Loading...
CCPC Agenda 03/01/2018Page 1 of 3 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., MARCH 1, 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 – February 1, 2018, and February 7, 2018 *Special CCPC/LDC* 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting: A. 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 Page 2 of 3 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] Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting: B. 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] Note: This item has been continued from the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting: C. 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] D. PL20170002684: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a parking exemption, to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-152, relating to a prior parking exemption. The subject property is located between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, Principal Planner] E. PL20170002330: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 88-93, the City Gate Commerce Park Planned Unit Development, to revise the legal description and correct the acreage of the MPUD; to update the master development plan including designating a Lake/Recreational Area, adding external access points along the eastern MPUD boundary and adding the Collier County Sports Complex; to provide conversions to allow additional hotels and motel units and the development of the Collier County Sports Complex, without increasing the overall originally approved buildout traffic; to provide deviations for signage, flagpoles, parking areas, landscape areas and buffers, architectural review standards, native vegetation and water management; to clarify permitted uses and add development standards for the Sports Complex, including building heights; to update building heights elsewhere in the MPUD; to remove outdated commitments; to add exhibits including exhibit A-3 permitted uses by Page 3 of 3 SIC codes, Exhibit A-4 cross sections-north buffer, Exhibit A-5 sign deviation exhibit, and Exhibit A-6 required yard plan; providing for conflict and severability; and providing an effective date. The subject property consisting of 291.55 acres is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of I-75 and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] F. PL20170002634: A Resolution amending Development Order 88-02, as amended, the City Gate Commerce Park Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section One: amendments restoring language from the original Development Order 88-02 and provide traffic conversions, without increasing the overall buildout traffic; amendment to regulations pertaining to vegetation and wildlife/wetlands to remove the 2.47 acre wetland “preserve” requirement; amendment to remove phasing schedule and obsolete development restrictions; amendment to master development plan; extension of termination date; and amendment to allow for biennial reporting; Section Two: findings of fact including revised legal description and correction of acreage; Section Three: conclusions of law; Section Four: effect of previously issued development order, transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and providing an effective date. The subject property consisting of 291.55 acres is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of I-75 and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp February 1, 2018 Page 1 of 16 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 1, 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 Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Diane Ebert ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Timothy Finn, Principal Planner Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative February 1, 2018 Page 2 of 16 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, February 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please stand for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And our secretary, Ms. Ebert, can't make it today. She has a conflict, so it's an excused absence. So I'll go ahead and take the roll call. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Diane's gone. I'm here. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Planning Commission -- or addenda to the agenda. We have two items under advertised public hearings. One is a continuation from the last meeting, the Old U.S. 41 CPUD. The other one is a change in the Eagle Creek Planned Unit Development. And the other -- there are two items I'd like to add. One's an old subject but we'll add it because it's being rediscussed under new business. I'd like to have a brief discussion on the analysis of the NIMs by staff and then also a database that the county keeps and how it's kept up called CTS. I want to bring it up for discussion today so we can get some resolution on that, and that's the only changes I make. Does anybody have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is next Wednesday night at 5:05 in this room. It's the cleanup of the remaining LDC amendments that we saw last time, for the most part. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? It should be rather short. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, you're not going to be here? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I told you last time I could not be here for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So one, two, three, four. We'll still have a quorum. If Diane can't make it, we'll still get the quorum. So one way or another we'll be okay. And the meeting after that is the 15th of February. Now, that's going to -- it's going to have one of our bigger projects coming in. And, Ray, that's the CityGate -- no. Gateway project, Gateway Triangle. MR. BELLOWS: Mini triangle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the mini-triangle project. It's a first of its kind for redevelopment in Collier County, so hopefully we'll get our package as early as possibly, and we'll have that. But I expect that one's going to dominate that meeting, and that's the 15th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the 15th? February 1, 2018 Page 3 of 16 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here for that one either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we still have a quorum, so we're good. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, are there other agenda items besides the mini triangle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know as of yet. MR. BELLOWS: There were four items on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four? MR. BELLOWS: Four. Well, they're companion -- one is a companion item; GMP amendment for the mini triangle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: The other is the Calusa Island Village, which is a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's rather short, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the sake of the Calusa Island Village folks, if anybody is interested in that, including the applicant, we ought to hear that one first, because that should go rather fast, then that way we haven't got to keep them waiting the whole day for the other one. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to approval of the minutes. There were none in -- I don't see any on the agenda, so there's nothing there to do. And BCC report and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On January 23rd the Board of County Commissioners validated the Hearing Examiner decision or determination for the Heritage Bay PDI. That was the only item on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What was not on the agenda, which this board maybe -- maybe would want to be made aware of is the Isles of Collier project that I could not participate in has withdrawn, I believe, their application as a result of the discussion at the Planning Commission. Is that fair to say? MR. BELLOWS: That is my understanding as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item up is chairman's report. Oh, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, just a question. Are they going to proceed with the project at a greater -- at the minimum square foot level, do you know, or is it -- MR. BELLOWS: The only thing I heard is that they withdrew their application for the amendment to reduce the square footage, but whether they're going to proceed or not, I haven't heard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Of course, they still could proceed at the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- by modifying their design. