresponding reduction of dwelling units and/or hotel suites/rooms and/or retail and/or office square footage, and additionally: • In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation for the project exceed 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips;. • In no case shall the maximum number of dwelling units for the project exceed 400; • In no case shall the maximum number of hotel rooms for the project exceed 200; • In no case shall the maximum combination of retail, office, personal service, restaurant, movie theater uses for the project exceed 200,000 square feet; • To ensure that the development is mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi-family residential uses and a minimum combination of 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following shall be developed: retail,restaurant,professional office,or personal services; G. Development within this Subdistrict shall be subject to the provisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, as applicable, except in the case of building height, which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16, as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16,as may be approved as part of the MPUD. 2 1987 Standard Industrial Classification(SIC)Manual,Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget Underlined text proposed to be added;stwsk-through text proposed to be deleted. Page 2 H:\20I6\2016052\WP\GMPAI1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx I Amend the FLUE,B.DENSITY RATING SYSTEM, i.e.,Pages 50 and 51,as follows: e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the"vested"Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. 9) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. Amend the FLUE,V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES,F.Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay,Pages 139-141,as follows: F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: 1. Mixed-Use Development: A Mmix of residential and commercial uses anis permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle)to nearby residential areas. The Underlined text proposed to be added;ugh text proposed to be deleted. H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx Page 3 intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadways to promote traditional urban development. 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below, or and except as may be limited by a zoning overlay, or as provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water-dependent and water-related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. 4. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard(SR 84) and/or the west side of Airport-Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre, via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11; except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25%of the total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will,terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards identified in paragraph no. 8, below, except for mixed_use projects developed within the "mini triangle" catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The "mini triangle" catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning overlay adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08), and amended December 14, 2006(Ordinance No. 06-63)_For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase,their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport- Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential- only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11. except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25% of the 388 total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project.-In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. Underlined text proposed to be added; text proposed to be deleted. Page 4 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\I-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d. All residential units shall be market rate units. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies. Properties located in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from the above provisions (paragraph 5). 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center#16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5,above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. 7. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses,densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. 8. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above, or as otherwise permitted within Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict,mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 10. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict-is are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 11. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses, as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above. This 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool corresponds with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the botanical Underlined text proposed to be added;strupk-through text proposed to be deleted. Page 5 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).doex gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within the "mini triangle"est s are not serest required to utilize this density bonus pool. 12. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map(XV)Mixed Use& Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy(5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12)Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Weilfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map(XIII)Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve—Conservation Designation Map Lely Mitigation Park—Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Livingston RoadNeteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map(XXX)Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Underlined text proposed to be added,strtiek-thretgh text proposed to be deleted. Page 6 H.12016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx - .- 2 I T46 I T47S I T48S I T49S I T50S L. T51S I .._ T52S .... ao I T53S co Ea a U_ a R s .. „s„ I s s i kRA:: r - i g -- I > i rc S g' .4g&,iiif iYrc^R.',m:nR 5n n :r5.:7,--,'5;%RNRa 7a,„”{ fr 3 "mW r - o i l r T s >ow^.g„gM1B?8 3g,t2IR'^'3;w zAi,Ailsgg ap a' i o wz° c? 8i4.6iig oz:o„' .zn r ging ox eie °' i � n I i9 ;b 3d la 41.1 c ; pf II= i3O. ; EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 ,c MINI TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT `� COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA 1 i I I L^ SUBJECT 7 SITE 1 -DAVIS BLVD ; i , , .,. . ini; i \ • I I— y / \ i 1 ,s, .,' , \) ----.=. .: NAPLESNEWS.COM 0 FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 2018 5 23A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE(S) Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on February 15, 2018.commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail.Naples.FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 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 AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE MINI-TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 210 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS,152 HOTEL SUITES,UPTO 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND UPTO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF.GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE USES,ALL WITH CONVERSIONS; PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,CONSISTING OF 535 ACRES;AND FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DMETOFEOOM OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDINGFOR DATE. 600 ' 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-4-GTMUD-MXD)ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY(MPUD- GTMUD-MXD)ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 210 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, 152 HOTEL SUITES, UP TO 74,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND UP TO ALL WITH CONVERSIONS;PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUMSUARE FEET OF GROSS FLR HEIGHT OF 168FEET ON PROPERTY LREA OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE OCATED ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION II.TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. CONSISTING OF 535*ACRES;PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.il'I.201600030541 PROJECT N s N LOCATION Nim CP sr. s DAVIS BLVD i- ce a I , q�� r 0 V1 W+r All interested parties are Invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed OADINANCE(S)will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section.2800 N. 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 the en commetfiled with the documents ld be directed to the GMD Zoning Division,Clerrk to the Board's Office prior to February 1208 Comprehensive Planning will be ead and considered at Section.Writthe public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 333E 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 P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission ND 1895229 January 26,2018 NMI HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS•PLANNERS•SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way•Naples,Florida 34110•Phone 239.254.2000•Fax:239.254.2099 December 21, 2016 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Mr. David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Collier County Growth Management Division Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Mini Triangle Subdistrict Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application HM File No.: 2016.052 Dear Mr. Weeks: Enclosed please find our Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application with supporting documents for the above-referenced project. The Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) were established in March of 2002. The Bayshore/Gateway area comprises approximately 1,800 acres. The CRA was established in order to breathe new economic life, in the form of private investment, into an area that was experiencing declining property values, and was suffering from inadequate infrastructure (such as, but not limited to stormwater facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and connectivity, landscaping and street lighting, and so forth). The CRA funding comes primarily from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). In establishing this CRA, the Board of County Commissioners intention was and is to utilize TIF funds to reinvest in the CRA, in the form of infrastructure improvements and in supporting private investment in the area. The objective is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. When this revitalization of the CRA as a desirable place to visit, live and work occurs, the taxpayer's investment is recouped through rising property values and increased ad valorem tax dollar revenues. Often it takes years to accomplish these objectives. A strong economy can accelerate redevelopment and on the opposite end of the spectrum, an economic turndown or other factors (such as stringent inflexible development standards), singularly or in combination, can stymie a redevelopment initiative or bring it to a screeching halt. In December of 2015, Collier County issued a Request for Proposal with the intent of obtaining proposals from interested and qualified buyers for the County owned 5.35 acre "mini triangle" property. At a regularly schedule advertised public hearing, the CRA Board considered the qualified proposals and selected RE Partners International, LLC. Subsequently, a contract was formalized and executed. The contract was amended several times. The contract includes specific timelines and performance standards for both parties, and identifies allowable intensity and density. Both the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA Board (County Commission sitting as the CRA Board) approved the conceptual development plan. The contract provides for 210 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\DW 161221 IV tr initial SSGMPA.docx Naples•Fort Myers Mr. David Weeks,AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Re: Mini-Triangle Subdistrict Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application HM File No.: 2016.052 December 21, 2016 Page 2 multi-family residential units, 152 hotel units, 74,000 square feet or retail and personal service uses, and 60,000 square feet of office use. The next step is the entitlement process, which includes three companion petitions, an LDC amendment, an MPUD rezone petition, and the attached small scale GMPA application. In support of this application, we enclose the following: • Six (6) copies of the cover letter(this is the cover letter); • One fee check in the amount of$8,500; • One (1) original and five (5) copies of the Growth Management Plan Amendment Application along with the following: o Attachment"A"—Warranty Deed o Attachment"B"—Justification and Supplemental Information o Exhibit"A"—Proposed GMPA Amendment Language o Exhibit"A-1"—Generalized Location Map o Exhibit"A-2"—Aerial Overlay -� o Exhibit"A-3"—Zoning Map o Exhibit`B-1"—Future Land Use Map o Exhibit"C-1"—Environmental Report o Exhibit"E-1"—Public Service Facilities Map o Exhibit"E-2"—Public Facilities Report o Exhibit"E-3"—Traffic Impact Statement o Exhibit"F-1"—Firm Data Map • One (1) CD with documents and plans in pdf format. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES, INC. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning and Business Development RJM/sek Enclosures as noted. cc: Jerry Starkey w/enclosures Fred Pezeshkan w/enclosures Richard Grant, Esq. w/enclosures H:\201612016052\WP\GMPA\DW 161221 Itr tr initial SSGMPA,docx Colter County GMPA-Growth Management Plan Amendment(PL20160002084) pre-app meeting [&companion PUD Rezone (PL20160003054)]---11/9/16, 1:30/2:30PM,Conf Rm C • 6 parcels abutting Davis Blvd. (SR 84) &Tamiami Trail East (US 41), in 11-50-25;+5.35 acres. • FLUM: Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; CHHA Overlay; B/GTRO and within the "mini triangle" identified therein • Zoning:C-4-GTMUD-MXD • Attendance is reflected on pre-app notes for companion PUD rezone. • Property is owned by CRA-under contract to applicant. Contract contains milestones timeline, including submittal by a date in late Dec. 2016. Propose to establish a subdistrict within the B/GTRO to allow mixed use development including 210 DUs; 152 hotel/motel units; 73,000 s.f. of retail, restaurant, personal service, etc., uses—possibly including a boutique auto dealership; 60,000 s.f. of office uses;theater; parking garages. Commercial uses mostly C-1—C-4 but may propose some C-5. Maximum building height of 160 feet. (Petitioner has coordinated with NAA and FAA regarding max. height and anticipates a letter of no objection from FAA.) It is possible an LDCA may also be required to the airport zoning regs. Staff Comments This project should qualify as a Small Scale GMPA. Both petitions (GMPA& PUDZ)can be processed and scheduled concurrently for NIM, CCPC& BCC public hearings. Also, NIM may be held jointly with a CRAAB meeting. Typically takes about 9 months from submittal deadline to BCC adoption hearing;two factors in particular that may affect the timeline are sufficiency(or not) of the submittal, and BCC meeting availability. GMPA pre-app fee ($500.00)was paid at meeting. Per County Fee Resolution, if petition is submitted within 9 months of pre-app meeting date,the$500.00 fee is credited towards the Small Scale GMPA$9,000.00 petition fee (thus$8,500.00 due at time of submittal). Include in the subdistrict a statement that the site is within the B/GTRO and helps to fulfill its vision but is not subject to the requirements and limitations of that Overlay. In the B/GTRO, reference this subdistrict noting it is within the Overlay but that development is regulated by that subdistrict not the Overlay. Revise other portions of the FLUE to reflect this subdistrict, including Pol. 1.1, list of maps at end of FLUE text, list of subdistricts allowing commercial development,exceptions to the density rating system. In the petition package submittal, need to address statutory requirements for GMPAs, specifically Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, F.S. D&A needs to address: residential density and non-residential uses beyond those allowed by existing FLUM designation and zoning; density increase within CHHA. For commercial needs,the County's perspective is one of inventory control. Staff acknowledges other factors may be considered for a GMPA besides strictly the needs analysis. A comparison of uses and densities allowed in the B/GTRO vs.what is proposed could be useful to demonstrate how much the subdistrict is consistent with the Overlay, as could an explanation of how/in what ways the subdistrict helps to fulfill the vision of the Overlay—especially how this subdistrict is intended to allow and make viable a catalyst project. Staff offered to meet subsequently to further discuss data and analysis requirements. Notes by:David Weeks,AICP,Growth Management Manager,Comprehensive Planning Section,Zoning Division,Growth Management Dept. 11-9-16 GMPA pre-app notes_UW dw/I1-10-16 G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2016 Cycles Si Small Scale Petitions\pre-app meetings in 2016\11-9-16 DGTRO mini triangle APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application,see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant Jerry Starkey, Manager Company Real Estate Partners International, LLC Address 1415 Panther Lane City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34109 Phone Number 239-514-4001 Fax Number 239-514-4005 B. Name of Agent* Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, VP, Planning & Business Development • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Hole Montes, Inc. Address 950 Encore Way City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239-254-2000 Fax Number 239-254-2099 Name of Agent* Richard C. Grant, Esquire Company Grant Fridkin Pearson, P.A. Address 5551 Ridgewood Drive,Suite 501 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34108 Phone Number 239-514-1000 Fax Number 239-514-0377 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Collier County CRA Address 3301 Tamiami Trail East City Naples State FL Zip Code 34112 Phone Number 239-643-1115 Fax Number N/A D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. 1 II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock +k 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 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 Jerry Starkey, Manager Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Date of Contract: Please Note: Real Estate Partners International, LLC as agent on behalf of Project Principal Jerry Starkey (50%) and Project Principal Fred Pezeshkan (50%). 2 F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. NOT APPLICABLE Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased (): Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A" Warranty Deed B. GENERAL LOCATION Intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Davis Blvd, west of Commercial Drive C. PLANNING COMMUNITY East NaplesD. TAZ 270 E. SIZE IN ACRES 5.35 F. ZONING C-4 GTMUD-MXD G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN See Exhibits "A-3" Zoning Map and "B-1" Future Land Use Map H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (5) 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) OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strikc through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit "A" �. 3 C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay to establish the Mini Triangle Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) FLUM, Mini Triangle Subdistrict Map E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Other revisions and nomenclature to referenced Mini Triangle Subdistrict V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exhibit A-1 Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exhibit A-2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries,source, and date. Exhibit A-3 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 Exhibit B-1 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 Exhibit C-1 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. Exhibit C-1 Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.)identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2(Copies attached). 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 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed 4 Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) Y Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-1 1.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) N 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. N 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. Exhibit E-2 Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exhibit E-2 Potable Water Exhibit E-2 Sanitary Sewer Exhibit E-3 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS See TIS Exhibit E-2 Drainage Exhibit E-2 Solid Waste Exhibit E-2 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 E-1 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 E-2 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider,and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Exh. F-1 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) Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable Y Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable (Coastal High Hazard Area) High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). 5 G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N/A $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) Yes $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) Yes Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Yes Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Yes 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 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Robert J. Mulhere, FAiCP, Vice President, Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard C. Grant, Esquire, Grant Frldkin Pearson, P.A, to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the.Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property Identified In this Application. Signed: Real Estate Partners International, LLC Date: �/Zru (Contract Purchaser) J/ I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoln p cation, and that the application is true,correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. Si na r of Applicant Jerry Starkey,Manager Name-Typed or Printed STATE OF (FLORIDA) COUNTY OF (COLLIER) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of `TQkt^ ,2016 by yam_ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary ublic • CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: who is personally known to me, who has produced • as identification and did take an Oath H ENR FOUNTAIN did not take and Oath :;p« N;c:aco,ry Public rot: of Ftorlda ;, ., mmlulonNFF989119Momm.ExpalresMar 8;2020NOTICE-BE AWARE THAT: - :: d'trough Natlonat Notary ns�n 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 INSTR 4369675 OR 4515 PG 2040 RECORDED 12/4/2009 2:25 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOCO.70 $0.70 REC $35.50 CONS $0.00 ` 1 • 1.4 This Instrument Prepared by: Q George P.Langford 3357 Tamiami Trail North • Naples,Florida 34103 (239)262-2011 ci NF-- 2. n Q CORRECTIVE WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this / 'day of November, 2009, between CC&E INVESTMENTS,L.L.C.,a Florida ' 'UAW•�;r. ompany,whose post office address is 380 10th Street South, Suite#1k :'►t 0e , • =ter' '� GRANTOR, and COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY ' ' ' ' LOPMENT A = ► ,whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East,Na•les ("odd 4112,G' • • „•yT That said GRANT.�1 i` ..r.n;' o s'•- ; on ',� �e• of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00), and• other good . • 'a •:de ons • ra on' •: • • : tor in hand paid.by said Grantee,the receipt whereo a. -reby acknowledg• h.. -11.-•, bargained and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's 0 -ssors and assigri or-v- • +e following described land, situate, lying and being in Col • • nty,Florida,to-w• ' SEE A ' • *I.- D.r4!is "A" Subject to ad valorem taxes for the current year, zoning, building code and other use • restrictions imposed by governmental authority, current leases, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record,if any,and restrictions,reservations and easements common to the subdivision, . Property I.D. Numberes 00388480009; Mitems%lit 7751028.0000; and 77510320009. 7751020006 and said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land,and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever: The Purpose of this deed is to correct the Property I.D. Numbers contained in Deed recorded as Instrument No. 4342480 in O.R. Book 4492 at Page 1550. Through a scrivener's error the deed improperly referenced Property I.D.No. 7751036001 which property was not transferred; . IN WITNESS WHEREOF,GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. • ATTACHMENT A OR 4515 PG 2041 Signed,sealed and delivered GRANTOR in our presence: CC&E INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company A /L,t Pe.,t4,s-f WI ESS: Dmew-,Q,,;<•.0.„05;6A ir,4 :y: ICHAEL K. CORRADI /� Print Name of Witness Its: Presiding Manager and a Member /�l(sk-Aco P:, " WITNE e4 -1. Print Ndme, Witness `I_, 44rti-1 A I . , WITN. S: , "' on • • }pi e c LT LEO E.CORRADI rint Name of witndss U0-'- •TTA,, ember 1'1�. WITNE S l Print Name of Wanes _`STATE OF FLORIDA n.„v E—+ COUNTY OF COLLIER , r The foregoing instrume acknowledged b . e • t3ay ofNovember,2009 by MICHAEL K. CORRADI, P ; hg Manager andICet of and on behalf of CC&E INVESTMENTS,L.L.C.,aFlori•. :R;i e Liabilitycoi •'t . . lljfommissionElpires: C !IAA.._. P .... ,-y NOT• WP LTC O"°: r v7 Nancy P.Castellano0_3 • KU ,40 1 • (SE �� ., Commission#00573035 Print gine ofNot Public 'dill• Expires July 27,2010 ' PT rhal:ea erabtN,ren•Mee*.I4IN•7tkY011 STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF OAKLAND The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day ofNovember,2009 by LEO E.CORRADI, a Member of and on behalf of CC&E INVESTMENTS,L.L.C.,a Florida Limited Liability Company . `or liy CommissionRAW: ' NO- -• 111,'UBt (SEAL) J r4 Jer St- Print Name of Notary Public JASON GIRARD SEAMAN Notary Public,State of Michigan County of Oakland My Commission Exp!res Mar.20,2014 Acting In the County of 0/14€40.1-12 OR 4515 PG 2042 „ h • • • • • EXHIBIT"A" CC&E INVESTMENTS • • Parcel Al and A2: C()U Al: Folio ID#00388480009, a 1.70-Physical ress : Tamiami Trail East �--- muter .f tll- Northwest quarter, A lot or parcel of land in the ..as alio .�e�tbYthwe�t uart lying North of Tamiami T ail, o - tio• .. .•u h • 0 ,'uth of Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida,be'•g s.-c' ie: •cr • • 1• • o From the point of intersectio: • 11lies b. '••• 4e e o£ • 41: f of the Northwest' quarter of the Northwest q lying North of the.,ami:••' t: (formerly know as Dixie Highway), of Section • 1 ownship -50 Sou • '' : _e 'ast, Collier County, Florida, with the Northeaste ':•t of way line of th' : + _••*ami Trail run in a Southeasterly direction for 298. ' t,l.ng the said o' e t.rly right.of way line, to establish the point of beginning, th-• e ':• ., *f y r 1. ginning deflect 90 degrees from Southeasterly. to.Northeasterly : • 2.--fect, thence deflect 113 degrees 30'10" from Northeasterly to Northwesterly and run 107,18 feet thence deflect 66 degrees 29'50" from Northwesterly to Southwesterly and run 295.46 feet to the said Northeasterly right of way line of said Tamiami Trail,thence in a Southeasterly direction run 98.29 feet along the said Northeasterly right of way line to the point of beginning. The above described property containing 0.71 acres,more of-less. A2: ID#7751020006,having a physical address of 1933 Tamiami Trail East And,Lot 4, Triangle Lake Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County Florida,in Plat Book 4,Page 38. • • • • • • • i *** OR 4515 PG 2043 *** ' • Parcels Al and A2 Less and Except; That portion of Lot 4,Triangle Lake, a subdivision, as per plat thereof recorded in Nat Book 4, Page 38', Public Records.of Collier County, Florida, and that portion of the northwest 1/4,all being in Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 25 East. Being described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of lot 6 of said Triangle Lake, thence along the west line and the southerly extension of said Lot 6, South 00 degrees 33'46"East,•307.41 feet to the survey base line of State Road 90(US to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly; thence along said s ' , •et;gliee .e of said curve to the right, having a radius of 11,459.16 feet ,). _Ie of-5* d�gr • 31'43",an arc length of 105.72 feet, the cord of which outh 53 degrees •. 10 ast to the end of said curve,thence North 36 degree: 29'. " : 0.00 feet to the 'ters;ction of the southerly extension of the west line of.aid of• : •.the no i• y existing rig t of way line of said State Road 90 (US 41) (per Sec '.n-0301 j 6 o ;•'i .•,r„•e_' • 'ng;thence along said southerly extension anis• : es J 'o t�d:.`e 11"East, 20.01 feet to "' the beginning of a curve col s,uth (�`,y' e;, ' ale,,g e : c •f said curve to the • right, having a radius of 1 '. et, , _ , , ::•: e !0 '.- e 44'11.6", an arc length of 148.21 feet,the ch •r which bears Sou "e 3 d::e;s e: 09"East to the end of said curve; thence South es 59'11"Wes;4': f-a !b.:td northerly existing right of way line and the begi ',f a curve concave s•a v6s • ly;thence along said • northerly existing right of way 1 c of said ems'• . • left, having a radius of 11,509,16 feet; a central angle of 0 ,e�i? 6�r�' :: :•c length of 148.21 feet, the chord for which bears North 53 degrees ' ilyAl-to the end of said curve and the Point of beginning. • Parcel B; Folio ID#77510280000 having a physical address of 2000 Davis Boulevard and Folio #77510320009,having a physical address of 2054 Davis Boulevard. Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15,Triangle Lake Subdivision, as platted and recorded in Plat Book 4,Page 38,Public Records of Collier County,Florida. INSTR 4342479 OR 4492 PG 1546 RECORDED 9/17/2009 1:21 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT Doc@.70 $44,702.00 REC $35.50 coNs $6,386,000.00 � O This Instrument Prepared by: George P. Langford 3357 Tamiami Trail North < Naples,Florida 34103 ~ z (2(:),262-.4,20161,1", iv_11,6 11,6 v314,G5)�UJ .h g ,, 41'r•114. `1 On WW DEED a THIS INDENTURE, made this f"'day of September, 2009, between CJ fh ` CORRADI COOPER STREET,INC.,a Flo ids Corporation,whose post office address is 380 10° Street South, Suite#103,Naples,Florida 34103, GRANTOR, and COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,whose post office address is cveR C 0A E, c SSE )1, That said GRANT R oAmn! 'n constd• .tion eft a sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00), and other gsd-agd • :b • •e' ''dere 'on o said Grantors in hand paid by said Grantee, t f ric= pt • lei i i I b a Icn wledg ed, has granted, bargained and sold to the kni �1,, _ • I = e_.me s su is ors and assigns forever, the following described la ituate, lying an,o bein: it Tier County, Florida, to- wit: ►' DC7 SEE ATTACHED E 041-6• ' Subject to ad valorem taxes for thecurren year, zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority, current leases, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any, and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. Property I.D.Numbers:00388440007;and 77510240008. and said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land,and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. OR 4492 PG 1547 GRANTOR, Signed,sealed and delivered in our presence: CORRADI COOPER STREET, INC., a i Fl da orp ration �- - K ( LL WIT 'I- Nancy P.C: ano y:M CHAEL K.CORRADI Its: President zdff' -, A 741r i • ir:.11. .ng.ord U otic' Rco '�. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER ' /c.-7 i/,- The foregoing instru s,en, s a le : ;117 o •t I is ! day ofAugust,2009 by MICHAEL K.CORRADI, ' • , : , aW , :ialf o •O: 'f• . I I C•OPER STREET, INC., a Florida Corporation � all i s person-0y kno to e. �: ri:,e,, 4;42,404,iryddidie00,4, Ml Contain biro Q� AT.4 j�� ���c. E R AGE P. GFORD (SEAL) .41"i i .411:11, George p Langford ,oma Ca sion#p =��.��, minis �t.'i;,+,�;,• expires Feb /rye b50�84t37 Ba+,40d Par Fig.anbruary ,C01Q • OR 4492 PG 1548 . EXHIBIT"A" Corradi Cooper Street Parcel A: Property ID#77510240008,having a physical address of 1936 Davis Boulevard . Lots 5 through 11, inclusive, of Triangle Lake, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida, Less and excepting therefrom that portion thereof previously conveyed to the State of Road Department of the State of Floridabydere• • onveyance recorded in Deed Book 16, Pages 163 and 164,of the Public Re of £El . nty,Florida. Less the following describ• 1i el: Those portions of Lots 5 nd Tnari_ • L. -, a suidivisio, in ection 11,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, : p• ,1j . • • • 1 •'.t B•ok 4, Page 38, Public Records of Collier Coun , Fl rri 4 a,b-it `/es •t s,1• •w : C) E-1 nti Conence at the northwa•i ,,rner of said Lot 6; el-nce alo : �e west line and southerly . , extension of said Lot 6, 00 degrees 33' -4 -E: t 3 .26 feet to the northerly existing right of way line o - 'oad 90 (US 41) •- €c'on 03010-2116) for a Point of Beginning; thence along :ifDA• tbsrly exte�a 41y1 west line North 00 degrees 33'46"West, 24.82 feet to the be_ 1 -e' ave southwesterly; thence along the arc of said curve the right, having . rads f 11,529.16 feet, a central angle of'00 degrees 47'18.3", an arc length of 158.65 feet, the chord for which bears South 53 degrees 53'54"East to the east line of said Lot 5 and the end of said curve; thence along said east line and southerly extension South 37 degrees 59'11" West 20.01 feet to said northerly existing right of way line and the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly; thence along said northerly,existing right of way line, the arc of said curve to the left, having a radius of 11,509.16 feet, a central angle of 00 degree 42'45.9", an arc length of 143.17 feet, the chord for which bears North 53 degree 51'48": West to the end of said curve and the Point of beginning. Parcel B: Folio ID #0038840007, having a physical address of 1991 Tamiami Trail East A lot or parcel of land in the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, lying North of the Tamiami Trail, of Section 11 in Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida being specifically described as follows: *** OR 4492 PG 1549 *** . From the point of intersection of the West boundary line of the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, lying North of the Tamiami Trail (formerly known as Dixie Highway), of Section 11 in Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, with the Northeasterly right of way line of the said Tamiami Trail run in a Southeasterly direction for 396.58 feet along said Northeasterly right of way line, to establish the Point of Beginning; thence from the Point of Beginning deflect 90 degrees • from the Southeasterly to the Northeasterly and run 322.02 feet;thence deflect 43 degrees 39 minute 10 seconds, from the Northeasterly to the Northerly and run 57.48 feet; thence deflect 69 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds from Northerly to Northwesterly and run 63.91 feet; thence deflect 66 degrees: 29 minutes 50 seconds form Northwesterly to Southwesterly and run 338.2 feet to the said Northeasterly right of way line of said Tamiami Trail;thence in a southeasterly direction run 98.29 feet along said Northeasterly right of way line the Point Beginning.The above described property contains .073 acres more or less. AND LESS AND EXCEPT O .--, Co That portion of the North •s9-' of section 11, To w3r p 50 South, Range 25 East, • Collier County,Florida,b- ng esFbed as-fol • Commence at the northw-st , .r 4 • o : . • •. , e L. •e;thence along the westline and the southerly ex ens .n of itilit •, • 'out e l e_iees 33'46"East 307.41 feet base of St.0 •n L. 1- • •• to , �-b:: Gain of a curve concave to the survey � g southwesterly; thence al. aid survey base li the ar a said curve to the right, having a radius of 11,459. ,a central angle b FP 1 g el. 15'59.2", an arc length of 253.29 feet, the chord for h sears South 53 degr.- 6.448"8"East to the end of said curve; thence North 37 degree R . '' ast, 50,0_0--,t-;, • e northerly existing right of way line of said State Road 9 , )(latki„. es'on 03010-2116) for a Point of Beginning; thence North 37 degrees 5. "- 0.00 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly;thence along the arc of said curve to the right,having a radius of 11,529.16 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 29'17.3", an arc length of 98.22 feet, the chord for which bears south 52 degrees 31' 25" East to the end of said curve; thence south 37 degrees 59'11"West,20.00 feet to said Northerly existing right of way line and .the beginning of the curve concave southwesterly; thence along said northerly existing right of way line, the arc of said curve to the left, having a radius of 11,509.16 feet, a central angle of 00 degree 29'20.3", an arc length of 98.22 feet, the cord which bears north 52 degrees 31'28" west to the end of said curve and the point of beginning. Containing 1,964 square feet. INSTR 4342480 OR 4492 PG 1550 RECORDED 9/17/2009 1:30 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROOK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $35.50 CONS $0.00 This Instrument Prepared by: z P.3357George Tamiami TrailLangford North in-6„, Naples,Florida 34103 _ (239)262-2011 N,I J 9 12;N F.. a d,co.g cam,c9 WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, made thi . of September, 2009, between CC&E INVESTMENTS,L.L.C.,a Florid .: • iafiii , •ompany,whose post office address is 380 10th Street South, Suite# � a. es,Flori'a , GRANTOR, and COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY ' ` ELOPMENT AG 'C' whose post office address is �, !'( 0�J rWit.' i 1 That said G • 1 an e, * s• • * o �•� sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00), and othe ct • $d and valuable c9.1 •el.,tib: to said Grantor in hand paid by said Grantee, the •• •'i t whereof is • , • • • , •owledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the sail ety, . ee, and Gran •7i,,s ccessors and assigns forever, the following described land, si •tq; gi$ 1 in Collier County, Florida,to- wit: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT"A" Subject to ad valorem taxes for the current year, zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority, current leases, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any, and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. Property I.D. Numbers: 00388480009; 77510200006; 77510280000; • 77510320009; and 77510360001. and said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land,and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Documentary Stamps due this transaction were paid,/at the time off•�// recording that Warranty Deed recorded in OR Book /lot , page /c0 Public Records of Collier County, Florida. OR 4492 PG 1551 Signed,sealed and delivered in our presence: GRANTOR CC&E INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company AS TO ALL p &attiL/,e4A-1- WITNE11% ancy P ' :•alano By: CHAEL K. CORRADI Its: Presiding Manager and a Member //, X�j+re .Langford B r LEO E. CORRADI j X02 ,R Cf9Ux Member Y; - STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIE' r •Jr -� The foregoing instru s e: 1•d: i.;efo�: •t s of day of September,2009 by MICHAEL K. CO ' • I esiding Manager e:: and LEO E. CORRADIa Member of and on behalf o tip E INVESTME j` , l .,ti. a Florida Limited Liability Company. ��, t •/ •of H Couinin Bina: ?JIE C tel'/ j J / aMil .•:LI':G RGE P.LANGFORD (SEAL) 4,K:t.e, George P.Langford i Commission#DD508437 :�:••!`,�'.Expires February 10,2010 yfp��� 9c'eeTr F,n•Inw.nce,InC 8o•nS-7019 OR 4492 PG 1552 EXHIBIT"A" CC&E INVESTMENTS • Parcel Al and A2: L1 R. COO- Al: OUAl: Folio ID#00388480009, :�t�lt� physical a 0 i 1965 Tamiami Trail East A lot or parcel of land in t e E ,t `T e Aiu lest q e of the Northwest quarter, lying North of Tamiami ra. , o Sec •• , To ship 0 uth of Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, •ein;, p c a • ;ii-• '•1' s: From the point of interse•t• f € • , 1i = •-t t half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest s ,er, lying North o 'g e T:mi, rail (formerly know as Dixie Highway), of Secti• 4 Township 50 :'ft , • • :- 5 East, Collier County, Florida, with the Northeas -„ ' ;:ht of way line of eCS d Tamiami Trail run in a Southeasterly direction for 29:. •fe- long the,sai� • easterly right of way line, to establish the point of beginning, n .onct oirtf beginning deflect 90 degrees from Southeasterly to Northeasterly •.2 feet, thence deflect 113 degrees 30'10" from Northeasterly to Northwesterly and run 107.18 feet thence deflect 66 degrees 29'50" from Northwesterly to Southwesterly and run 295.46 feet to the said Northeasterly right of way line of said Tamiami Trail,thence in a Southeasterly direction run 98.29 feet along the said Northeasterly right of way line to the point of beginning. The above described property containing 0.71 acres,more of less. A2: ID#7751020006,having a physical address of 1933 Tamiami Trail East• And, Lot 4, Triangle Lake Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County Florida,in Plat Book 4,Page 38. • 1 *** OR 4492 PG 1553 *** • • Parcels Al and A2 Less and Except: That portion of Lot 4, Triangle Lake, a subdivision, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, Public Records.of Collier County, Florida, and that portion of the northwest %,all being in Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 25 East. Being described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of lot 6 of said Triangle Lake, thence along the west line and the southerly extension of said Lot 6, South 00 degrees 33'46"East, 307.41 feet to the survey base line of State Road 90(US 41)and to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly; thence along said sury —base--linthe arc of said curve to the right, having a radius of 11,459.16 feet Bala a, egrees 31'43", an arc length of 105.72 feet, the cord of whit :';:,s outh 53 •e: '16" East to the end of said curve,thence North 36 degr= s ° 5"East,50.00 feet t. lie' tersection of the southerly extension of the west line • sa'+ an •t,erly e 'sti right of way line of said State Road 90 (US 41) (p-r S-ction 00 A1.0'2.16 fo a Poi t o beginning; thence along said southerly extension : d ••1Ito e i •• i d:: e. 5 '11" East, 20.01 feet to "� the beginning of a curve on,:v, th - .te 1,; ' -nc�a •n= th arc of said curve to the ::1 an - o f e ree an arc right, having a radius o � c _ g 44'11.6", length of 148.21 feet,the • for which bears '% th 5g d- s 08'09"East to the end of said curve; thence Sou r degrees 59'11" : , 0 o said northerly existing right of way line and the be_ t i of a curve conca - oCt.h esterly; thence along said northerly existing right of wa 2.p, - arc of s.'', ut tb the left, having a radius of central an le o an arc length of 148.21 feet, the 11,509.16 feet, ag _ gt chord for which bears North 53 degrees 8'16'W—est to the end of said curve and the Point of beginning. Parcel B: Folio ID#77510280000 having a physical address of 2000 Davis Boulevard and Folio #77510320009,having a physical address of 2054 Davis Boulevard. Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15, Triangle Lake Subdivision, as platted and recorded in Plat Book 4,Page 38,Public Records of Collier County,Florida. Attachment "B" Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information Updated Version Dated September 25,2017 Background: The Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)were established in March of 2000. The Bayshore/Gateway area comprises approximately 1,800 acres. The CRA was established in order to breathe new economic life, in the form of private investment, in an area that was experiencing declining property values, and was suffering from inadequate infrastructure (such as, but not limited to stormwater facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and connectivity, landscaping and street lighting, and so forth), The CRA funding comes primarily from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). In establishing this CRA, the Board of County Commissioners intention was and is to utilize TIF funds to reinvest in the CRA, in the form of infrastructure improvements and in supporting private investment in the area. The objective is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. When this revitalization of the CRA as a desirable place to visit, live and work occurs, the taxpayer's investment is recouped through rising property values and increased ad Valorem tax dollar revenues. Often it takes years to accomplish these objectives. A strong economy can accelerate redevelopment and on the opposite end of the spectrum, an economic turndown or other factors (such as stringent inflexible development standards), singularly or in combination, can stymie a redevelopment initiative or bring it to a screeching halt. Over the past several years, there has been rising interest in redevelopment within the CRA and several significant improvements have already occurred or are in the planning stages. These include streetscape and pedestrian and bicycle pathway enhancements, street lighting, crime reduction, façade improvements, and of course the beautiful Botanical Gardens. Even with these successes, in the area identified as the Triangle (and in particular the Mini Triangle targeted for a"catalyst"project) there has been little or no catalytic change over the past 16 years. There are any number of reasons— including the economic downturn; a lack of unity of ownership and aggregation of parcels into one cohesive development site; and inflexible and counterproductive design and development standards that stymie redevelopment rather than foster it In an attempt to address these issues, a number of years ago, the County acquired 5.35 acres of land within the mini triangle. The objective was to position this property so as to be attractive to a private investor to develop the property as a catalyst project (either in the form of a public private partnership or solely as a private sector imitative). The idea is that the redevelopment of the Mini Triangle, with a mix of commercial and residential uses, will create a certain "synergy" of activity and sense of place, and that such a development will be a catalyst for future H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification& Supplemental Information, Continued September 25,2017 -� investment in the greater Triangle redevelopment area. Additionally, mixed use redevelopment, such as is anticipated in this area, optimizes public transit use along the existing arterial roadways. However, redevelopment has unique challenges. Where buildings are no longer viable, as is the case in the mini triangle, the project must incur additional costs of demolition and clean up as well the need to aggregate parcels. Flexibility, in terms of design and development standards, including but not limited to lot coverage, building setbacks, building heights, access, frontage, density and size, floor area, site design, building orientation is absolutely necessary to address the unique nature of redevelopment and to help create an interest on the part of private investors despite the increased market risk. In December of 2015, Collier County issued a Request for Proposal with the intent of obtaining proposals from interested and qualified buyers for the County owned 5.35 acre mini triangle property. The RFP Scope provided for the following: 1. Project scope The proposal should provide a written description of the project, accompanied by a conceptual site plan showing proposed buildings, parking areas and how the development will interface with the surrounding areas. In addition, and, at a minimum, the proposal must clearly identify each land use within the development footprint, such as, residential, hotel units, office, retail/restaurant,public, or other space that would complement the site. 2. Community impact The proposal must describe how the proposed project fits with the adjacent parcels, meets the intent of the CRA Catalyst Project expectation, and would generally benefit the CRA, surrounding areas and the County as a whole. Include as many conceptual visuals as possible such as site plans, renderings, and elevations, if applicable. 3. Zoning The proposal must identify if the applicant will utilize the existing C-4 zoning district, a MUP for the GTMUD-MXD or a specific rezoning that will require a comprehensive plan amendment or other special zoning relief. If the proposal requires additional zoning other than GTMUD-MXD, the proposal must include a detailed explanation of what must be changed and why in order for the project to be successful. Be as specific as possible and provide documentation as needed to substantiate the request. Page 2 of 5 H.\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification& Supplemental Information, Continued September 25,2017 4. Financing The proposal must provide a general financing plan. The proposal must identify if the project will be a straight purchase (if so, what is the purchase price?), a request for public dollars (if so, how much and from what funding source?), require financing (if so, is the expectation that the County will defer the purchase price until the completion of construction and/or contribute to the financing package?), or ask for a repayment back to the proposer from the project tax revenue after completion (if so, how much and when is rebate expected?). All proposals will require a nonrefundable down payment of ten percent (10%) due upon the Board's acceptance and approval of the purchase and development agreement. The financing plan shall demonstrate the proposer's financial ability to successfully purchase and complete the redevelopment of the parcels. 5. Total Project Value At a regularly schedule advertised public hearing, the CRA Board considered the qualified proposals and selected RE Partners International, LLC. Subsequently, a contract was formalized and executed. The contract was amended several times. The contract includes specific timelines and performances standards for both parties, and identifies allowable intensity and density. Both the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA Board (County Commission sitting as the CRA Board) approved the conceptual development plan. The contract provides for 210 multi-family residential units, 152 hotel units, 74,000 square feet or retail and personal service uses, and 60,000 square feet of office use. The contract is attached for your information. GMPA& MPUD The project, as proposed offers the following benefits to the redevelopment area specifically and to Collier County generally: 1. Achieves the CRA "Catalyst project" objective and will promote further private investment and desirable mixed use redevelopment throughout the greater redevelopment area; 2. The most efficient utilization of existing urban services and facilities (reducing public costs when compared to lower density development on the edges of the urban area or beyond). 3. Creates a desirable mixed-use development in urban environments by bringing these related activities closer together. 4. Includes a very significant private sector investment in the CRA where viable transportation options already exist. Page 3 of 5 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification& Supplemental Information, Continued September 25,2017 5. Promotes interconnection and shared access and given its unique location adjacent on two sides to major arterial roadways, and to other CRA commercial ort mixed use parcels on the other two sides. 6. Enhances the local tax base through re-vitalization and increase property values in the neighborhood. 7. Provides for significant job creation. The proposed Small Scale Growth Management Amendment creating the Mini Triangle Subdistrict addresses these issues and provides for relative certainty while still maintaining adequate flexibility in terms of mix of uses and development and design standards. This ensures that the project can be fluid in the market places, while being subject to identified limitations, including maximum trip generation, building height, and an adequate mix of residential and commercial uses. By creating the Subdistrict and requiring the MPUD zoning, these standards will be limited to the 5.35 acre project site. Additional Density Generally and in Coastal High Hazard Area Presently the maximum allowable density is 12 units per acre or 64 units (12 x 5.35). The Subdistrict provides for up to 210 dwelling units, or potentially more if the density or intensity of other approved land uses is proportionately reduced through the Land Use Conversion Matrix, such that the impact to the daily traffic is not increased. The controlling mechanism related to impacts associated with the additional density achievable through the Land Use Conversion Matrix is the cap on PM peak hour unadjusted trips, which is set at 875, as well as the minimum requirement of 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following uses: professional office, retail, restaurant and personal services. So while the mix of uses is fluid and flexible, there is a finite cap on the maximum allowable density and intensity through the maximum trip generation. This flexibility is necessary to ensure that the project can be responsive to the market, and move forward as a catalyst, in the most feasible development scenario. There are of course several other limitations in the form of design and development standards that restrict the site related impacts, including but not limited to maximum building height, required parking and landscaping, and open space. As is typical, these standards, for the most part, are not addressed in the Subdistrict, but rather in the companion zoning document (MPUD).Nevertheless they do limit the site impacts. As to the additional density in the Coastal High Hazard Area, there is no statutory or Collier County prohibition on increasing Density in the CCHA. Presently 64 units are permitted on the site, and up to 210 are requested (with the potential for additional density from utilization of the Land Use Conversion Matrix). This is an increase then, at 210 units, of 146 multi-family dwelling units. Page 4 of 5 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification& Supplemental Information, Continued September 25,2017 Density may be, and in fact has been over the past several years, increased in the CCHA, provided the BCC determines that any potential impact related to hurricane evacuation is adequately addressed. The proposed structures will be elevated and constructed to meet today's stricter building code requirements. We have met with Dan Summers, Collier County Emergency Management Director, to determine what other measures may be appropriate to address this mater. Mr. Summers has requested, and we have agreed to provide, the following: The developer shall provide the Emergency Management Division with a 45kw towable diesel, quiet running, multi phase, multi-voltage generator to be used at other hurricane evacuation shelter sites as a one-time hurricane mitigation effort. Emergency Management will provide approved specifications to the developer who will deliver the generator to Emergency Management, with all necessary warranty and manuals, new and tested for immediate operation as well as a certificate of origin for over the road towing, tags, registration, etc. The one-time generator contribution will be provided at the time of the first residential certificate of occupancy. This will provide appropriate mitigation for hurricane evacuation associated with the potential increase in residential density in the CCHA. LDC Amendment A LDC amendment is proposed in order to ensure consistency between the proposed Subdistrict and the Airport Overlay Section. Additional Supporting Information: As is typical the case, in support of the proposed Small Scale Future Land Use Element and related Future Land Use Map amendment, as well as the companion MPUD rezone and LDC amendment(s), various types of additional supporting date is provided herewith, including but not limited to: • A Traffic Impact Statement; • Various Maps and graphic exhibits required as supporting documentation for the SSGMPA and/or MPUD rezone; • Conceptual Landscape and Architectural Renderings; • A Conceptual Site Plan; and • FAA Letter of No Hazard for additional Building Height (168 feet from Mean Sea Level). Page 5 of 5 �`-' H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed Small Scale Amendments to the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Related to 5.35 Acres Located within the "Mini Triangle" Portion of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Amend the FLUE DESCRIPTION SECTION,Section I,URBAN DESIGNATION, Subsection A. Urban Mixed Use District,Page 49,as follows: 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict I. Purpose and Intent: The Mini Triangle Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the 5.35 acre site specific Mixed Use Subdistrict, as a subset of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan'. In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a "Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept". The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a Catalyst Project (or projects) that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards. In order to provide for this greater intensity, density, and flexibility the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to MPUD. II. Allowable Uses and Restrictions: All uses allowed within the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD) shall be allowed within this Subdistrict subject to the intensity and density limitations identified in paragraphs A. through F., below. To ensure a mixed use development, a minimum of 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following commercial uses shall be developed: professional office, retail,restaurant and personal services. The PUD shall establish a date, timeframe, or condition by which the minimum 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development shall be constructed. This date,timeframe or condition shall not be construed to limit approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or related amendment(s)thereto, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements depicted thereon, including but not limited to site access, sewer and water lines and facilities, stromwater facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage, and fence or walls. A. 210 multi-family residential units are allowed by right within this Subdistrict. B. 152 hotel suites/rooms (or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites)are allowed by right within this Subdistrict. 'Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan,approved on June 13,2000 by Resolution 2000-181 Underlined text proposed to be added; through text proposed to be deleted. Page 1 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx C. 74,000 square feet of the following uses, as specifically permitted by right or as a conditional uses in the C-4, General Commercial District, are allowed by right within this Subdistrict: • Retail; • Restaurant; • Movie Theatre(multiplex),bowling center and physical fitness facilities;and • Personal services. D. 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right within this Subdistrict. E. The following additional commercial uses are allowed only if the uses listed in paragraphs A. through D. above, are converted to an additional use using a conversion formula in accordance with paragraph F below. • Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) — not to exceed 150 units and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45;and, • Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self storage, not to exceed 60,000 square feet(SIC Code 42252);and, • New Car Dealership, not to exceed 30,000 square feet (SIC Code 55112); and, • Any other principal use which is comparablein nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses F. The densities and intensities identified for specific uses in Paragraphs A. through D. above may be increased through application of conversion formulas to be established during the MPUD rezone, subject to the following minimum and maximum limitations listed below. Any increase in density or square footage identified in Paragraphs A.through D.above by using a conversion formula will result in a corresponding reduction of dwelling units and/or hotel suites/rooms and/or retail and/or office square footage, and additionally: • In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation for the project exceed 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips; • In no case shall the maximum number of dwelling units for the project exceed 400; • In no case shall the maximum number of hotel rooms for the project exceed 200; • In no case shall the maximum combination of retail, office, personal service, restaurant, movie theater uses for the project exceed 200,000 square feet; • To ensure that the development is mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi-family residential uses and a minimum combination of 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following shall be developed: retail, restaurant, professional office, or personal services; G. Development within this Subdistrict shall be subject to the provisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, as applicable, except in the case of building height, which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16, as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16, as may be approved as part of the MPUD. 2 1987 Standard Industrial Classification(SIC)Manual,Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget Underlined text proposed to be added;struck through text proposed to be deleted. Page 2 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx Amend the FLUE,B.DENSITY RATING SYSTEM,1.e.,Pages 50 and 51,as follows: e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the"vested"Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. 9) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. Amend the FLUE,V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES,F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay,Pages 139-141,as follows: F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay.The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: 1. Mixed-Use Development: A Mmix of residential and commercial uses a—is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle)to nearby residential areas. The Underlined text proposed to be added; text proposed to be deleted. Page 3 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\i-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadways to promote traditional urban development. 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below, or and-except as may be limited by a zoning overlay, or as provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water-dependent and water-related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. 4. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard(SR 84) and/or the west side of Airport-Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre,via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11; except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25% of the total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards identified in paragraph no. 8, below, except for mixed_use projects developed within the "mini triangle" catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The "mini triangle" catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning overlay adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08), and amended December 14,2006(Ordinance No. 06-63)_For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase,their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport- Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential- only project at a maximum density of 8 residentialunits per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11. except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25% of the 388 total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts,by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project.-In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. Underlined text proposed to be added;struck through text proposed to be deleted. Page 4 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d. All residential units shall be market rate units. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies. Properties located in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from the above provisions (paragraph 5). 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center#16, land uses-will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5, above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. 7. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses,densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. 8. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above, or as otherwise permitted within Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict,mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 10. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus,. as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict-is are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 11. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses, as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above. This 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool corresponds with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the botanical Underlined text proposed to be added;ctrucic through text proposed to be deleted. Page 5 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within P the "mini triangle"catalyst project i:,are not subject required to utilize this density bonus pool. 12. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map(XV)Mixed Use&Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy(5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12)Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map(XIII)Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve—Conservation Designation Map Lely Mitigation Park—Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map(XXX)Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Underlined text proposed to be added;struck through text proposed to be deleted. Page 6 H.\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language(01-24-2018).docx N f- yy q4y �N 5 . rO L R N d 1 A 1+ - i zCV ul ti,..,w� ` Y o \\ ' a tl � � V I;w 9 ,�l��ji N s3 I� . l' (7, F "' ,/ 9, qg 4 cn 1RR,, NN Q j 2 ltd I— D Z a W io _I. .. _Is ^i_ H (.s daarm own.-1RaRr - .. ---- _ V§ RAAR .11a 'iLL - ^ Pr011 _ • a ! Uu 5 a Mal4,a \\ \� a�f ` � "pi 1._ mEr 89M. t\\ .W2 .\'it\\ NN. _1 \« Nye,4 INE N MS a•� rr — r rl,:� El: e A i 9 • � � 'o d I` rrrrrc� c�� p -_4 A s ....1.-- 1. INV O g`.7 6 IIisiIi°BW IIIIWIM Jrir,555.m. i� Ell 0,1, s^ J aiaa�Bam gLL�cz o w�m4 �" = maims ©A s0 ^ R ]¢S,3 ^ a ; E1�. ��M �i� El ©_A _ —1 C7 o Ytl i3vus 3aiure `a oriN R� 111113 k ONO ®i iiia "D lir iilf .= III ,_ - _ „_... .1/4611110e ;NI r NM ES1 i cn 1 LA .. _ aim ii . 7,. . 0 .. . W 0 ii —, . IBM 9 +1.:-.7 ;IIIIII, I , _ E,1 ., ,c, s �OS mil= all 11 Lui 1111. ex U •A A = a R© x tiL J�r�i n 7 e A =t�1, '■ 133B1S m r; gerlig ©eeeeeeee� y A 9 w _ ,-Li V. -� T l a f ,_ 4 3Mr1 SS5613 OJ rTr©iflE 0 `q 31 :o1A o=>31r.` * � O• • 4,x1 �� .rmos a 6 _ • � '���� .�°' , - �4 .O . -111111111111111140: a '• Li 3x1 �giRlbrB igsraimill S, ����ii HIM 6E7 'YO�e '4. �ee -3011.5 L;SI-IM 0 U WI o©©e iggIEW_ LRAM _ _ -.p ! . j aS. - Q ►- 01 2 •Qr __ ©n .lua roe3nroa EU - e Q � co _ Jam© ®© ® x ��„i�,,,,�i��,� ° ��%°;� e;e .� �:;” Z "A.3wmm !lint= ©� © H o .Win � r11.�.i.If�N:. a e 3 gfffif5^05©mi >e3mEn 1 2 d Win �� M,. 11 1t_^ J 3.Na15 Xa IbrigrAp��� ©� © IMI - FAQ , : &a "Nit IVII EMI In "' T• - 1=`-1••. 33355 N015a03113 11: WEk`- ©©FASME V .. -e 13355 SLUM . - ••• �• ����SseseO�0 «^ F S • �o . , B B I- - MR.U3lL'/- 3 • •• •4101°5• � dn «. r ®®®4 N g m 4 0 a o c � � $ N Q 9 N dS O G (O E � y L 1< N il •'s .I Iv.t10. .... . -- ` rU r t id G ,k_vvi "if.. r - 1 i Zir • � } - I •r`• 1'�' • 1 is _ Q Q kii,. ,L z '.t,.4 ,, 4; 1 .,.*6 '410 It 7;..,.. 0 CO • ' , ♦ Q w ► ro 14 . „ ;Ai . , •• ithail)ii.r• ' • ,......:".r......'.'''''....A ‘,...cr-s. ,. . •Li, .... : ..,,., .11 t i ,r ..**-t:.. :' /*"..1" . 7:....'' ' s U ,; ` d-c •` �'► ''t' CO '00 s_ . 4 ,.. - t fit. . N 'if...,ifs W g . • i : �� 'R l 'rT ,'` 1'x'1 •1 _ r� .O iS t., iK:,� ,•• • ��w- f�i r '• t r sR r �- r,r'° �' o i4 , �► 4-- 1 in f * Qk MO. JO • A - ,•i )414cri •-•-•. • .., <,_ , , , f • y r 1 b, ten. 4" ?It'll o r • R .`' .sila I al , !. .'` _ = w - i . +r` 1 }F Yom' JTJri rA 0. A 01 .— - ' 't a Q H �, OrAA.��+-,. cn /; • h • $ ,,Ca trj„ 1A j - ,.t. cc a f . .4 • ", • 4( t 5 ~_ m cil co 4°• s .' Y ► -• "''• +iii•. 'aid m rr 1�' 1i T , •....--.%; "t' i dZ' w �r •,;� • ,�X:,• 1db N d0 111"•ice ',* a •'G .'" o Of .. ' . • - 41" ` .I., o. J 1111 • k 11s • ��.ie y w ' .i .! ¢ i. 1 w ®®®4 § N O 3 y g= O � N g 0 § y a O O s 4 !LM ;go gig Hi 5 J F T T T T 4 aoa oumne-laoaan •- ---r il ��m, may_ , BMX* ' 1\\a a\ �.IFEINI �o stn s= m " is om. Ica la miffaii' - O -il ' JamO�iF-JI !I1.iii - LEEOlemin�: Druonv I3R0nxI . �' i i i Z _ MI . 171L1 } UUUU U e 0 ME r - +R 9 Q i[I ' R RWM � R i x i RT`S'r Z U. B 3-S',_ Q 0 R —4— 1 I MR3nv 2 m U 1.111111111111111ffille -': 'REn I IKE 3."a W J W zria as q.,...! v ® : Mill A cn W >.mi O 11 11111 111 „, 51� El 11 Ili x O LiiZ 1110/ 17. TM Ell 111211181111111b to me cm;em Iiiiii11111117P Lu t . .1- IF1j. r',L_ -1 E. 111V1 ssrvRN c61 et R 0 - "'� + a• J Z > m am �i I IrEler all M y... NM`G s gip.} 0� o •m o J� Oa.. - pia_ roma zI�Iohisesivpr 1 _ R � c.� w a •OCInO 0100 BeFINSINEM©© M , ..II -tr _ '; �.4. i N 7' ewm il©C©© lliEW MIK, 3 1 7■`'G ,�� �! e J 3d3 < Q " -1E7 _ _wiaaseooda \ - a 0 N#; d 4Q�'Y* W AVIA 311.11 !I EllX1 MA ri , M.41\ 211 LI© e � ▪ _• a / ,,, c; R ...R. = 4_C 0 2 2 2 1 ''''::'!< 1J N3MaLL1.110 - CO ~ n ~ D 11133 I��� �� © © ,`i' (:):2''- ‘ 3 � . R �1rnus•ommy, CO Z U) fn • %WM Erni a �' _ .:. S - i ' / 133W5SUMO � W ell ' cz I- 7sd�lirX000 y� _ % _ — Z• 2 o ;a o2 u3 co J a _ _ Z 2 . II S31dVN JO ALIO W O b �' CO 1 E I ®®®4E - g O O O G ff N 'A N h € O g g f0 WN O X N 4g� g ! iAl I ,_: I- — a Ra an18 CSO ■ oo m uwi VHV82i`d8`d1NVS 0c0 L ) ■ I-00 -'o co Lu Z LL. = J li 00 ZW 2uU wD wN ii Hi- in ~ vQ Qcn CC Y w Q ii p A.,„--8-;V: Ua W p UD nad Q o w=.LL 111111 '1F, 1Pr at Z 7 ' . ` W Q in in i w1 y f o_ alfilli .. OVOU >INV8d-311314000 - 2j. ti F- 0 LLJ 0 H U W .< Q o aF- U 0 ctCL CC Q W aU f/) U HD Q O_ _ co C2 Z oo a N ce Z Q O N oo EL N Cr) Q 0 m W �' N O LJ F- Z 0 ce F-w m V) z _ � Q Ct c,N z Z J N a o �' a < 2 3 _0 �J ( o I 0 W F- - -3 W z J S Z O D W N Z W O Z Qw J O F- W F W -I — Z 0ZW 0 0 �W O� Zd W 0 NF- H U' Q Z F- �' zO d Fr) N »e V \O aF- N O W O V N Q N O Za F- Z 0 ct p J E2 GI =D>- d' O F- Q O m O V > fn Q 1 J 2W F-Q 0> Z Z_ w ~ OUB Q �W w 0 FW-- 0 1 >-0 ZF- LU F- m m m m ? f.=:E Z } Q N N Q W �Q 0 Q CCD : : ' >o 0 F-- F- m Q CO CC : 0 < 0 ON f/): JCS 0 U W 2 0 k I ■ 4444 - Collier Environhenta➢•Consult&its Inc• a Telephone(239)263-2687 Fax(239)263-6616 3880 Estey Ave. • • Naples,Florida 34104 • . • Envfros;uaaemtal Data: - . Collier Environmental Consultants was contracted to examine the subject parcel for any environmental issues.This project site is urban redevelopment.The redevelopment parcels are located in Section 11, Township 50,Range 25. Specifically,the parcels are on Davis Blvd approximately 160 yards east with the intersection of US 41 (Tamiami Trail). . • These redevelopment parcels.have been previously cleared and developed. They consist . of warehouses,office buildings and paved parking. These parcels offer no environmental function.These parcels do not provide or have any native habitat and/or wildlife.These . parcels are void of vegetation.other than a few remnant landscaping plants and some invasive exotics. . - `hese parcels have NO listed Species,Native'Habitat or other environmental issues.The • - following plants were found on site. • - • + UCCS CODE AND VEGETATION INVENTORY Y - • • L • F LUCCS CODE l(Description) - • Common Name SeiendiEe Naune In,ii rmutor Status Ng Urban n.Bu�lllt . . This is different Urban built business. This includes warehouses,offices and other similar l . structures.These are some of the vegetation present in this category. . Brazilian-pepper Sclinus terebinthifolius Exotic - Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto FAC AizshaJianpine • . Casuarina equisetifoiia • Exotic • !• . cocopinm - Chrysobalanus icaco FACW . • Baliiagrass- Paspalism notatum FACU- - Sandspur Cenchrus.echinatus FAC . • Mahogany Swietenia mahagoni UPL - . 13 . Redden-Hal odd emttuall— h Densiiyr . These are residential units • - I EXHIBIT C-1 . 141 Retail Sales and Service This is retail sales and services that include boat and car sales and/or services 1415 Restaurant This category is for food services 1451 Hotel This is exactly what it says hotel 193 Urban Land in Transition This category is for developed lands that have been abandoned and with no identification of use.This specific category was used for and is an abandoned parking lot. Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto FAC live oak Quercus virginiana UPL cocoplum Chrysobalanus icaco FACW 8143 State Road This is a State highway/road Tamiami Trail or also know as US 41 8144 County Road This road is known as Davis Blvd INDICATOR STATUS- Obligate(OBL),Facultative wet plants(FACW), Facultative plants(FAC),Upland(UPL) _ r _ 447 A �...s . .a. •�r..tr+i3(► .Lam.a . • a Y Lr • • • • ONE OF THE PARCELS-WAREHOUSES • • • �•7 VH a4 ar:- ;r CLEARED PARCEL -4tL. :Tt a S ! _- •v4 4: *rs Iia SSS __ Ia a r -t 4F ONE OF THE PARCELS FACING US 41 • . nin� � • ' 7x t 1 SOME REMNANT LANDSCAPING PLANTS s'......... . ., 4:arL •I qh.7. .0 • , . , ',..• ' . 1 ' ' ......-:.".• _, • • .., • • --.._-_ I .----_,- • - -- „. . ---- ... • • - .-, ,. t. .-t . , _ 1 .. -.0,- - .5 1-*- - itf.-:- 'e - - --'- " -- ' -. ' % • ,'..,;...-.,..':64.:-,„:,.40.!::,,:::41:,:x"..:;:t.i i1.4..:;,.,-164.,..:;:l•..-z?.:ra,r7.1t1;.:5,,,iia4.'"'.t`-'-'-7-1‘.:',0,.-'' ,:;3.4;.,..,IT.-4-::......p. T.,..,.ioc:*: :' _--:::. ..,. :**.,..''— :-- : '., ....".-,..,41k.A.•.,•.4,1 ,...:., ... ':•:Pi....'. /*!a;X,.. ii.:5"1". A ,,' •Ar•A;c ' . . ' '..'?..--41-*!,+-:;;;. ..-; ••\-A.4).f...47-.-...::;47---.1'.....v . V"''4'?:-Vip. _ r.l. /tot i5,_-,.4,.•-......,...,„,.:4,.1,-.v4;.,.,:--...x4.t.?-.-r.-...-...-..4-,.-.•..t.f.,.i-.,„.-•.,-••4 .>.,........ 4.,.—-,44•,-,-i-.-:....:,_r....:-.*3.-._....c4 --...•.-„----• . ---s.k*k-.. ,-•-••---,--... .-.,.• ,. :;.-11:4-.-- • 44.:.:Ii. v,w...,.. . --, • -. . ...... :.,..,-.41.. -.-_,-,r,. - _•.,-‘,., ..... . .....„f •,.. . _ n- --.....• .• -, . . ONE OF THE PARCELS-CLEARED HELD ,... . . • -- : - • - COLLIER COUNTY SOIL LEGEND . - REVISED 1190 H. YAMAMATAKI tax'3{IC H- 2 HOLOPAW FS, LIMESTONE" SuBSTRATt3M . . - H 3 - MALAB 3R FS. - _ - H . _ 4 - CHOBEE,- LIMESTONE Sut STRATUM AND DANIA MUCKS _ - DEPRESSIONAL H _ 6 RIVIERA, LIMESTONE BUBSTRATUM-COPBLAND FS • 7 IE+M4OKALEE FS . - V 8 MSA FS 10 OIDSMAR FS, LIMESTONE-SU33STRATDM - 11 HAILA L FS " H 14 PINEDA FS, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM - 3.5 PONELLO FS 16 -OLDSMAR FS H 17 BASINGER FS H V 18 RIVIERA FS, -LIMESTONE SUl3STRATCJM 20 FT. DRUM AND HIGH-,FS • • ' • .21 BOCA FS .- 11 22 CHOBEE, WINDER AND GATOR SOILS, DEPRESSIONAL H 23 HOLOPAW AND OKEEI.ANTb SOILS .DEPRESSIONAL - ' H 25 BOCA, RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM AND - COPLLAND FS DEPRESSIONAL - H 27 HOLOPAW FS _ H 28 PINEDA AND RIVIERA. FS --,l- 29 WABASSO FS • H 31 HILOLO. LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, JUPITER AND - - MARGATE SOILS 32 URBAN LAND -- 33 -33 URBAN LAND HOLOPAW BASINGER COMPLEX 34 URBAN LAND IMMOKALEE'OLDSMAR LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM COMP-LEX - - 35 URBAN LAND AQUENTS COMPLEX ORGANIC SUBSTRATUM 36 UDORTHENTS SHAPED 37 '1,'uBCAWILLA FS- 38 URBAN LAND MATLACHA LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM - BOCA COMPLEX 39 SATELLITE FS H 40 DDRBIN AND Vil PERT MUCKS - _ __ 41, URBAN LAND SATET4TAITE COMPT• -:"1:--77:-_i._ _ - - _42 __.CANAVERAL BBACBBS ASSOCIATION - - • - H 43 WI-WE.R, RIVIERA, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM::-AND:-. - - -_ ®BEE SQTT,S DEPRESSIONAL - 45- PAOLA. FS (1-8 percent slopes) g 48 PENNSUCCO SOIL (marl prairie) [ H 49 HAILiDA E AND BOCA. FS (slough) . B 50 OCHOPSS FSI,, PRAIRIE (marl) H 51 OCHO1 FSL H 52 KSSSEIN MUCK .F1ZSQu]ii+t"i1sY FLOODBD H 53 ESTERO AND PEC ISH SOTT S FREQUENTLY_ FLOODED 54 .313P!!' t. BOCA. COMPLEK H ::- 56 BASINGER FS, CCC`ASION T.TiY=FLOOD - 1 •-E L,7 Y Z7-1 _J `r O , r/1 U v/ N d v ui _8 m E > 2 o N C C S O U) p • -, 00302 9' m V �t —C � 'L02 G! ,E.' E U _ to to O Q. to ` - t , I•�Brookside Drive t�! �k f 9i .ttft y CommercI2I Drvr �F • 9 4h {04 ` .l 1'' '. . r1 ,t . C �i Y 1 1,../ i. 'FOAM,:1. t. ._ t • 4 !� �,+ .- {i4 - •~- Ai �. • * . ` :-* •� • ' r —� 3 r It t,,u % _1 !�• •?. / N r k. ,i •• _ • • v v T s.,....: ,i a I' O T f. N.3R k •%k r 41 co Frederick Strmt� i°g. '. 11 Ii r r � � - 1 1 fFINF Lam`I - *sit _ E -:ifR ttt+ai qS�:04• •. . -sr' ...._� r� •� �+ vii N RI .. t' r •` + , armor •• It. fin. + s. irel' A*. ' ,„.:_j:. _:.,,:_.: ',2,'.: It f :7: ,.' . '' 0 I N • i Fs d N N � �c N - h Z 4 O t o C w O m •H c. E 5 O >N 0U W >>N Z OL RLL 5W0)- N F Q N W a a-, O N J O Z O N W -W l- 0 Li J Z N N W J W U D ° 2 Q o` ZLL W f •O wN ka 3 N LL oz ON3xwaZQ_ o FO 0 JZeco_ x 4 8 > OU wawaOw1- $' C Q W W a W O O Z a N d 03 3= $$y N UJ a W W�FDOJ �¢qy U JJ W wi-W UwW-I-- .3 •J o02 <=Z n=Q N a D aY�LL�F-cemF-UQ a a -L0ci0.6004-I0 U LU w Z ~ W W �_ H _ 0 ~ LU W 0 - a 0J H UQ W F_ r (" - — CO LL - O ' i1 U ! mJW • Qom' U U iS / . y._,• x g w CC CO L. lib' ..--j m 71 o> }. r fl- . • W • Q0o 1 i� -o L' r.. U H H _— 3 g v S , L.L. i oyZ • LL rm; co . LLC 2N �, a • ° m O rZ • Fri ..,._ Z Ct Wu- .. CC .'. W • •1i LI • ^.J I u.iyy ` r 0Z ItA 1§1 1, o- Z I `ui0i o z co •� r WK sLLO �• e S L rIII I � } u ` � ` _ a--' LI“- L s ,lx�v U col- Z x -i'n Q Qe• LL J x i �p;z U) r Z :4 1 w 0 _ _ Z a. W co O 0 - Q. LT 0 CD CO ... W C W W W1- • -J Y ` 3 LL • Q ' W - V U Q ' coo F Z C' Z - Ja a - '- LL W - — a N "_J co O fn 1C- z3 x Jw i_ 0 = aw m Q — U z z•e z• m Z Al, 1N31Albb'dQ 38IJ SdldbN JO A.110 • N ei &, 4®®4 EXHIBIT E-2 MINI TRIANGLE SUBDISTRICT City of Naples utilities will provide water service for potable and fire protection needs to the property, and Collier County Utilities will provide wastewater service. The subject property is within the South Service Area. Both utilities have sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer service. The estimated potable water and wastewater average daily and peak requirements for the subject property are as follows: Potable Water 51.1 GPM (Peak 204.4 GPM) Wastewater 51.1 GPM (Peak 204.4 GPM) According to the Collier County 2016 AUIR, currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 17.7 million tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2.5 million tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 54 years. This is adequate to accommodate additional tons per capita disposal generated by the proposed project. Stormwater retention and detention will comply with SFWMD requirements, and State and County standards for off-site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management(drainage) level of service. The construction of 152 hotel rooms/suites or 73,000 SF of commercial and 60 SF of office uses will not affect school capacity. The application also proposes 210 multifamily residential units and a school impact analysis application has been submitted to the School Board of Collier County. This type of residential development (multi-family high rise) is not anticipated to have any significant effect on public schools in terms of increasing student population as history shows that few Collier County Public School students will be living in such units. On the other hand, from a fiscal perspective, any residential units will pay school taxes, and thus will overall, have a positive impact on Collier County Public Schools. The closest EMS/fire station is a Naples Fire Rescue station, located at 835 8th Ave S, Naples, FL 34102, a little over a mile from the property. The subject site is within the Greater Naples Fire District, which maintains facilities at 4798 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104, 1.8 miles from the subject site, and 4375 Bayshore Dr.,Naples,FL 34112, 2.3 miles from the subject site. H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report(12-1-2017).docx Trebflcock planninp•enuineerinu Traffic Impact Statement Gateway Mini Triangle Planned Unit Development and Growth Management Plan Amendments Collier County, FL 03/29/2017 Prepared for: Prepared by: Hole Montes, Inc. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 950 Encore Way 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-254-2000 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee—$ 500.00 Collier County Transportation Review Fee—Major Study—$1,500.00 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 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. Digitally signed by Norman J. Norma n Trebilcock P.E.47116 ,,,������III' J. DN:cn=Norman J.Trebilcock ��� TR ", �� P.E.47116,o=Trebilcock ,� P�,,..••..,, �� Consulting Solutions,PA, Z. 0.• ••Q�`••\,\GEN�:.C���i Tre b i l cock ou=Norman J.trebilcock, O• • 0 email=ntrebilcock@trebilcoc No 47116 '• P.E. 47116 k.biz,c=US *: * — Date:2017.03.29 07:01:47 "fl t C -04'00' 5'. STATE OF :�� S �• ��� Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. le,;S/ON A' �.�` FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 12 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Table of Contents Project Description 4 Trip Generation 6 Trip Distribution and Assignment 8 Background Traffic 10 Existing and Future Roadway Network 11 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis 12 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis 13 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 25 Appendix D: US 41—from Goodlette Rd.to Davis Blvd.Traffic Data 33 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits 39 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 13 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Project Description The Gateway Mini Triangle development is an approved Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East (US 41 [SR 90]). The project is approximately 5.35 acres in size and is located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is located within the US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). The US 41 TCEA is designed to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban sprawl control policies and redevelopment. Proposed development located within the boundaries of the South U.S. 41 area are exempt from transportation concurrency requirements so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies enumerated in the Land Development Code (LDC), as applicable. Refer to Fig. 1 — Project Location Map, which follows, and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Fig. 1— Project Location Map 1 ... • a i . N '!� i apes 1 WI. (#07MN^ + ' .4 r ,� { . r1_ : PROJECT , , • I i % ' • ` III rA 1 fw •...% Vff V. r \ ! cr da, V L II __Gogh Consistent with the approved Collier County zoning districts and uses, the existing subject site is currently zoned General Commercial District (C-4) which provides the opportunity for the most diverse types of commercial activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational attractions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA P a g e l 4 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Upon approval of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Plan Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) applications, the project will be developed as a mixed-use project as shown in Table 1, Proposed Development Program. The proposed principal uses are illustrated as follows: - Residential— Multi-family—up to 210 dwelling units. - Commercial — up to 152 hotel suites; up to 74,000 square feet of Retail, Restaurant, Movie Theater, Personal services; up to 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office use. - Permitted uses based on a conversion matrix —Assisted Living Facility (ALF); Indoor air- conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage; New Car Dealership; any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses. The units and square footage provided above may be adjusted from the stated units and square footages as provided in a Land Use Conversion Table —this document is submitted as a separate item. The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. For the purposes of this analysis, Medical Office is conservatively used, as it generates higher traffic volumes than the General Office use. Table 1 Proposed Development Program Development Land Use ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Total Size Code Residential Multi-Family Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 210du* Hotel Hotel 310 152 rooms Retail Shopping Center 820 74,000sf** Office Medical-Dental Office 720 60,000sf** Note(s): *du=dwelling units. **sf=square feet. For 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 November 14, 2016, as illustrated in Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist. Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41 — northern entrance — right-in/right- out/directional median left-in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right- out/left-in access (proposed dual left directional median). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page IS Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 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 estimated project trip generation associated with the proposed development is illustrated in Table 2. 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 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. For the purposes of this report, the software program OTISS is used to generate associated internal capture traffic. The OTISS calculation procedure follows the trip balancing approach as recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Volume 1, User's Guide and Handbook, Chapter 7— procedure for estimating multi-use trip generation internal capture, aka "triangle method". As illustrated in Table 2, calculated internal capture values are below the county limits. 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. 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 to be assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis calculates shopping center daily pass-by trips at 15% of the gross external traffic with AM and PM peak hour at 25%of the gross external trips. Pass-by trips are not deducted for traffic operational analysis. As such, the total external generated traffic illustrated in Table 2 is computed for the site access turn lane analysis. Table 2 Trip Generation (Proposed Conditions)—Average Weekdayl11 24 Hour Two- Development Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA-PUDA 10,221 258 189 447 407 468 875 -� Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 16 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Total Traffic Internal Traffic (1,300) (15) (15) (30) (56) (56) (112) External Traffic 8,921 243 174 417 351 412 763 Pass-By Traffic (743) (18) (11) (29) (53) (56) (109) Non-Pass-By Traffic 8,178 225 163 388 298 356 654 (Net New External Traffic) Note(s): Ill For more details on Trip Generation calculations,refer to Appendix C. In agreement with the Collier County Traffic Impact Study (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 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM. For the purpose of this TIS, the surrounding roadway network link concurrency analysis is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour traffic generated by the project (Table 2,Total Non- Pass-By Traffic). The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the estimated traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour. Based on the trip generation results, projected PM peak hour traffic is more intense than the AM peak hour traffic (both egress and ingress traffic). As such, the PM peak hour traffic is used in the project access turn lane sizing (PM Peak Hour Enter — 351 vph; Exit—412 vph). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 17 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Trip Distribution and Assignment Projected traffic generated by the proposed development is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning staff. Based on the estimated PM peak hour total net new external traffic, the assignment of proposed site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour, and is graphically depicted on Fig. 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hr Project Traffic CC AUIR Distribution Roadway Link Roadway Link Location of Project Vol. Link ID# Traffic Enter Exit Tamiami Trail Goodlette Rd.to Davis Easel)(US 41) N/A Blvd. 40% SB—119 NB—142 Tamiami Trail East (US 41) 91.0 Davis Blvd.to Airport Rd. 20% NB—60 SB-72 Davis Blvd. (SR 84) 12.0 US 41 to Airport Rd. 40% WB-119 EB—142 Note(s): iii Not a Collier County monitored roadway. izl Peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 18 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Fig. 2— Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour PROJECT TRAFFIC #r'a 't � � DISTRIBUTION BY _ r- �� n.von An PERCENTAGE ,j N gale. J Neylc If ENI Airport _— N*PleS itt S 40% H 20% 1 1 4 Go gle iLt PROJECT TRAFFIC a►'� ' ,... ,E___.. ____ DISTRIBUTION BY , T, PM PK HR i, ® INBOUND (40) OUTBOUND 4 4, (EB-Peak SB Peak K (1421 119 Direction) Direction ` _–> ® .. (142) (72) —, .... NA a •.✓ (SB-Peak Direction) 14" ._ ,► Go gle Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 1 9 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 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 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The higher of the two determinations, is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. It is noted that the US 41 (SR 90) segment from Goodlette-Frank Road (CR 851) to Davis Boulevard (SR 84) is located within the City of Naples corporate limits. The Level of Service (LOS) Standard for City streets is evaluated by comparing the two-way traffic volume at peak hour, peak season with the designated roadway capacity as set forth in the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan. For US 41 (SR 90), the City is consistent with the State's policies for LOS and adopt LOS D, except for the segment of US 41 between Four Corners and Davis Boulevard which is set at LOS E (as illustrated in FDOT Collier County Level of Service Spreadsheet). As illustrated in FDOT 2015 Historical AADT Report, historic traffic for the US 41 segment from Goodlette-Frank Road (CR 851) to Davis Boulevard (SR 84) shows a negative annual growth rate for this segment (year 2006—AADT 64,000; year 2015 —AADT 52,000). Based on Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance, a minimum of 2%growth rate is considered. Calculations of projected peak hour, peak direction background traffic volume (without project) for the future build-out year 2021, are illustrated in Table 4A and Table 4B. Table 4A City of Naples Traffic Count Analysis (US 41/East of Goodlette Rd. to Davis Blvd.) Traffic 2021 Peak Hour Date of Traffic Seasonal 2015 Annual Growth 2021 AADT K and D Peak Direction Count Count(1) Adjustment(2) AADT Growth Factori3i Background Factors(5) Background Rate Traffic(4) Traffic(6) (%/yr) (trips/hr) March 67,397 0.92 62,005 2015 June 2015 45,270 1.14 51,608 September 45,449 1.12 50,903 2015 December 54,976 0.96 52,777 2015 Average 54,323 2.0% 1.1262 61,000 K=9; D=55.9 3,069 Note(s): (1)As illustrated in the 2015 City of Naples Traffic Counts. (2)FDOT 2015 Peak Season Factor Category Report. (3)Growth Factor=(1+Annual Growth Rate)6. A 2021 Projected Volume=2015 AADT x Growth Factor.FDOT-AASHTO rounding standards. (5)Refer to Appendix D. (6)2021 Peak Hour Peak Direction=2021 Projected AADT x 0.09 x 0.559. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 110 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 City of Naples 2015 Traffic Counts and FDOT traffic factors are illustrated in Appendix D, for US 41 roadway, segment located from Goodlette-Frank Road to Davis Boulevard. Table 4B Background Traffic without Project(2016—2021) 2016 AUIR Projected 2021 Projected 2021 Projected CC Pk Hr,Pk Dir Traffic Pk Hr,Peak Dir Pk Hr,Peak Dir Background Background Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Annual Growth Trip 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*** Tamiami Goodlette Rd Trail Eastlll N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,069 N/A N/A (US 41) to Davis Blvd Tamiami Davis Blvd Trail East 91.0 to Airport Rd 1,580 2.0% 1.1041 1,745 47 1,627 (US 41) Davis Blvd 12 0 US 41 to 1,520 2.0% 1.1041 1,678 14 1,534 (SR 84) Airport Rd Note(s): (�)Not a Collier County monitored roadway.For more details refer to Table 4A. *Annual Growth Rate—estimated for 2008-2015 peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes,or 2%minimum. **Growth Factor=(1+Annual Growth Rate)5.2021 Projected Volume=2016 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2021 Projected Volume=2016 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 2016 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 2016 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 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 111 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Min. 2016 Peak Dir, Future Roadway Link CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist Standard Peak Hr Project Link ID# Location Roadway Ili LOS Capacity Build out Volume Roadway Tamiami Trail Goodlette Rd.to Davis East(Z)(US 41) N/A Blvd. 8D E 3,600(SB)(2) 8D Tamiami Trail East91 0 Davis Blvd.to Airport 6D E 2,900(SB) 6D (US 41) Rd. Davis Blvd. (SR 84) 12.0 US 41 to Airport Rd. 6D E 2,700(EB) 6D Note(s): (1)2U=2-lane undivided roadway;4D,6D,8D=4-lane,6-lane,8-lane divided roadway,respectively;LOS=Level of Service. (2)Not a Collier County monitored roadway. Capacity is consistent with similar type roadway. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis 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 -r. 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, project's impacts are significant on all roadway segments within the analyzed 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. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate proposed development traffic. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the studied roadway network. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 112 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS)—With Project in the Year 2021 Roadway 2021 Peak %Vol. Min LOS Min LOS 2016 Peak Link,Peak CC AUIR Dir,Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway Roadway Link Dir,Peak Hr Dir,Peak Hr Link ID Hr Volume Impact without with Link Location Capacity (Project Volume Volume w/Project By Project? Project? Added)* ** Project Yes/No Yes/No Tamiami Goodlette Rd.to Trail East*** N/A Davis Blvd. 3,600(SB) 119 3,188 3.31% No No (US 41) Tamiami Davis Blvd.to Trail East 91.0 2,900(SB) 72 1,817 2.48% No No (US 41) Airport Rd. Davis Blvd. US 41 to Airport o (SR 84) 12.0 Rd. 2,700(EB) 142 1,820 5.26% No No Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2021 Projected Volume=2021 background(refer to Table 4B)+Project Volume Added. ***Not a Collier County monitored roadway. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41 — northern entrance — right in/right out/directional median left-in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right- out/left-in access (proposed dual left directional median). For more details refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the potential future total external traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour, as illustrated in Table 2. Based on the trip generation results, the generated PM peak hour traffic is more intense than the AM peak hour traffic (both egress and ingress traffic). As such, the PM peak hour traffic is used in the project access turn lane sizing (PM Pk Hr Enter—351 vph; Exit—412 vph). For the purposes of this analysis, the adjacent property to the west is included in this report. This development named Trio Hotel is currently under permitting process and consists of a 12-room resort hotel, 24 Multi-Family dwelling units, 3,145 square feet of office space and 11,798 square feet of quality restaurant space. Site access turning movements associated with this project have been incorporated in this report as illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement for Trio Hotel, dated April 15, 2016. The estimated overall trips at the Mini Triangle site access locations are illustrated in Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 113 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Project Accesses—Northbound Tamiami Trail East (US 41) This segment of US 41 has an Access Management Classification of 3. The established spacing standard for posted speed of 45 mph is 440 ft between driveway connections. The directional opening spacing is 1,320 ft. Based on these criteria, these are non-conforming driveways. The Northern access is proposed to be redeveloped into a left-in/right-in/right-out access by extending the existing directional median for a total of approximately 360 feet. Based on the posted speed limit of 45 mph on US 41 in the vicinity of project, the right-turning threshold volume for warranting a right-turn lane is 80-125 vph, according to the FDOT Driveway Information Guide. The project is expected to accommodate 68 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80— 125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated northbound-right turn lane is not warranted at this location. Based on FDOT Design Standard, Index#301 —design speed of 45 mph, the minimum turn lane length is 185 ft (which includes a 50 ft taper) plus required queue. Required turn lane storage length is determined consistent with the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average two-minute period within the peak hour, as illustrated in the guidelines from FDOT Florida Intersection Design Guide Chapter 3.12.12. The existing directional median is proposed to be extended 50 feet for a total length of approximately 360 feet. The left-turn lane is expected to accommodate 85 vph left turning movements during PM peak hour. Consistent with FDOT criteria, the southbound left-turn lane should be 260 ft long (185 ft deceleration lane with taper and 75 ft storage) to accommodate the overall projected traffic at build out conditions. As such, the proposed left-turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic. The Southern access is proposed as a right-in/right-out connection. The project is expected to accommodate 17 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80 - 125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted at this location. Project Accesses—Eastbound Davis Blvd. (SR 84) This segment of SR 84 has an Access Management Classification of 5 with a posted speed of 45 mph. The established spacing standard is 245 ft between driveway connections, 660 ft for directional median openings, and 1,320 ft for full median openings and signals. Based on these criteria, the proposed driveways are non-conforming connections. The Western access is proposed as a right-in/right-out connection. The project is expected to accommodate 35 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80 - 125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted at this location. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 114 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 .._ The Eastern access is proposed to be redeveloped into a dual left directional median and allows for left-in/right-in/right-out turning movements. The project is expected to accommodate 35 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80 - 125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted at this location. The westbound directional median left-turn lane is expected to accommodate 141 vph inbound left turning movements during PM peak hour. At the minimum, consistent with FDOT criteria, the left-turn lane should be 310 ft long (185 ft deceleration lane with taper and 125 ft storage) to accommodate projected traffic at build out conditions. The eastbound directional median left-turn lane is expected to accommodate 41 vph outbound left turning movements during PM peak hour. At the minimum and consistent with FDOT criteria, the left-turn lane should be 235 ft long (185 ft deceleration lane with taper and 50 ft storage) to accommodate projected traffic at build out conditions. Improvement Analysis Based upon the findings of the capacity and level of service analysis of this report, the estimated traffic impact is significant for the surrounding roadway network at this location. ti.. There is adequate and sufficient roadway surplus capacity to accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed development, without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service at future year 2021 build-out conditions. Regardless, concurrency will be measured at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP)/Construction Plans and Plat (PPL) submittals when more specific development parameters are available. At such time, should sufficient capacity not be available, the Developer may be required to assist the County with roadway link and intersection improvements in such a manner as to provide sufficient capacity. Based on the results of the site access turn lane analysis, turn lanes improvements maybe recommended at the analyzed project site access locations. A more detailed evaluation of applicable access points 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. Though the project is located within the US 41 TCEA, and because the project does not have LOS deficiency issues, we do not anticipate needing to exercise TDM strategies outlined in the LDC to mitigate for project transportation impacts. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 115 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan (1 Sheet) Th Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 116 teway Mini Triangle U and GMPA—Iii —March 2017 \ . Eat/oe F§N[ b,n=! „ m . )o\ eco 3,wwoo \ {(\ a,2 . , k § fr (66 )¢/ , a : w< ! : : I. g 2 . 2i / \ ( k\ / . / | - - . - ` \ E rrr _ 2 k$ r \§| ] - - ( (£ (/ 4a1; 4141 ' @ . ~ . � /414 — . x> z el, 2 . \ z § 1E1� g 31 \ , ` \! ' ii i ` |, / § § ' . 2! ' tS , -- . . A) ) � \ IF. -- — \ , / � |_ / k „ ; | , . _ . « / ! 2 Ilii ! © © 1, 1 ' }\ \ \ j § ` |! g . - � � - 4141 .- ; S �| |f ti h 7 u . | `i § <GI! o\ } 9 $f\ �f / » - § . §/ . , ± . I- , : ' ems \ . | 14141 r boa Consulting Solutions,PA Page 117 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) (6 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 118 Gateway Mini Triangle-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-March 2017 INITIAL MEETING CTIF,CKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no Important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date:November 14.2016 Time2:00 pm Location: Collier Counts Gro«lh Nlana(zement - 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive_ Naples. fl 34104 People Attending: Name.Organization.and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Sawyer,Collier Counts Growth Manaftement Department 2) Norman'frehilcoeh,•1('S 3) Daniel Dole,TCS 4) Stephen Baluch-Collier Count\ Growth Management Department 5) Trinity Scott Collier County Gros%lb Management Department 6) I aurie Beard Collier Counts Growth Management Department 7) Lorraine Lantz Collier Count\ Metropolitan PlanningOrganization 8) Mari.Clark-FDOT(via email) 9) Deborah Snyder DKS Associates(via email) Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title:Norman Trebilcock.AICP.PE Organization:Trehileock Consulting Solutions.PA Address &Telephone Number 1205 Piper Boulevard. Suite 202. Naples_ I'I 141 l u. ph 239-566-9551 Reyiener(s): Re%ie%%er's Name& Title. Michael Sawyer,Project Manager Organization:Collier Counts Transponalion Planning Department Address&Telephone Number:2885 S.Ilorsc.hoc l.)ri%e.Naples.FL.34104:phi 23')-252- 2926 Applicant: Applicant's Name:Bole Montes. Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way,Naples,FL 34110 Telephone Number:f 239 j 254-2000 Proposed Development: Name: Gale'':n "I'ri:nicle Mint-triangle Location: South of Davis Blvd., north of l'S 41 and approsimatels 500 feet east of the intersection of Davis Blvd.and['S 41.Naples.FT (refer to Fie. 1) Page 1or6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 119 Gateway Mini Triangle-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-March 2017 Land Use Type: Residential.lintel.General Office.and Shopping Center ITE Code 4: 151 (Mini-storage); 230 (Residential Condominium); 310 (Hotel); 445 (Multiplex Movie Theater); 710(General Office), 820(Retail Shopping Center): 841 (Automobile Sales) Description: Residential 210 MF du:Hotel 152 rooms;General office 60.Oksf(Includes 20.Oksf automobile storage. 10.Okst'display): Retail - Shopping Center — 73.Oksf (Includes 32.5ksfmovie theater). Zoning Existing:C-4 GTMIJD_MXD Comprehensive plan recommendation:N A Requested:GMPA PIJDZ approval Fig. 1 -Location Map N PROJE C. • Findings of the Preliminary Study: Since estimated new project traffic is greater than I(X)two-way peak hour trips.this study qualities for a Major Scale TIS.The TIS kill include AM-PM peak hour trip generation, traffic distribution and assignments and significance test(based on 2"0 2'0 3"0 criterion) Internal capture- consistent with ITE residential.office and retail rates. Pass-by rates are assumed as folloms:25°o-AM-PM peak hour, 15°o Daily. Roadway link analysis is determined based on estimated project neem PM peak hour traffic -net external(non-pass-by). Operational site access-turn lane analysis is based on proposed net external traffic build- out conditions AM-PM peak hour generated traffic. Turn lane design speeds:Davis Blvd. and US 41 -45mph posted speed limit: Page 2 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 120 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 The project is located within the Collier County 'Transportation Concutrenc% Exception .\rea(TCE:1). Studs '1's pe: Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Major 11S Study Area: Boundaries.Davis Blvd.and I'S 41 Additional intersections to be analyzed:N/A Build Out Planning llorizon\'earls):2021 Analysis Time Period(s):AM-PM Peak Hour Future Off-Site Developments:\ \ Source of Trip Generation Rates:Tli 1_I'C'Data ITV 911 Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None:V_\ Pass-by trips:Per ITE.CC'Guidance.up to 25°0 for shopping center. Internal trips(PUD):Per ITE,CC Guidance,up to 20°o maximum. Transit use: Other:N A Horizon Year Roadway Network lmpnrvements: 2021 Methodolucs &Assumptions: Non-site traffic estitnates:CC 2016 AUIR:CC Traffic Counts Site-trip generation:OTISS Software-ITE LCC 151.LUC 230.LI.C 310.LUC 4-45.LCC 710.LUC 820 and LI'C 841 Trip distribution method:Consistent with April 15. 2016 11S for the'Trio Hotel at Das is Blvd.and Tamiami Trail East(US 411-refer to Fig.2 Traffic asset t1ntent method Project trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate:historical growth rate or 2".minimum Turning movements:see Findings of the Preliminary Studs. Page 3of6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page J 21 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Fig.2—Project Trip Distribution by Percentage PROJECT TRAFFIC Ir. R DISTRIBUTION BY rr- PERCENTAGE -- N PROJECT C1 40' H = • 20% v 'o Special Features:(from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations:N/A Sight distance:N/A Queuing:N/A Access location&configuration:One right-in/right-out access onto westbound US 41.one directional left,right-in/right-out access(shared with Trio Hotel)onto westbound US 41. one possible shared(site to east)directional left.right-in/right-out access onto eastbound Davis Blvd.one right-in/right-out access onto eastbound Davis Blvd(west side of site)and proposed interconnects with properties east and west()Utile project—coordinate with FDt)T on US 41 and Davis Blvd access locations. Traffic control:MUTCD Signal system location&progression needs: N/A 1 On-site parking needs:per CC LDC Data Sources: ITE Trip Gen.;2016 CC MAR_CC Traffic Counts Base maps:N/A Prior study reports:N/A Access policy and jurisdiction:CC/FDOT Review process:N/A Requirements:N/A Miscellaneous:N/A Page 4 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 122 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Small Scale Study-No Fee Minor Study-$750.00 Major Study-$1500.00 X Methodology Fee$500 Includes 0 intersections Additional Intersections-$500.00 each tll fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign-off on the application. SIGNATURES Norwt.Rw rrebil.cocl2 Study Preparer—Norman Trehilcock Reviewer(s) Applicant Page 5 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 123 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 1 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Rev ice. Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds. Methodology Review, Analysis Review.and Sufficiency Reviews I-Cas for additional meetings or other optional services arc also provided below. Methodology Review-S500 Fee Mkthodolugy Res less includes review of a submitted methodology statement.including review of submitted trip generation estimatels).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 Stade"Review-No Additional Fee(Includes one suffrciencv reviewl Upon approval of the methodology review. the applicant may submit the stud). The review includes, a concurrency determination- site access inspection and confirmation of the studs compliance with trip generation,distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review"-$750 Fee(include',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 acee'ss and circulation, and preparation and review of -sufficiency"comments•questions. "Major Study Review"-51 SIN)Fee(Includes Iwo intersection anahsis and two sufficient,' cyicws s 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.rev ice,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 Iwo rounds of"sufficiency,-comments questions and or recommended conditions of approval. "Additional intersection Review"-55011 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the"Major Study Review"and skill apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review "Additional Sufficiency Rcvicws"-S500 Fee .\dditional 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 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 124 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition (7 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 125 Gateway Mini Triangle-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-March 2017 wR o o Q a o o Q o o Q o s CC 0 0 Q W a a • o n o 0 a o o 0 ,4F10 US00 . 4Q O N ;° W p p� r or- op. • 0 0 0 Q o �° M t� o fV N EO O m H CL 0 0 2 6 W a f a g• O N O Q O O O Q f° o °i g Z2 O .- O 0 O m H ✓ E ▪ z c Z U V U W qW IL il O N O 0 0 0 f0 r o N ] N g o in O t�i O G �p ppVV�� 88 y O H O m m 0 0 0 N O g (° N O o o O o ti m W e n g q N ^ O F % H W m s o A o N � o a tts E N m Q nQ Z ° is:. ¢ m ▪ 0 4 o E 1 m ' §H n i. s s a z s a z � = a tt a z K - a z LL O N U Q N n LU i; Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page i26 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Analysis:Weekday Page 1 of 2 PERIOD SETTING r DATA PROVIDED EY Ill Specify the Independent Variable.Time Period and C lculabon Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Tripe generated in the analysts.To record any notes.Grob Ann Notes above -i•uri-i'sale I4Mf Aydirell:ran-' 4.4%.1011 wait (macaw AND I3SE 1 y1i0� UlT SIZE TIME PEIm00 6lTHOD 10I ENTRY EXIT TOTAL 0160.0 v'COMommWmR (1 tiOnse! O'.rE g ala" Ween)Ei 64"Le*�V4Eri 614 613 1227 .. 3100-riolel Rooms •Jl 152. �Mdol' Amer, L.iPit 621 621 1242 ,.,820-Shopping Center 1000 Sq.Feel Gros vel Or f ita.ve'PhUM*UP y4I0] 27!2 2752 6584 —1 IrY�T D.1!—I.nly)•S.E] of 720-Medkal-Dental Onke ,'1 ri.0/s Building1000 Sq FOM Gros J; Err yigolol _fail" 1084 1084 216E TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of trips that occur between the Land Use on the left and the Land Use on the right The table below dispoys the total number at trips that have been reduced horn a particular Land Use The total number of Internal Trips for each Land Use will be deducted from the adjusted Entry Tnps and Exit Trips from the previous section To record any notes c6.1..the icon above For recommended value,see the RTE Handbook or NCHRP QM 230•Res14.841condomuuummovnhoina (�� 310•Re. Exit tri Demand En 0 % 101 BAanced 0 611f71.(1 Entry' 1' a— 101 Entry 621 Entry Ela Demand E-mrr, 0 % 101 88a00011 0 Demand Exl 1E FL (0) Exit 621 730-Residential CondomimurrvTovartrouse 120-%hopping Cent. Ent 017 Demand E.1 Se % 1233. Braneed 213 Demand Entry- �1% (251. Entry 2792 Entry Ela Demand Entry 33 % 1203' 611.122080 201 Oemand Eli 11 94 ?307. Eoil 2792 230•Residential CondomOYUMTeeM0ha.N 720•Ilascal4DNdal 011ke Building ` Ertl 413 Demand Ere: 1O It tri 8.1)20000 0 3...Entry 0 j% (0) Entry 1ne4 Entry 614 Demand Entry '3 _% 1181 941anc04 la Demand Est 2_116 (22r Exit inert 310•Hotel 820•Shopping Center Exit 621 Demand Err 0 % iti 9Aanced 0 Demand Entry i0) 1W Entry 2792 Entry 421 Demand Entry 0 % 101 BAan0.0 0 Demand Eat 0 % 10) Eon 2792 310-Hotel 720•Medical-Dental°Mae Building Exit 621 Demand Earl 0 % t01 Balanced 0 Oen..Entry 0 1 17, Entry 1084 Entry 821 Demand Emry 0 % 101 BAaued 0 °emend Exl 0 1 .0 Exit 1004 $20-Shopping Cont. 770-Medica)-Dental 0111c a Buiidmq Exit 2792 Demand E<:1 3 % )841 BalaCod 84 Demand Entry 15 % 0631 Entry 1084 Entry 2792 Demand Ems/ 4 % 012. Balanced. 112 Demand Exit- 22 % 12301 Exit 1084 230•Residential Condomin lunjtownhouse '•7Ei7e/AL MonsExTERNAE Isles hltps:.•otisstraflic.corn.prooa:1st udv'Iprojcctid I5389&study=46134 12/19/2016 weep Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 127 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Analysis:Weekday Page 2 of 2 810•Nail 820•shopping, 720.Me.dcal-i 191 CenlIE i Dental mce i Building Entry 614(100%I 0(0%) 203(33%1 18(361 221(30%) 393164%1 Ent 6131100%, 0(0%) 233(38%) 0(0%1 233(30%) 380(62%I Total 12271100'1.) 0 10%, 436 (36%) 10 (1%) 454(37%) 77)163%) 310.Hotel INTERNAL TRIPS' TOTAL TRIPS 720.Medical. EXTERNAL TRIPS 730-Residential 820•Shopping Dental Omce Total Condominiurraownhou se Center Building Entry 621 1100%) 0(0%) 0)0%1 0)0%, 0(0%) 621)100%) Exit 6211100%, 010%, 010%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 621(100%1 Total 1242(100%, 0 10%) 0 107., 0 (0%) 0(0%) 1242(100%1 820-Shopping Center INTERNAL TRIPS _i>I „.,. 230-Residential 720-Medical. EXTERNAL TRIPS Condominium/Townhouse 310-Hotel Dental Omce Total Budding Entry 27921100'8.) *., 010%1 1121x'61 345112%) 24470%1 Ent 2792(100%) __ .V 8 0(0%1 04(3%) 287110%) 2306(90%) Total 5504(100%) Al. ,,r... 0 (0%) 196 (4%) 632111%) 4952(89%) 720•Medical-0BMa)Office Building INTERNAL TRIP< TOTAL TI+IP)) EXTERNAL TRIPS 230•Residential 310•Hotel 820-ShoPPing Total CondominlunDTnwnhouse Center Entry 1084 1100%I 0(0%) 0 onto 0418%, 64(8%) 1 1000(92%) Exit 1084((00%, 18(2%) 0 10%) 112(10%1 130112%) 964(69%) Total 21681100%, 10 (1%) 0 10%, 196 19%) 214(10%) 11164(80%) EXTERNAL TRIPS 1 Specify the percentage of Pass-by Trips for each Land Use The percentage will be reduced from tie total number of External Tops from the previous section To record any notes.click• Add Notes above The O con preceding the Pass-by%value Indicates data provided by ITE Clicking the Icon changes a custom Pass- by%value to data provided by ITE t.A NDUSE EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS-87% PASS-BY TRIPS NON-PASS-BY TRIPS 230-RendentIM CondomgdurniTown6ou0e 773 r�D41( 0 773 310-Hotel 1242 t0 M% 0 1242 820-Shopping Center 4962 i 10 743 4209 720-Medlcal-Darden 01110e Building 1954 0]% 0 1954 Print Preview Save Analysis https:Potisstraffic.com'projectstudy?projectid=15389&study=46134 12/19/2016 --.,.... Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 128 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Analysis:AM Peak Hour Page 1 of 2 PERIOD SETTING .e DATA PROVIDED SY ITE Specify the Independent Variable Time Period and Calculation Method to be usert in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysts To record any notes.dick Add Notes above LAIC 179E iHypp�) jt SIZE 110E PERIOD METM[p ENTRY EMT TOTAL AOLZ{�220 Raeounet l Ell L He€1��sale t�VY 17wt0omaran7roeaaiou» e".."(Mb aro^ 1Maaalq•Faat ____-- tf n LNTTI.o.sLn(it•2 0•310.Nom, Raeaes —131 Tst` (wwrl•wlll.l 1_ _ V as 33 e1 4 020.Snopp^9 Canto I 100018 Fest 0ssg tie (waMdT.►wt ��ri*".k LIP VM vel al as t30 —— LetT)+011 L/1121.•2.24 ,. 720.ModK41430441QM i'_ -. �–s, wt� i Buad.lg 10001.0.FM__Oaa�l p" rMaaOrY).Pp,*FYUvl,A ._ _. _ 1U 30 tai __. 239 ex:.:.out er hang* TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percersage of tripe that occur between the Land Use on the left and the Land Use on the light The GL•ie below displays the total number of trips that have been reduced from a particular Land Use The total number or Internal Trips for each Land Use will be deducted from the adjusted Entry Trips and EAR Trips from the previous sectnn To record any notes click the • icon above For recommended values see the lTE Handbook cr NCHRP 654 ....– 710-Residential Condom.niuneTownheuf :1,0-Hotel Eon .• Deman:Est 0 % (DI Bw.nc,d 0 Demand Entry 0 % 101 Entry 47 Entry r D•, -.r E-I., 0 % 10) Bdanc•d 0 Demand Lot 0 % 101 Exit e. 730-Residential CondominwmTownnouse 070•Shopping Center Exit 77 Demaia Est. 53 To la li Balanced 7 Demand Entry t ,% 171 Entry xi Entry 10 Demand Entry 'SI % (Si Balanced 5 Demand Ed 12 % (O Edd 49 730-Raelaa1112 CdndamMMumTownMusa 770-Method).00ntal 00110 Pudding Esti 71 Demand Est. 0 % 101 Eidented. 0 Demand Entry 0 '% .0i Entry 11: Entry if Demand Entry 2 11 101 Balanced 0 Demand Eel 2 % IIi Colt 30 310•Hetet 020•Shopping Cama, Eon 37 Daman.,EYP 10 _ill 10i BaNncad 0 Darnand Entry 0 % 101 Entry Bi Entry 4e Demand Erly: 10 '% 101 Balanced 0 D.merUl Est 0 5. 10: Exit ai 310.Holed 770•Medt.l D*rtai Ome a Budding Exit 31 D.mrd Eq [ �% 101 Balanced 0 Dent end Entry 0 7 00, Entry 713 Entry 47 Damara Etalyt C—% 101 Balanced 0 Demand E+1 0 'c i0. Etat 30 020.Shopping Cant* 720.1a.die d Donut omca Building Exit 43 D•m...d FA la io ih Relented 1 Oem.nd Entr; 31 Y •3`•. Entry i 11 Entry el Donald E.ntry'. 2 % 121 Fawned : Dement Lot 23 J% i71 Cod 20 230•RealdalWsl Csad.a u vT. o..as 10(01'Po?S • EXTERNAL lues haps:'otisstratlic.cons1rojectstudy?projcctid-15389&study-46135 12219/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 129 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 oilmiN Analysis:AM Peak Hour Page 2 of 2 210-IMel 010-ShopPMg 720-Medlca4 Ta111 I_.-..Cxltx OMIaI Building I. 1 BUlltling j Entry 161100%1 0(0%) 6(31%) 0(0%) 0(31%) 11169%) Exit 77(100%1 010%) 7(0%) 0(0%) 7(1M%) 70191%) Total 93(100% 0 (0%1 12 (13%) 0 (0%) 13(13%) 81(87%1 310.NaOal INTERNAL TRIP: TOTAL TRIPS 720•Medical- EXTERNAL TRIPS 230.laa(l_.Mla( 820-Shopping Denial OTce Total CondornInkmoffmatbausa Center Building Entry 481100%I 0(0%) 0(0%) 0i0v.. 0(0%1 481100%I Exit 331100%) 0)0%1 010%1 0-.0'(„ 010%) 33(100%) Total 811100%, 0 ,0•r.1 0 (0%1 . ,Or•I 0(0%) 81(100%) 820-Shopping Center 41TERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 720•Medical- EXTERNAL TRIPS 230-Rnldxd'W 310-Hotel Dental Office Total Condominiurnlown house Building Entry 811100%) 1 I..i 0)0%1 2(2%I 9(11%) 72(89%1 Exit 491100%) ;(10,, 0(0%) 1)2%) 6(12%) 43188%1 Total 130 1100%) I_ 19'x. 0 (0%) 3 (2%) 15(12%1 115(88%) 720-Medlcal•Oental O1710e Building INTERNAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS 230-Residential 71D-Hotel 820-Shopping Total Cund0mnlunYTownhouse Center Miry I 113(100%1 010%) 010%) 1(1%1 1(1%) 112(09%) EstiI 30(100%) 0(0%) 010%) 2(7%) 217%) 211(93%) Total—1 143(100%) 0 (0%) 0 10%) 3 (2%) 3121.0 140(00%1 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 O 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 L-)'JO JOE EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS-139% PASS-BY TRIPS NON-PASS-Rx TRIPS 230-ResIdenhal Condominium/Townhouse 81 0 116 0 81 310-Motel 81 ,0j% 0 01 820-Shopping Censer 115 25 'I% 29 06 - 720-MedIvel-Denlal Office Building 140 0 1% 0 140 Print Preview Save Analysis haps: otisstrallic.cou)projectstudy?projectid=15389&study-=46135 12/19/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 130 Gateway Mini Triangle-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-March 2017 Analysis:PM Peak Hour -- Page 1 of 2 PERIOD SETTING ,, DATA PROVIDED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable Time Period and Calcuanon Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis To record any notes Dick ' Add Notes above ;PM Peek Mar _-__-1 W PPINIXENT v 112E 116E PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EAT 10740 cod a R.:,a.ni•l M ff0 COndan.unnowdwu IDpbeU. _Eu 21a.. l ekes Hee E 1 74 7).0.e2 ten(%)10.32 0,)10•Haw Boerne 'v�1 1E?" (MWe1kYy.Palk •A•-61 � J V 46 45 91 u.820-s000p.lg C•MM .1000 Sq FM Goon od 15° I1WnBYy Pe•k IMap1' Leek W Veit, v 233 255 490 - r1 maT)•0.97 Leal.3.31 Ly 72"1"m").481/G/a. '1000 Sq FHM Gaye Zell W.. rWeekery.Peek eletP i Look Up 1148 52 732 1134 Belding mel lnjTl•0.9 Ln%)H-1.53 .4r 1Nc/N aan 444 Orme* TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of trips that occur between the Land Use on the lett and the Land Use on the right The cable below displays the total number of tips that have been reduced from a particular Land Use.Tl ie total number of Internal Trips for each Land Use will be deducted from the adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the previous section To record any notes click the - rcon above For recommended values see the ITE Handbook cr NCHRP 684 ..... 130-RM1400011 Condoenmarr070wnhouse 310-Hotel Eon 75 _emere E.4. 0 % (01 0•Iaced 0 Demme Foley. ,0 i,% 10) Entry 46 Entry 30 Gema^O Ell^. 3 % (0) /Went ed 0 D.aard Eat 110_JR (0) End 4'. 730-Resrd0Mia1 CandOminlwn.TCvotneuee 020-Shopping Cont.) ^ Earl 36 Demand Earl. 63 % 1191 914enced 19 Demand Entry 9 111 1211 Entry :35 Entry 74 Demand Entry 31 % (23) Balanced 23 Demand E•) 12 % (311 Exit 275 730-Re.i400011 Con00nru11unoT0wnhous0 770-Medical-Dental 011114 O11i041n9 Exit 36 Demand Eye 0 % 10) Eaton.d C Dimond Edr, 0 % (01 Entry 5. Entry 74 Demo+,Entry 2 % it: Bawnced I Demand Ex( 2 1 13) Exit I•.2 310-74MM 820-Shopping Center Ean 45 Demand Exa0 % 101 Balanced 0 Demand Emir, 0 1 401 Entry 235 Entry 46 Demand Entry 0 % 101 BaorK.d 0 Dom end Eal 0 F. 101 Exit 244 310-Hn114 720•Medt.M-0emai Mr tinkling Exit 45 Demand Ed: "% 101 134u01010 0 Demand Enrr; 0 11. id, Entry Entry 46 Demono Eek* .0 % 101 8,1100ed 0 Demand E.) 0 % 101 Exit 1'.3 420.Shopping Center 720.M•dleaid•nta1 OR¢.Budding EM 251 Demand E4' II—% ler ea1enced. 0 Demand Emr; 31 % 1 IF, Entry t_ Entry 275 0...70 Erlry: 2 % Si1Edmnced. 5 Demand E+1 23 % 130, Ent 132 270-Rtsldentlal Condon*hmlTOwmhous• E4 TE r,TEMUI MPS TEM.%TRIPS https:'r otisstratlic.comro.tactstudy?projcctid-15389&studysi6136 12/19/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 131 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Analysis:PM Peak Hour Page 2 of 2 219-140W 820-Shopping 720-Medical- Tela) Cents Dental oRice entitling Entry 741100%) 010%) 23131%1 I1I%I 24(32%) 50,68%I Exit 36(100%) 0)0%) 19(53%) 010%) 19(53%) 17(47%) Total 1101100%1 0 10%1 42 (38%) 1 11%) 43(39%) 67(61%) 310-Rotel INTERNAL TRIP; TOTAL TRIPS 720•Medical- CI'Ic:RNii.1-,i44',.. 230-Residential 820-Shopping Dental OM., Total CondorninwnyTovmhouse Cartier Building Entry 461100%) 0(0%1 0)0%) 0 i0%) 0(0%) 461100%) Exit 45(100%1 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 010%1 45(100%) Total 911100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 .0%) 0(0%) 91(100%) 820-Shopping Caner INTERNAL TRIPS TOT A,TRiOS 720-Medical- EATEROML 1RiPs 230-Residential 310-Motel Dental ORtce 741el Condonaniummownhouse guuding Entry 23511001.1 19(8%I 040%) 512%I 24(10%) 211(90%I Exit 2551100%) 23(9%1 0(0%) 8(3%) 31)12%) 224168%) Total 490 1100%) 42 (9%) 0 10%) 13 (3%) 55(11%) 435(89%) 710-kledicai•OMtal Office Building INTERNAL TRIOS •. .0.t�<.r•- EXTERNAL TRIPS 130-Residential820-Shopping Condarrenulmmownhouse 310-Motel Center Tad Entry 521100%) 0(0'0. 0(0%) 0(15%) 8(15%) 44(85%) Exit 132(100%) 1(1%, 0 t0%) 5(4%) 6(5%) 128(15%) Total 164(100%) I 0'0 1 )1%) 0 (0%) 13 (7%) 14(8%) 1 170(92%) EXTERNAL TRIPS :;(;eery tre percentage of Pass-by Tops for each Land Use The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Tops from the previous section To record any notes click - Add Notes above The fI 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 1-(.n!ISE EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS-BY% PASS-BY TRIPS NGN-PASS-B'1 TRIPS 230-Residential Condominium/Townhouse 67 1J% 0 67 310-Motel 91 �� 0 91 820-Shopping Comer 435 O,-m % 109 326 720-Medical-Dental Oaks Building 170 ':10 811 0 170 Print Preview Save Analysis htt.s:Uotisstraffic.coml.ro•ectstudy'•.ro•ectid=15389&stud =46136 12,19'2016 Th Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 132 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Appendix D: US 41 - from Goodlette Rd. to Davis Blvd. Traffic Data (5 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 133 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 a aCoo 5 N QO g87r. 1rAr. R (MD 000U() U) CO ON vrr CO (Dv <DMOPra0100) m V N O 111 1� 10 N h fD N N 0- 1- 1A CO fD 0 N M O CD O Ol N V (0 N 10 M co O N o t N M M M M M mi r- 0) 17 10 N CO V CO CO CO CO co f� h CD 1A 0) 10 ID CD h R O CO 2 RL. r..,-, N f-, r 10 N V co N 111 10 O N O co N N O co N OO M N O) V co co co 0- fD V ' 0 M CO co V cu 0 co 1A .- co r M .- M co CO co CObN r Oa U1 CO OM) M O 0) CO X N N N N V O fD r T -O O Ul § N co V V V V fD to CD r CO 0) V V CO V N M M CO V CO r CO o (D (D r r co a) a . (2 0 10.- QY Ce co Tr N 01 Tr .- Tr in co cr) c(pp at�� (�1 co00 co 4- W 01 corN cooO ,- r 0 co rV 0 CO M V ((D 0 O a) N O 1D W coC W W co O M O Cr) ON- CO V F. D- 2 r N M M M M V r co V r co N co N N V N V M CO CO V to /D CO C O V (D (D r CO _T V ✓ UN MN Erg .7,,i trr 80(D fr VD m0a M1D M 1, , V N mM MtD O „cm N )1D Vt- DV V V MM ,...co fD „co V y o (D co M 0) O O V N V N CO N O0O r M 07 O N M 07fD10 O Nr O N N N V C) C) C) N co V V 1() M V V N V M M r 7 CO CO CO V 01 1D V (D r M _ re , y F- Y re V N Oo co O O U' Qq 7 V 00 M O O O N V N N O N (D CO 2V to 0) N CO O) 00N CO N Co V N N O Vl0 0t0 `1:-' ""'""c"" N M O N M ND N O a M IN; O o N ,`,7, M M D W N O V N re LL 2 r N N N N N M N M stt y F- ID fMD M 10 N (D C O co r O (D (D N u) co r co co co T co V r r CO co co co r r co M. r CO N V (D M O V CD rf....M 0) CO V N r CO r CD 0p �p W o M O V r V N V r 0 N 0 r 10 r 0) (0 0) r 10 r M .- M 10 CO h CO V IO N 'O' a) 01 2 d U) N N M M N M V h N CO N N CO CO N r M f4 CO 10 M.1 (D N M(D 7 r t(1 C r- I- F- Y ix co O 01 0 1D co N p1 CJ 7 V N co 0 V O r 0f CO N CO V N O r N r go V (D O) 00 CO CO N O CO 0 CO CO Ul CO V 0 LWJ ° 10 r 0) (D r if) .. N N 0 N 0 M y N h (D 0. ppOO ppOO 0) M Mf� 1D M O 0. 0 0) 6) 16. 2 rNNNNN (Or V rMMNM 1DNNMNN IDMM in 10 V 07 1.-. N10 NN N O ✓ 0) M N r a} O O ',. a. Z N m r (D '4) M n,V N CO Na) N M 1D 1D OO co CO N Cr M M co w O N V O co tD O N loo 0) M M_ co O co co O V O V 0) V r N N CO OO N V co O co co 0) 0 7 N r M (D /O r w.N.1 V r co a) o V V V r r co co r N r N M O r r co co N M co O LI. '7 N MN CN) co M N Ol r N '7 m co-M N M4 N N M N M M N Ti(D(D V M (D V N 16 Ti N >7 1 6/ CI F Y W V o co o r ID 0).0 Q 7 Oo O V N 10 o- V co o 10 co N 111 01 V r f� co co V CD N O 1- V o co co co V ID O I� 10 r r 1D 00 V CO N M O CO V 0) N V CO V 07 N 10 CO CO o y r r r N N u9 N 10 r r 0) V V co 0o V 1D M co 0a or r r CO CO N W 1D 1D /D r V JL 07 LL 2 N M M M M M N V! r 1 V )in re 14 V 00 0o M 0 t0 Or N N V C) (� to 1D r N 0 M N U) 0) (p M M N 01 et pp CD co Q t0 C l'1� M fD N ... N (D M CO CO M CO CO LO W r N N 1f) M M M CO L r (D V V Q O) V O co tO r r co M r M M CO CO O) N N CO t0 co 0) M o 0) co cu gN uiNui�{ 0„7 460 .... N M V V V V (D r W (O r Op Q) V V 1D CO V N CO-M CO-V CO- r CO-01 (D CO-r r M U) a) E co — 7 1._ CO r el w V aC I F- (C Q v ) U—...z � --aW 0 > F- Cl 2 i W Ii ° Q2 0 co . > F- F- F- F- ►- 3 0 W o a a Q 001> > W O O m > 7 7 7 N > JY Q I- Q ° W re 0 QWLLLLZLLLLW W DOJK7 ZW > W W W > F- W WF- W F- U) W WZ o 1- 0 0 0 ° OI0 o reCeO Z w 0 e 0 m z ce z _I w z z w> W o W o Z I- O ZW ZW €D � L?II7 IZ O> oliZ WF- W1- Kw Wa:: OWJO U 0 � }Q a) LLYQUQ OC < 00.- r r r ,-. Li. W 7 COU < NQ IInIu- 6. I— -J 00 U) CO U) U) (i)Q 7 < C 0 �N aC J 7 Q F o~ W 1... re HHC JY OQ7I--W W 0 0 7 7 7 7 7(O 0 1 0 E 0 N O LLO m r r t0 0 (w M 1f) a) fD M 0 Cl) C9 v Z 5. O Z W I LLOm Z b .O- Nr (D WrN) V'O V rMMM O M V V M V tDN (ND rbN f fV O N r12 r M a0o aD CT o QQ2 re 01- 7 I F- F- U U) Z I • - --- _.- Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 134 Gateway Mini Triangle-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-March 2017 \Namr 2015 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0301 US 41, N OF SR 951 MOCF: 0.89 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2015 - 01/03/2015 0.95 1.07 * 2 01/04/2015 - 01/10/2015 0.94 1.06 * 3 01/11/2015 - 01/17/2015 0.93 1.04 * 4 01/18/2015 - 01/24/2015 0.91 1.02 * 5 01/25/2015 - 01/31/2015 0.90 1.01 • 6 02/01/2015 - 02/07/2015 0.88 0.99 * 7 02/08/2015 - 02/14/2015 0.87 0.98 * 8 02/15/2015 - 02/21/2015 0.86 0.97 * 9 02/22/2015 - 02/28/2015 0.86 0.97 •10 03/01/2015 - 03/07/2015 0.86 0.97 *11 03/08/2015 - 03/14/2015 0.86 0.97 *12 03/15/2015 - 03/21/2015 0.88 0.99 •13 03/22/2015 - 03/28/2015 0.90 1.01 *14 031L2�91/2015 - 04/04/2015 0.92 1.03 --fs"--b717dS/!err-IA7fi7idit a.9% f.17-- 16 04/12/2015 - 04/18/2015 0.97 1.09 17 04/19/2015 - 04/25/2015 0.99 1.11 18 04/26/2015 - 05/02/2015 1.02 1.15 19 05/03/2015 - 05/09/2015 1.04 1.17 20 05/10/2015 - 05/16/2015 1.07 1.20 21 05/17/2015 - 05/23/2015 1.08 1.21 22 05/24/2015 - 05/30/2015 1.10 1.24 23 05/31/2015 - 06/06/2015 1.11 1.25 24 06/07/2015 - 06/13/2015 1.13 1.27 25 06/14/2015 - 06/20/2015 1.13 1.27 26 06/21/2015 - 27/2015 1.14 1.28 ".e.,- -as�B7�fass 06 flrat!S-"f.Z7 1.f6-- 28 07/05/2015 - 07/11/2015 1.14 1.28 29 07/12/2015 - 07/18/2015 1.14 1.28 30 07/19/2015 - 07/25/2015 1.14 1.28 31 07/26/2015 - 08/01/2015 1.13 1.27 32 08/02/2015 - 08/08/2015 1.13 1.27 33 08/09/2015 - 08/15/2015 1.13 1.27 34 08/16/2015 - 08/22/2015 1.13 1.27 35 08/23/2015 - 08/29/2015 1.14 1.28 36 08/30/2015 - 09/05/2015 1.14 1.28 37} 09/06/2015 - 09/12/20152� 1.14,,,1g 1.28 V -S9- O J2 1 $'i -- i9J26]20 ...1.'i"b 1.24-- 40 09/27/2015 - 10/03/2015 1.08 1.21 41 10/04/2015 - 10/10/2015 1.06 1.19 42 10/11/2015 - 10/17/2015 1.04 1.17 43 10/18/2015 - 10/24/2015 1.02 1.15 44 10/25/2015 - 10/11/2015 1.01 1.13 45 11/01/2015 - 11/07/2015 0.99 1.11 46 11/08/2015 - 11/14/2015 0.97 1.09 47 11/15/2015 - 11/21/2015 0.97 1.09 48 11/22/2015 - 11/28/2015 0.96 1.08 5f-- x21 - Mgig* -Q..9 1.0Ql• - 51 12/13/2015 - 12/19/2015 0.94 1.06 52 12/20/2015 - 12/26/2015 0.93 1.04 53 12/27/2015 - 12/31/2015 0.93 1.04 • PEAK SEASON 03-MAR-2016 11:17:49 830UPD 10301 PKSEASON.TXT Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 135 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 1Th r E. F H 0 W W U it Q Q Q Q Q Q In Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a d H H• 11 0 r CO ,Co 0 In 10 o 0 0 .n m Ia m In rn (0 0 e 0 iI m N Cl N c o 10 m mV 10 w N a• rl N 0 NI N a 0 Q W a Cu RI Q W W Cu W R. In In W In a u C a 0 N N al a1 M O N N N a N N N N a1 X 0 0 In N N In 1f1 Cl N N N N Ill N N N N In 10 e W Ill N V1 In In N 1n In In Ill In N N N In In °Q a WO aQ H 11 0 0 In 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 00- a Sa 0 11 a1 Cr, Cl a, 01 01 Cl Cl Cl Cl 01 0 Cl Cl Cl 01 Cl NI 7C 3 0.. W I N a .,W N HZ 10 H >I IIO U 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W° F Q II II Ca 3 11 n 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 10 3 HII In o 0 0 o n O 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 0 Q 0 II N n a Ill 0 n 0 0 in N In In o 0 In In W Q 3 II. m 10 n N N I'1 IO 10 nl O a m N m CO SI H Ca Q H II c 0 Ill N a1 N In rI N VI N M N R1 4 0 0 N 1 .f, H I N o 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 o W a Z I10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o HO Z O 0 1 0 01 N O O Cl In 0 0 0 In In 0 0 1n 0 0 0. I N N N Cl Ia n 10 CO CO I0 0 N a In a 0 1 W H a U I N N N N N N N N N N N N H O Q W1 N Hu a N 1 Hw 0w ca 4 0 13 3 3 Z 3 10 N Cn 3 3 w 0110101010101010101010101010 (01010 z NIal.Hy Za� ME:O F N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cu u Ci z rn o 0 0 o n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >.yl 0 H iI O a CO N N O m In O N a O O O O O In a 4 O N N m al n IO CO n ,0 O rt a . a a1 F O Cu°Q H N N N N N N N N N N N N Z Z a' M OW Hal O C0fa54 Z W 4 co 410 rt 0 W W W W W .. Z 2 W W 3 Z W Z W cn E. n 00 H L N 1-I Ca DI 4> II a a In Z Y In In LA Ill 3 •-a aQ11a Z Z n O OH 10 0 In U (7H I W II W N U I0 Z 0 0 0 0 Z.0 11 al 0 a II I-I N 0 In D U O W a 0 ,pZQp II a F a o 0 N 0 0 Z I Cl'‹Z 11O CO x [EWHA+ a O04 0 0 u a p q wDw zZu ow aO Q 11 0 n N W 41 (4 01 4 0 H a a m>I 0 a r....I▪ N-I H a N INC N 00 4 0 .0 W °l 0 N a 0 I H 10 U W 0 0 a 0 0 N m H a H N 0 0 U O 0 0 a a 0 I. ; Q1H Ill, 3 N CCaa Ip a > 0 0 Q 0 a al W N 0l a a1 0 a \ 0 O 00 (0 a 10 a. 11 I Q W m 4 m a al C a a a 0 GI 0 4 H a ° N a ICS m m Wa'H•- 04 m 0 a U £ a N a .d 10 0 10i 0 0 W O W H I UNNOZ N N O N a1 a a \ a Q 1 0 0 • 0 N 10 N CL a a a n w44U n a a a 0 N 0) .6 O O m H H 4 0 Cn a1 (7 H m 0 a W a Q Q m m o a ym - U CO Z m ' II Z W a a N a 0 [Q0 N N a H O H Cq O O m 1 m 01 a 0 'Z 0 CI CI I" U --H Q N0 0 H H a 0�H w (0) Q Q a Q a w W a 11 Cu 4 W 0 0 H WCO H 0 a U °0 U 0 m 00 W II CO [a 3 u. m m w • D. a tel Z Q Q •-0' W . 0 N MaH l a ° `�DO a ° a ° - aF°w 0 0 a a a a 0 0 Q(0 01 0' a a W01004 O H I al n N a rn • 0 W W x I II H Z H a1 x 11 0 0 0 m 0 oQ Q 0 141OU N Nn\ \ \ 0 \ • .y - CO • \ `, • \ • \ Z404 -- 014 II 0 0 \ 0 Cl N N a N N a N a N Qa N O 1I 0 al 01 0 Cl N al m W m Cl N m N m a .0 Q IIU Q r1 o W "a a a a a a a a z al a a a a a a aa' m 0 0 0 10 CI) V) m (0 a) U P. 0) (0 U N 0 Cn (0 •• •• •• •• 0 0 Ca Cn I0 HH E.a 14 1 DI IX O(7 N 0 >-• II F >IIE°Ia4 N V° mH II EH00W W a Wtr.Ho 4 W 11 a a N a N N m o 0 In '0 N m a, H O H H II 01 0 N N a In In Ic n N n N N N N 4 I 1I0 N N N N N N N N 0)1040 I0 0) 11 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o o O O O o 0 s c N Th Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 136 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 2 H 6 E CA a o 0 0 0 0 ri3 0 0 0 0 �O1 O W W r.,010 CD 0.Nm m m PN..O..V. Q U P N N mNNN NN N CO 001 CD m N CO Lt. XX X�7 H C. .-1 410Z> HOZ d Cu 0 0 CG 0 0 0 O O P IA.C•-•0000000 2 2m O 011-4I�104PC0NP O.+.4 I-N IS h F u X Y [U~ v1.1n 1n 1n J1 In,.0 i1LDNN 10NN 4D 04.X41 W N in N In In V1 N 1n N 1n In In N i11n in CO a ccA�CO CO O PC H H CO 41 Q Q CL >.EXmi t-i.0 HEH>. O P CC 00000PL ONo00000 CA CA O W d 0 O O O O O 0N 01 m Pm m 0 0.N 0 P x 41 41 0 EU Z U 0.0.0.0.0.00000000.00, Cu IX raQt mi �. H a H 0 W .............. .+.... n Cal W 6 Z 4.O a >•>. OOa Y C. CL 41 41 . C1 S^.L ,Il Na F •-CHO li jUE H 41 m CC H21x.4 a.FQ0Q .7 V.CA0 H0Q 0 0 N 11 11 iQ C.,H 0 H F VI H Q - Z 0000000000000000 0 CO E-,0 N CNH .. 0000000000000000 N N H�'! 000 N 00 If)U1 N 0 to In IA IAO IA ,..1 4.1 CA▪Z CO 0 100LN 0IO.O m.yN 00010.CO 10 4 ELI ~ Z0 0 H C0 N N N N N N N N m m m m N N N N ng F N a2•• U 0 3333333333333333 FI-•M .1 HX C. NE <4CCR 0 it Wv)CC 4cA 20 Al. . kl 447,KC a X d w o> COZ 0H X Z 0 000000000000000 HO>4H a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z X 3 ., 0 H ou,LA 1AOOIAOOAIno0LAOln 0.OH CA U .D10 U1PIA IAN CDN..0001C0r N ZO W 0 a N N N N N N N N m m m m N N N CC 0 43(L Z U 1-1 r4 . F P 0 2222222222222222 H H n K U N>H m C4 O Al CO o 0 CA .7 ON UP.UU4.000UUUVUUUU ,0,C o a H 0 000000000000000 .7 o U CO 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL. H OI111A0000NIn000In000 U Nm..000010mP.40(00AN H Q 0 0 In V,0 In IA I!)10 10 10 10 N IA LA IA O Cr., M P O N X O H li Z CO a i 1A P in N..O C.CO 0-,0 0 P m N.-.O O H• 4 I .I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 , 0000000000000000 U CA >. , N NNNNNNN N N N N N N NN Lef Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 137 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 FDOT Florida Traffic Online Identify Information Page 1 of 1 Site Information Feature 1 Road Name TAMIAMI TRL Site 030124 Description SR 90/US 41,SOUTHEAST OF CR 851/GOOD LETTE RD NP24 Section 03010000 Milepoint 12.34 AADT 52000 Site Type Portable Class Data Yes K Factor 9 D Factor 55.9 T Factor 4 TRAFFIC REPORTS(provided in format) Collier County Annual Average Daily Traffic Annual Vehicle Classification Historical AADT Data Synopsis 030124 Vehicle Class History Print this window. Close this window 1 http:• Ilto.dot.state.I1.us N\ebsitc FloridaTraflicOnlinc`displayAttributeDataA113.aspx 11.212016 Th Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page j 38 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits (3 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 139 Gateway Mini Triangle-PUDA and GMPA-TIS-March 2017 l-y,- W N m O Z ��y 1=i r" Q h CO 4i(f r g - ..: i- Z H a i-' C) N I .s I- E W O Z I r ••1 • W W I I T J co _ v ' `\\ ice` \\\ Q , 10 1 NN l' 4 : N \ _ :- g O ` I dry yM� \ i i ; 1 - 7/4;/ • S o x I I o _ i it1 N I ....-_-..:'r {Ili /! � ? -I W / E.o IMI U //� / V• I I Lo ..,00 aen' $ In /, II .ti i II II.* .,.,, Lwr,,,,....77-7 ,4.- „ . / II �I MMN.: •�• .. 0 ,��.'/• ., Iiia / �w 1 Iv Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 140 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 NORTH n r.S Davie Boulevard 14 PM PEAK ENTER/EXIT = 74 VPH/43 VPH 1-> a�air c 0 •?B IS / 13 LEGEND �p 34 —•1 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic JM8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. Trio Hotel PROJECT-GENERATED FIGURE 2B TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT April 15, 2016 (,,3 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 141 Gateway Mini Triangle—PUDA and GMPA—TIS—March 2017 �,! LI 'tea _ ``'•�M�ft" is a--s4 CeZ H = m , ...1 (7) 1- ao m � Z r — Zw • � o I '; ;" oizOvZ , Wo i h 1. • :31 3 I - _ M • SI: v !In1 /�IN-� x M d t+ rot-, / 4ee /// /� r _ N I I II / IIei �` �' „1 it 4 % r E n N + 11 C"1 .- L 11 y - N I I nu tf} 4. 1 I Vciii:lisainemi:,\‘'N.,\•.::r1.1,.,, -0�I 11.. r�T.*-• 1000I% i6 / ,,r.,.(2. imija.n 1 '111 -I :4-i f .4} .I. /j ,' ' i tTT 4 , IP' , . i oe . 1711,7 �i ate , f o Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 142 N N 9 e 4 0 N A N f) 9 0 Q g (O Q g N Z Z O N 94 O M CO U Z W O 1 1 O h Q U N a�a WCC HWNWcO liT a Z .J 0 W cn p8N �' W uj 0 W p W Z F I- Z m O Z ON O C CI » aPu-LL- 2I- W CI) 0W � —CI) a Q cc U: pQ co 2 UO LT_ u_ s I- 0 < J W _ !/) I- Q CO J 0 CO o = Z 2 W fl LT § H 1 •) st Ai, Z_c 3 I� • - ti 2. m 2 I • ' LLQ a .. . P it I } •. : N • f , 45. , m w. 1 A • 1 J c4 Aly / r�i y ] r 1 I c� ....43411144$14#30,k li - ,A w MI.-.�.-ice -A..r. -;43:a « p+ - . 414441 SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS • (CHAP 1'ER 8,COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A 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 the Administrative Code,Chapter 8 E. 1. 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 ROBERT J MULHERE, FAICP WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POS 1'bD PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER SSGMPA-PL20160003084/CCPS-2016-3 14/1„.„..,-7 950 ENCORE WAY SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O.BOX ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP NAPLES, FL 34110 NAME(TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY,STA IE ZIP # HOLE MONTES, INC. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 2 9th day of January 20 18, by ROBERT J. MULHERE personally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. . V ��? J) �� r,;:I! •"""• STEPHANIE KAROL Signatu of Notary Public ga4,11 : Notary Public-State of Florida I. - Commission#FF 939980 Vr,- � ,pos My Comm.Expires Mar 9,2020 STEPHANIE KAROL ''�O ,, Bonded through National Notary Assn. Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev.3/4/2015 . 0. • - . . 1. /„.. • , ' 'wg, 1,101.. , , , • 4.011" - . • . f,, - ,f � / + 4 4 r ` .11 C 4• V Q_ 0 ri ►1 ac 1. �. aJ O CO)▪ H At Ens LL. cr irb‘` Q W • w a mO = J WG Cg 5 d cc cc isW v42, QOr .c, oo � i G2 ` CO O t7 $ C .11 Jam . " _ � S. u, coal Q W w W a. t c .. mc J = _1' N I- cel illVil - 4 V� m to - e 4 O Id2i r �? a W O 2 t. " > 's 1..0 4 W Z ^ U ow. r w .?..7:, I1. N W et Lai Q a W !/� gr • i 03 Er hViI .� III L. .:� is rZW c� ' Inas INNS C � Fr- W { E pa = — = LJn //� 1 0 osw .i ,r��s ►- C cz � d a Ca yo O V Q a s N. wa . = s - oWW = 0 � ' iii ce CCR too p n +L;. _� .5.5. 0131Z' 4 trJ0. • V Ca = o v Q O0 4 Ca v ae • 1J 1 Z � Z ly a oop COY a ¢ G D Q WV .gL` Ra, o. `u �1 � � d. o aao WG5 ' Q� S yo W _ tsL - a 4WD i,,. �c 11 = W 5 Lu • W I I�C m r +. ! +O Co u r Zies ... cot" x...... � 1, g 31 " 8 r s0 . � � � i+��il�' ' 3 53 = Nas CO Ill t meg LL . cc = _ = Z ; ' tkyg• , W C7 -C r 0 � � • � 5 a ,ik clillGh ` v� ? � j 40 • . . .,. .. ,. _ ,• . . ..,,,,...• . • ... , ... ..,,.... . . . .,„. A . •. .. • . ,. _ • ., Y,,�• , . . • . _ _ • ,......... • • ,. _ ,_ ,,:_ _ „:„.. . .' , 4 q,+� I. • ...,11 icl all , $. 6 4.W ,A �, 1• owl 0 d M I ; : 2( 3E Z .... , u t ' n (1) CA 4- OF g • . . . U'i0if .• v" # a asp "C CD L) ° 6 R ijF.1b •411 .A Ji a 1.11: "4 i 3 is �/ . r �► •1 41 �a wala off , i it ► GG � 1 � * ,Ean • CC, ..J u:p Q s 4.• II •t -•ed ow '" a, a • YW � ' i •. _ . u V_ ii•W 0 ' a. p ' 1 .1 it i ' . cZ.; ..) 3' 111.21 � 1E trj :a i i i 14 . ,. a ala V :O 1:1, : OC ' �� � -r • 0 i •• • MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT SSG MPA-PL-20160003084/CPS S-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: "NO HAZARD LETTERS" FROM FAA MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT S S G M PA-PL-20160003084/C P S S-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: TEN PRINCIPLES FOR REBUILDING NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT S S GMPA-PL-20160003084/CPS S-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: HIGHER-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT MYTH AND FACT MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT S S G M PA-PL-20160003084/C P S S-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: SMART GROWTH AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS: INVESTING IN INFILL DEVELOPMENT