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they did, the additional stipulations that were proposed or volunteered may not necessarily come to fruition. MR. BELLOWS: That is also correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That pretty much negates any of the provisions that we discussed. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's kind of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could not be -- it may not be a win-win for those that were opposing it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, anyway, that's sometimes why compromise is a best solution, because what remains may not be the better of the two. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. That's what I meant; the residents may see that project anyway. It's just at the minimum square foot of 700 square feet. MR. BELLOWS: Whatever their PUD currently allows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any chairman's report other than what we've just February 1, 2018 Page 4 of 16 discussed. There's nothing on the consent agenda. ***So that will take us into our first advertised public hearing, which is 9A. This item has been continued from the January 18th CCPC meeting. It's PL20170001083, and it's the 15501 Old U.S. 41 CPUD located on the west side of Old U.S. 41 about a mile north of the interchain -- or intersection of old and new 41. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures? And we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None other than those in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: An email from Alexis, or maybe we talked in person. I forget. I'm old. I forget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had email exchanges with Ms. Crespo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had spoke with Alexis. We had a meeting. I have met a couple times with staff on these same issues, and that's all I can remember at this time. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just an email from Alexis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Email from Alexis where I respond. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing other than the email from Alexis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, Alexis, I know there's been some changes since one of -- I mean, I didn't get the final email. Everybody else here seems to have. But if those haven't been in our packet, you'll need to put those on the overhead as we walk through them today. MS. CRESPO: Yes. For the record, Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering. I brought hard copies to distribute. No one has seen the final version that I'm presenting today based upon -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. CRESPO: -- recent coordinations with staff as recently as yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could distribute those, but also save a copy so you could put them on the overhead, if you don't mind. Thank you. MS. CRESPO: And I'll start -- on Page 2 is the first change, I believe. And I provided a cover letter with our submittal that kind of outlined the key changes, and so we really focused on further limiting any of the intensive commercial uses to ensure compatibility with the multifamily use to our north. And we also looked at the traffic and an interim buildout condition until the roadway is improved along the project frontage. So we'll start with Exhibit A of the PUD document. We've limited the catalog and mail-order house further to indicate no on-site sales. So it's very clear that that use wouldn't have any retail component of it. We've also worked on eating places. That was discussed at length at the last meeting, the potential noise impacts of restaurants, and so we have modified condition 4A and also added Condition 4B, which I'll get into when we get into the commitments, but that's to address compatibility with that use. We have also, on Page 4 of your document, made some modifications to further clarify prohibited uses and added additional uses to that list that we've outlined on the cover letter. So we've eliminated the automotive service uses that we discussed, also the gasoline fueling station, daycare, churches, educational plants, et cetera; all those items discussed at the meeting. Working with the County Attorney's Office, we tightened up the sexually-oriented businesses prohibitions so that's consistent with local ordinances. And then the next change will be on your PUD master plan, which is going to be Page 7 of 12. And I February 1, 2018 Page 5 of 16 should let you see that correctly. Okay. We've added a note regarding the buffer treatment on that northern property line when -- a meeting with Commissioner Strain, he correctly noted that the Type B buffer along that northern property line where retail abuts residential uses would require either a fence or wall. So we've added the note that the buffer there will be consistent with 5.03.02 in terms of that buffer yard treatment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only little-bit difference, the Type B buffers says you may use a wall or a fence, but the section of the code that refers to commercial against residential requires the wall or fence. So it is a Type B buffer. But the word "may" bothered me, and that's why I suggested we referenced the section of the code that does require a wall or fence, okay. Thank you. MS. CRESPO: We also eliminated some notes. This was feedback from the County Attorney's Office. There were four notes previously. Many of them were restating code requirements so they were deemed unnecessary. So we just have two remaining notes that caps the maximum intensity at 40,000 square feet at buildout and then also confirms the on-site native preservation shown on the plan. And then, lastly, we'll get into the commitments; Exhibit F of the document. So we really worked on Transportation Commitment 2A. We have Norm Trebilcock here if you have any specific questions about it. But we heard loud and clear that while it's understood improvements are on their way, the timing is uncertain. So we developed a commitment that until the road is improved, the trips will be capped at 116 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips. That would allow the applicants to move forward with their respective projects, which would entail some retail as well as the mail-order catalog house. That trip cap allows them to get that first phase underway, and then once the road is improved, they could seek buildout at the 216 two-way p.m. peak-hour trips per the traffic impact study we submitted. So we feel like that addresses the comment we heard about the interim condition before the roadway is done. And then the last change is on Page 12 of 12. We tweaked 4A. When you saw this last, it said amplified outdoor music associated with food stores and eating places is limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and the amplified outdoor music is prohibited for all other commercial uses. We've changed "music" to "sound" so it's broader. It would handle situations like TVs, things like that that could occur that aren't necessarily music, again, for compatibility with our neighbor to the north. And then we also added in a limitation that that use, the eating place, would have to be set back 100 foot from that northern property line just to provide some additional separation, and that would be in addition to our Type B buffer that would have the fence or wall treatment. So when you marry all those different conditions and site design standards in place, we feel that the use will be compatible with our neighbor as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very good. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My first question refers or relates to the amplified sound. And on Page 4 of the electronically distributed material, the language that is used regarding eating places is it restricts the timing of amplified sound. And I see that you've continued along those lines going to the 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. That seems awfully broad and wide to me. Also, with respect to amplified sound, what about establishments other than eating places? MS. CRESPO: The condition addresses food stores as well. Sometimes stores have some piped music outside. Are there any other uses you had in mind that -- gas stations typically have some outdoor sound, but we're not allowed to have that use, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. But beyond what I'm able to conjure up in my imagination right now, it seems that there could be other commercial activities that we haven't thought of that might want to use outdoor amplified sound, and wouldn't it be better to establish what criteria we're going to use, whether it's hours or decibels or what, and apply it to all uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Alexis, all you'd have to do is amend 4A to drop off "associated with food store and eating places" and just say "amplified outdoor sound is limited to 7 to 10 p.m." What other February 1, 2018 Page 6 of 16 use would you possibly have there that would produce outside sound? I mean, I'm not sure it matters that much. Do you guys have anything in mind? Well, Norm's not -- what's he got to do with outside sound? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He knows stuff. MS. CRESPO: That's a good point. Norm correctly notes that the second sentence states that the only two types of uses that could have amplified sound are the food store and eating place. So any other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. All other commercial. Very good. Very good point. Thank you, Norm. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, that works. Now getting back, though, to the substance of the sound. It seems 7 a.m. to me is too early and 10 p.m. too late, so I'll just raise that point of concern that I have. And I guess you're talking seven days a week, too, aren't you? MS. CRESPO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we have in the past had this issue come up, and that is the general time frames we've used on the others. I think that's probably why they went with it as a starting point. I don't -- that doesn't mean we can't change it. I'm just mentioning it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just curious, what kind of amplified sound would be going on at 7 a.m. on Sunday morning? MS. CRESPO: In this specific situation there could be a breakfast shop with some outdoor seating that could have some amplified sound is -- would be my best guess of a scenario that would apply to this condition, but certainly a lot of uses would not. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have more points, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So to me it's too early and too late, and I'm not sure that -- well, I don't know what the county ordinance is with respect to decibels of sound, but I'm told that there is such a thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is, and it varies between the types of uses on the various properties involved. Commercial against residential has a different decibel issue than agricultural next to residential. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So in addition on the too early and too late, I have objections to the weekend starts of 7 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Just seems to me to be way too early. Then -- let's see. I appreciate very much your proposal to reduce the peak p.m. traffic from 216 to 116. I think that's very definitely a step in the right direction. I ask as a question, though -- and it really is only a question -- is this enough of a reduction? We're already over capacity, so presumably it's going to be -- what was that number? 87 -- 87 plus 116 over capacity until there's remediation with a road fix of some kind. And I, for one, am not satisfied that the built-in remediation steps such as carpooling and the like are sufficient to facilitate a reasonable level of flow or control on the level of flow. So I raise that as a point of concern as well. Then I get into individual uses. And let me go through those. First of all, under SIC Code 7389, which is business services, miscellaneous. Of course, that's very, very broad, but I looked those up and found some that it seemed to me -- well, from my perspective, I'm concerned about things like use of chemicals and things that would just naturally increase in commercial traffic that might not be necessary for your planning purposes. And the first thing I come to -- they're not numbered. They're only bulleted, but it's called inspection of commodities under this SIC code. First of all, I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like it could involve some big things. MS. CRESPO: And this is on Page 1 of 12 under 16; is that correct? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I took it right off the SIC code. February 1, 2018 Page 7 of 16 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What he's saying is, I believe, the exceptions you have for 7389, he's looking for more. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what you're saying. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one of them he's concerned about is what he just mentioned. In order to expedite this discussion, are there others that you have concerns about? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you just rattle those off, and we'll see where Alexis stands on them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. Parcel packing service. Again, that suggests large things. Process serving service suggests an activity that might involve people having disagreements of various sorts at that location. Produce weighing service, I'd like some more explanation on that. Water softener service sounds like it might involve chemicals, possibly noxious ones. Weighing foods and other commodities. And that's it under that SIC code, under 7389. I'm not -- I'm not inalterably opposed to all those. In some cases I just don't understand what they involve. But they struck me, upon reading them, as being, perhaps, you know, a potential for concern to the neighbors to the north. MS. CRESPO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alexis, what we'll probably do is when Ned finishes I'll ask you for your comments, and then we can take a general idea from where this board matches Ned's concerns or not. MS. CRESPO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, do you want to go through the rest of it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. The next one, SIC Code 7261, funeral services. And I see you've excluded crematories, but it includes embalmers, and they, of course, use noxious chemicals. Again, I'm not saying that this is definitely a problem with me. I'd just like to hear more about it to satisfy potential concerns of neighbors. Garment pressing. Again, chemicals. Group care facilities; does this include substance-abuse patients? And, again, I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but I'd just like to know what we're getting into. Clinics; I assume this would include total body massage and acupuncturists. And I realize, to the extent that it's sexually oriented, there's already protection in there, but I'd like to maybe have a conversation about that. Membership organizations. The SIC Code 8799 includes pet stores and animal adoption services. I'm not sure whether that's needed, not sure whether that would be objectionable, but I just thought I'd point it out. Paint stores, obviously going to have -- that's 5231 -- going to be noxious chemicals. Repair services, the catchall -- actually, I read that more carefully, and it looks like that's self-contained; that's self-limiting. Then retail services, miscellaneous, SIC Code 59 seems awfully broad. So those are my use concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, do you have any other concerns so we can wrap them all up with Alexis now? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I think that's all I have in total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any comments you want to make before we talk about them? MS. CRESPO: I need to discuss with the applicants any concerns they have with eliminating any of those further uses. I think we've tried to go through and really tighten this up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: To summarize, if I may, in three quick sentences or phrases: I'm concerned about whether reduction to 116 is enough, I'm concerned about the sound, and I'm concerned about uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the -- from this panel's discussion, before you spend time with your applicant, we might want to see where we all stand on it. They're asking for the C3 uses, which is February 1, 2018 Page 8 of 16 one of our milder commercial sections of the code. They're next to a light industrial parcel on the south, and they're across the street from a heavy industrial park. The idea that the pollutants or chemicals -- I can't see from the uses described how they'd be any more harmful than anything that already surrounds the area, and I don't believe from what I can -- in fact, I got the maps of the wellfields; there are no wellfields, so there's no pollution from that perspective. I'm not sure -- and the sound only being restricted by the -- to the eating places, and nobody else can have amplified outside sound, I'm not sure how much of a concern that is at this point with that kind of restriction. At least those are my thoughts on it. And anybody else on the Planning Commission want to weigh in? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And I know it's a knee-jerk reaction, but when I hear amplified sound at 7 a.m. on Sunday morning, I'm thinking of an AC/DC concert. And I know that, you know, we're talking about a little background elevator-type music going on, and I don't have a concern with that. A lot of Ned's uses -- that's very close to an industrial area. I don't have a concern with those uses either. Like you say, they're pretty mild. And traffic -- I go by there sometimes in the morning, and there's quite a bit traffic, but just wait another light change at 41 and Bonita Beach Road, Old Bonita Beach Road, and be through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the traffic is a good issue. It's one that we pressed hard for at the last meeting, and the applicant came back and voluntarily offered to reduce it almost in half. Ironically, to meet the concurrency, all they've got to do is meet the TCMA requirements of adding a -- kind of what I think is a useless clause to one of their SDPs saying they're going to have carpooling. And I agree with you, the whole TCMA thing is a waste of our time and consideration. But it's on the books and it is allowed and, therefore, the property owner has a right to take advantage of it. I'm pretty comfortable with the traffic that you've dropped down to. You did that at a request from this board, so I have to applaud you for that. I think that was a good move. I do want our Transportation Department to comment during staff report to make sure they concur that it's written as we understand it to be. But I guess that's the other issues we've got to address. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that, Alexis, whatever you want to do, you can do, and you might want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not going to -- none of these rises to a level where I'm going to vote against this, particularly since I didn't hear much support up here. But I'm satisfied that I made the record I wanted to make. MS. CRESPO: On one of those items, the sound, the applicant is comfortable reducing that to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. to address -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's great. MS. CRESPO: -- that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That will help. Okay. Anything else on your side, Alexis? MS. CRESPO: We appreciate the comments and feedback. We have reduced the trips by 50 percent in the interim condition to try to address the concerns. And I'll just note that a large part of those trip are going to be this mail-order house, which our TIS runs it as retail-type use, but it's going to generate much less traffic than any retail use, just the way the ITE codes are set up. So the 116 is really a worst-case scenario. I'll submit that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go to the staff report. Tim? MR. FINN: For the record, I am Tim Finn, principal planner. February 1, 2018 Page 9 of 16 The project is compliant with the GMP and the rezoning criteria within the LDC; therefore staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Ray is training you guys well. Mike, could you address the paragraph in transportation I mentioned to you yesterday just to take a look at it and make sure it provides what's needed? Since you traffic people have these weird ways of looking at things, I want to make sure we all look at it the same way. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Chairman. Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning, for the record. Actually, this is the first time I've seen this language, so I would like to be able to see it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not going to continue this again, and it's only one paragraph. MR. SAWYER: I do not want to do that. I would just like to look at it again so that I -- I believe that it is to concurrency, which would be the preferable time frame. So if you don't mind, I would like to be able to review this first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll wait. How long will it take you to review it? Five minutes? MR. SAWYER: Not even that, probably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, go start reading. MR. SAWYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty seconds. And I guess from Ray's perspective, or Tim's, if there's a transportation commitment and change, why wouldn't the Transportation Department have already seen it? Don't they have to review these before they come to us? MR. BELLOWS: Normally they do. I'm not sure when the change occurred. And there's normally a coordination effort, but I'll have to talk to Mike a little bit more about what happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, I did mention it to you yesterday as a heads-up for today, so I'd hoped you'd read the paragraph before today. MR. SAWYER: Again, I did not get -- I didn't see the language until this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have access to CityView? MR. SAWYER: I was hoping that -- I looked at it in CityView, and I did not see it last night. Admittedly, we had a NIM for our transportation planning last night, so I did not -- I was not in the office past three o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The two sentences that are there, do you have any problems with them? MR. SAWYER: I don't. As -- like I indicated, the preference would be that "deemed concurrent" with -- to the permit -- "to permit the project buildout" would be a preference from us as well, so we would agree to that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, Mike. Appreciate it. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess I do, on traffic. The language that's used using words like "concurrency" and "buildout," how does that relate to the concept of capacity; in other words, trips? MR. SAWYER: Real briefly. What we look at when we are reviewing zoning petitions is we look at a five-year window and the capacity of the existing roadway system plus what we've already got planned for increases within that five-year period. We look at what the current capacity of the roadway system is with the current trip counts we've got now, and then we project those out based on both trips that we know are coming in, based on site plans and plats, as well as other developments, plus we then look at what actually comes in with those SDPs and plats. We take all of that information, along with our quarterly trip counts that we take every quarter and we, again, project that out five years. And we find the differential between what the road capacity is and what the remaining capacity is, and we look at that number and compare it to what is being proposed. If we're within that capacity or that remaining capacity, then it is deemed consistent with the GMP. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. So, in other words, the capacity would have to get up to 87 plus 216 before they got the 216; is that correct? February 1, 2018 Page 10 of 16 MR. SAWYER: Honestly, I'd have to review the numbers again, but I believe that's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Any other questions from this panel before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, are there any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No registered public speakers. Are there any members of the public here who wish to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, Alexis, you obviously don't need a rebuttal, unless you have anything else you want to add. MS. CRESPO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. With that, we'll close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. There has been one suggested volunteered change from 7 to 9 p m. for the outdoor amplified sound. Motion maker may want to keep that in mind. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, wait. It's 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nine a.m -- is it 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Alexis? MS. CRESPO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Nine to nine. Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved to recommend approval subject to the sound -- amplified sound change? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 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. Alexis -- MS. CRESPO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thank you. That's an outcome that probably wouldn't have been the same had you not asked for the continuance, and thus the matter got cleaned up, so I appreciate your cooperation. MS. CRESPO: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***That takes us to Item 9B. It's PL20170001320. It's the Eagle Creek February 1, 2018 Page 11 of 16 Planned Unit Development. It's located at the southwest of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Fred, I'm sure glad you're going to speak, because you're about the only one left in audience. Disclosures from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did talk with Fred about a couple issues and, other than that, there's no -- and staff. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe I received an email, but I said I had no questions. I don't know if that was from Fred or one of his staff members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just told Fred in the elevator he had a nice sport coat. That's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would Fred -- probably -- and there's no -- is there any member of the audience here on this item that was going to speak or anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kind of like the other office, if -- we've all got the packet, we've all read it. Staff is here. They've read it. I think it's a pretty simple enough application, so no sense belaboring the point. Do you have anything you want to add to it? MR. HOOD: I don't, just -- I'll answer any questions that you guys have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just so everybody's clear, it's just for a small piece of what is being used as open space adjacent to the golf course to be zoned to be golf course. Is that generally what the issue is, Fred? MR. HOOD: Generally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: They're expanding -- just really quickly. It's for a short course play area to expand; that H tract right now is a driving range, so they're expanding that portion to H1 for a short play area. That's really it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seemed pretty succinct when I was reading it, so -- anybody have any questions of the applicant? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just had one. It's not so much of an objection. It's just a point of curiosity, because I have lived near golf courses before. And sometimes driving ranges are netted to prevent the golf balls from breaking windows and residences and the like. Is that something that was considered? Have you spoken with the residents about that? MR. HOOD: That didn't come up in our neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It didn't? MR. HOOD: The existing golf course or golf driving range area -- I'm actually not specifically sure if there's netting on that side of the course. But it has not risen to be a problem for the existing neighbors. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But your proposal said no vertical structures. MR. HOOD: No vertical -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So from that I assumed that there was no netting. MR. HOOD: And for "structures" what we meant was buildings like outbuildings for maintenance or bathrooms or things like that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's really all I had. February 1, 2018 Page 12 of 16 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd have to say, Ned, for the short game, if somebody's out there hitting into the backyards, then that's a neighborhood -- or the golf club issue, because they shouldn't be. If it's just for the short game, it's just for chipping and putting and some other things, sand, hitting out of the sand and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought it was a driving range potentially. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. The driving range is adjacent to it. It's already there. The driving range already exists. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Fred, thank you. And is there a staff report? MR. FINN: For the record, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I want a long staff report, Tim. MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and the rezoning criteria within the LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public here to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Obviously not. Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval as presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen, made by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. MR. HOOD: Thank you, all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well done, Fred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was probably one of the simplest ones you've had, Fred. MR. HOOD: I think it was one of the quickest ones, too. It was like, what, four minutes, five minutes? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can make it more painful, if you want to stay longer. MR. HOOD: Bye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay. That takes us to a couple new-business items. I just have two things to talk about, just -- it will be real short. The NIMs, we had a lot of discussions about the NIMs when Ned had proposed some videos and/or transcribing. We're trying to live with it with the audios that we have and improving on that process. But one thing I noticed -- and I could not participate in the Isles of Collier discussion. I did review the audio and the transcripts and everything for that, and not knowing whether I'd participate or not -- there were commitments made by the applicant to the public at that meeting, and they weren't in the recommendations, and they February 1, 2018 Page 13 of 16 weren't in the writeup of the PUD amendments that staff provided to this board. So I would like to ask that from now on when an applicant tells the public that they're going to do something in regards to this quality or style of the land use they're asking for -- in this particular case they were going to have tile roofs, they were going to do a few other things. They were going to have a recreation area. They're going to have a pet area. Those are all quality improvements that, on other projects where they've been volunteered -- and I'm thinking Vincentian -- we've put them in the PUD. Now, we can't demand them because it's not necessarily a requirement of the LDC. But if the applicant wants to volunteer them, we can include them as improvements that were provided -- proffered to the public. So from now on, I would ask that staff try to look at those and make sure they're included in the process going forward, and that will help us with the NIM issues. The second discussion I wanted to have was on the database. There's an internal database that's used by staff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Before you move on to the second item -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. I should have asked anybody if they had anything else. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I've had exactly the same concern -- I think I raised it with respect to the matter at the last meeting -- that whatever commitments are made should find their way into the PUD. But having said that and having, for the last couple of meetings, had the capability of listening to these NIMs, I just -- I want to compliment staff for finding a solution that works perfectly well for me. I satisfy myself completely that I've heard what has happened, and I feel more informed and better able to do my job, so thank you. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. And I understand Mr. Strain's comments, and I appreciate that we have made some improvements in the process. Why -- I have found in reviewing some of these is when an applicant is making what could be perceived as a general comment versus this is what we are committing to do. But if they are mentioning it in the meeting as this is what it's going to look like, then we can make that as a condition of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the interpretation of whether an applicant at a meeting makes a general comment to influence the perception of the public that's there, if that happens and you think it's general and not a commitment, well, at least list it as at least these following general items were mentioned by the applicant. Let us make that decision as whether it's something that sways the public's opinion and concerns over how that project's going to evolve. That way when the public's participating, they know those opportunities are there. MR. BELLOWS: And we'll do that now that I understand your concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One last question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I must say that the quality of the audio taping is excellent. And we had talked about people using their iPhones and the like. I'm not sure how you're doing it, but it's very, very audible and clear. Is this professional equipment being used, or is it an iPhone? MR. BELLOWS: The applicants bring their recording devices, so I can follow up with the staff members who attended those NIMs to see if they're using anything unusual or different. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it's -- I think it's established what I hope is a standard of practice going forward, whatever it is, because it's really very clear. MR. BELLOWS: I think one of the things that helps is the staff emphasis in coordinating the NIMs, that they take the proper precautions to get a good recording. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: At the pre-app meetings a staff member writes down the commitments, and the owner or developer or engineer, whatever, signs something on the bottom he understand those are the commitments. Is it possible to do that in a NIM? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there is a possibility for staff to take notes, and most do. February 1, 2018 Page 14 of 16 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, not just notes but, you know, these commitments were made, one, two, three, four, five, and then have the developer sign it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Part of following up with the staff review of any item, once the NIM comment letter and summary is provided, staff should be working those into the PUD document as conditions. And if the applicant is determined that that is no longer a condition they want to support, that will have to be mentioned in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I have to say it's -- the staff planner that is assigned that project, it's got to be their responsibility to capture that information, and during the review, to go back and make sure that it's properly presented in the documents that are proffered to us. So, I mean, it is a staff responsibility. MR. BELLOWS: It is. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If you have summarized notes, which typically you do as well, it should be in those notes so that -- that, again, that information is presented to us. But I really have to depend on the staff. That's your staff's responsibility to ensure that they capture that and it's presented in the -- followed up in the PUD. And if it's not, well, that's the kind of information that should be made public again to the people who -- at least who attended it saying, you know, we can't do this, or whatever. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And where projects change over time, say, the NIM is held after the first review and we're down to the fifth review and things have changed based on the staff comment, if it's changed enough where the project -- we would require the applicant to hold another NIM to address all the changes. Where they are commitments, we'll have to just make sure we do a better job of conveying those commitments in the staff report. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'll go back to the Atilles (phonetic) rezone. Of course, we had Phil Brougham who was here. He was deeply involved in some of the negotiations between the develop -- so he captured some of that as well, as well as your staff in pre -- in the NIM. So until -- when it comes to us, all that information needs to be captured and, typically, if someone from the community is watching it as well to make sure that's in there, I don't know if that solves the problem. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. My -- when you have a pre-app at Community Development, a planner writes down all the commitments. Doesn't the developer sign something on the bottom that that's his understanding of the commitments? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there is a -- pre-app notes that are -- they may have changed a bit over time, but when I was doing the meetings, they were a signature page. But we have an operations team that coordinates the activities and provide the NIM notes later. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I've been gone seven years, so maybe things have changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Almost eight. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What about -- in that case, the Isles case, wasn't it -- the owner of the property didn't want to commit to those, not the potential developer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. On the Isles property, at the NIM they committed to certain styles of the building. They said tile roofs. They said certain other things. And all I'm suggesting is when someone says that they're going to do those, just to put them in the notes so we see them printed up, and we can know which ones should be applied as stipulations. That's all I was looking for. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other item is there's a -- there's some data bases internally at the county that are used to check various things. One of them is called CTS, and in it they keep a running log of the amount of units on a project. The Eagle Creek project that we just finished with had a discrepancy in the number of units that were built versus number of units allowed in the PUD. I'd just like to suggest to staff -- I mentioned yesterday I was going to bring this up. February 1, 2018 Page 15 of 16 I saw this morning you had sent me an email that said you checked the SDPs, and when we had talked, that you were going to check the tax appraisers or Tax Collector's Office to see how many units are there being taxed. I'd suggest we still ought to do that, and that will at least make sure Eagle Creek's got the right reconciliation for its units it's supposed to have, if you don't mind. MR. BELLOWS: No. We'll be glad to do that. I think, some time constraints, we didn't do it for this meeting. But we did do the condominium documents, which gave us a pretty good sense of what the units were approved for, so we felt comfortable relaying that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that project has single-family and villas as well. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may not be in condominiums, so... MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We also counted the lots on the platted lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure everything that everybody's using is accurate, so if we have issues we can bring it up and clean it up at one fell swoop instead of making people come back again. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Public comment? Anybody in the public here to comment on anything at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:47 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN February 1, 2018 Page 16 of 16 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. February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 1 of 11 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 7, 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 2 of 11 P R O C E E D I N G S MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this well-attended, highly energetic meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission on February 7th. Everybody please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski is absent. Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent, and Mr. Dearborn is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we do have a quorum. There is no addenda to the agenda. I don't have anything, and I don't think anybody else does. There are no minutes to be approved at this particular meeting, so we'll move right into our first and only advertised public hearing, and it's 5A. It's adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code. It's a couple remaining amendments that had to be heard officially at night, at one of the night meetings, and that's what this one is about. They're the same items that we've gone over at the previous meeting. We're just going to have some corrections on them that Jeremy's going to present tonight, and that will be the whole meeting. So, Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. Yeah, the first two items in your packet, those are the two amendments that are required to be heard twice. The second two amendments, the first is the amendment that was clarifying the standards for accessory uses, setbacks, and there was a change requested at the last meeting by the Planning Commission. You see that change in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, our packet starts with the commercial zoning districts and industrial zoning districts. Are you going out of order? MR. FRANTZ: No. If you'd like me to present on those first two amendments -- there's no changes to those amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have Pages 1 through 38. I'm just trying to follow where you're at. MR. FRANTZ: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page do you want to start with? MR. FRANTZ: I will skip to it. So this is starting on Page 17 of 38. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: If you recall, there was a sentence that we were requested to modify. This would be on Page 21 in Section 4.02.01. That modification is highlighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only change? MR. FRANTZ: That's the only change to this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're going to revote on these tonight. Is that what you hope to get out of this? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 3 of 11 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: The last amendment is the amendment related to the PUDI procedures and the minor-change procedures. There was one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. FRANTZ: This is on Page 29 of 38. There was a small change after the last meeting on Page 30. You can see the highlight, the strikethrough on the word "approval," and that's changed to "recommendation," and there were changes to the administrative code, and that starts on Page 35. Again, you see those highlighted. And then on the last page, on 38. Since this packet went out, we have just a couple of other changes to this amendment. I'll put those on the visualizer now. So on the first page of this amendment we've modified the narrative just to make it a little clearer the change to the decision-making process. I'll leave that up for a second. On the next page you can see the change that was included in your packet here. We've also modified this next sentence to relocate that "as applicable" statement there and added this sentence to the end of the provision that says, "Approval of the Board of County Commissioners requires an affirmative defense vote of four." COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that doesn't change anything, does it, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: It doesn't change anything. We're clarifying. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. MR. FRANTZ: And that same sentence is added to the minor-change section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have questions on this one or the previous one? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I want to say that I've had several email exchanges with Jeremy and found that to be a very productive process. I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on some things, and it resulted in a few language changes and also some explanations that helped clarify some things for me. I remain, though, possessed of two issues, and neither is what I would call a serious or substantive one, but it has to do with draftsmanship. And let me present it. And Jeremy has responded on behalf of staff and he, perhaps, can put that point of view forth after I've presented. This has to do with 10.02.13, which deals with the three matters that come before the BCC; two from the Planning Commission and one from HEX. And it's my understanding that in each case, since we're going for -- to the recommendatory approach now, that when it gets to the BCC, the BCC will -- if it desires to approve the action, it will do so. It will express its approval by means of an ordinance, I assume. I don't think that there's any other way that it would act in this capacity. I'm looking at the County Attorney, maybe, if I'm wrong. And so the question that I had and the concern that I had is is that there are three different expressions of this process in the language, 10.02.13. In one case it says "approval." In another case it says "approval" and "ordinance." And I had proposed that in all three cases the language be the same, that it says, "and approval by the Board of County Commissioners by means of an ordinance amendment." Because I didn't see a reason why the language would be different in any of those cases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be different depending on the particular land-use action that goes before the Board as a result of this. For example, in the SRAs they allow the PDI process to apply out there. That's done by resolution, not by ordinance. So I'm not sure if all of them will be resolved by ordinances, if they all have to go to the Board or not. And that's something that we hadn't discussed before, because I didn't think anybody questioned it. But now that you have, we'll just bring it up. I don't know how Jeff sees that one coming through. MR. KLATZKOW: I had the same conversation this afternoon with Scott Stone, and he said everybody knows it's by an ordinance, so, okay. I would have crafted it your way. I didn't feel strong enough to change it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't feel strong enough to vote against it, but I just -- I think it raises February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 4 of 11 an ambiguity. One would scratch one's head and say, well, why are you expressing it in three different ways when it's the very same procedure? It is by means of ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if anything, if it could be by just affirmative vote of the approval and not referenced that it's going to be done by ordinance, I would rather -- you know, I would rather not increase anything, make it more intense. So just drop the word "ordinance" and keep it all just by affirmative vote. Leave it like that. Let the outcome be dictated by the action. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. The only problem I had would be the inconsistency. I didn't have a preference. Our point -- obviously, the substance of the point is that we're acknowledging that it's recommendatory going to the Board, and the Board has the final say. So I guess my preference would be, from a draftsmanship standpoint, that since it's the same process, that it be expressed the same way. I don't feel the need to mention the ordinance amendment part of it. Approval's fine. MR. FRANTZ: So then in your packets, that would be on Page -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thirty, I think. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. On Page 30, just at the end of that strikethrough or -- sorry. At the end of that underlined language on Line 23 we would remove an ordinance amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Just -- in each of the three cases, just say "approval." That works for me. MR. FRANTZ: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. Then I go to Page -- oh, boy. I don't have the number here, but it has to do with the outdoor uses being added to C1 and C2 and C3, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we were still on the PDI process, so where's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, I'll bring this up, then, later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You're on the other different LDC amendment. Let's stick with the PDI process and the one on the generators that we just heard. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have nothing further, then, on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Generators, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generators was the first one that he announced a change there. Do you have any questions on that one? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. Yes, I do, only because it -- because we have these cluster-type dimensions, and the homes are, like, 10 feet apart, and this can go 36 inches. So on your property, if you have a five-foot, Jeremy -- and I'm looking at generators and at pool things that go into that more than that. So this -- this one bothers me at the 36 inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said, "things that go into that more than this." What do you mean? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, if you put a generator and you only have a five-foot setback -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- your generators are -- a lot of them are four-foot wide. So you will be going more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa. The generator can't go more than, what -- how many inches? Thirty-six? MR. FRANTZ: Thirty-six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It doesn't matter. If it's four-foot wide, it can't go in the side lot. What's the matter? COMMISSIONER EBERT: It can't -- where are you going to put it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to the property owner. He either doesn't buy it, or he puts it in the backyard somewhere, but he can't put it on the side lot if it's more than 36 inches. That was the purpose of the amendment. MR. FRANTZ: As we reviewed this amendment, I had also been told that in some instances you'll February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 5 of 11 see the generator actually built into the home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's how some of the air-conditioning units are being done. Now, too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it is a problem. I'm just going to tell you it's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question for Mike, I guess. Mike, when a PUD comes in and it's got lakes, water facilities, sometimes footprints of buildings, sometimes roadways, how much latitude do you think your department has after this PDI language gets approved? Because it wipes out minor changes, one of which is relocation and reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, or other water facilities. Now, you know, nobody expects those to be locked in because they don't even know if they're the right size. So is a foot now considered too much? Is five feet considered too much? Is 15 feet considered too much? Likewise, for a relocation of building envelopes when there's no encroachment upon required conservation or preservation areas. These are the simplest innocuous things that are done throughout the state of Florida and have been done in Collier County for 25 years by staff, and some by the new office, and now all of a sudden because the question was raised, it's no longer going to be done. I don't understand how we can justify the cost for those kind of changes or even the staff can figure out when they're changing something that they're no longer allowed to do and then turn around and charge the public thousands of dollars to process it then at the same time have the staff waste their time having to sit in a board meeting waiting for it. So just out of curiosity, how are you going to decide -- if a water management area on a conceptual plan that's submitted to this panel, or the Board, is approved as a master plan, and they move it, how far is the move going to be allowed? Do you have a number for that? I'm just curious. MR. BOSI: I couldn't quantify. I would say it would have to be within reason. I mean, if it was located to the opposite side of the PUD and it was -- and they were a full-scale rearrangement of where the land uses were, I think that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said "within reason." This entire action we're being asked to vote on is not within reason. I mean, it's absolutely ludicrous that the people in this county are going to be put through the additional cost and intensity over insignificant changes that are utilized throughout the state of Florida. It doesn't make any sense. But be that as it may, if you're no longer allowed to change an ordinance by the county commissioner and that ordinance refers to a relocation or reconfiguration of a lake, I'm just curious by what standard you're going to go by, because half the time your department doesn't see the outcome of a submittal after PUD. It goes to Chris Scott and Matt McLean. Is someone going to come over and tell me to match up and overlay the PUD master plan on the actual SDP submittal? And if the lake is more than X number of feet out, it's considered something that's got to go to the Board now? I mean, how are we going to handle this? I'm just curious. MR. BOSI: I think when the development review team is reviewing the plat or the SDP and the facilities seem to be misaligned with the master plan, they would come and have a discussion with Ray and I, and we would make an evaluation as to whether there was a substantial deviation from what was proposed in that conceptual master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about a minor change? Because it's minor changes that you're dealing with, not substantial deviations. You're looking at minor changes. That's all it says. That's under the category for what we're talking about tonight. So if it's a minor change, what level does that rise to; do we know? I don't. I don't know how you would decide that a minor change in your eyes is not the same or different than a minor change, say, in the Clerk of Court's eyes, and all of a sudden we have an ordinance change that he's now contesting. So I don't like this. You know, everybody knew that from the last meeting. But I think as I've read it, it's gotten even more ridiculous and imposing more standards by government on our citizens that we don't need, and it's just a complete waste of money. Be that as it may, I understand you can't answer the question, but I certainly will probably be looking February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 6 of 11 at what the SDP people approve from now on myself and see if they're going outside of any boundaries and suggest changes to that. And that's the only point I had in this one, for what it's worth. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on those last two? If not, do we want to have a vote on the last two just to get those out of the way? The one on the -- Jeremy, do you want to call those out by section? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. The first amendment is LDC Sections 2.03.07, 4.02.01, 4.02.03, 4.02.04, and 4.02.06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the one for the -- MR. FRANTZ: The dimensional standards for accessory uses and buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned and seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you. The second one is the -- you want to read it out? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. That's LDC Sections 10.02.13 and 10.03.06, and that's related to the PDI process and also includes the administrative code changes as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion on that one? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? There's no second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I believe this is the one I want to have some discussion on, which I can do after it has been -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- seconded. And I'll second it for that purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Karen, seconded by Ned. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. I excerpted something for my use this evening. I didn't pick up the page number, but is this -- Jeremy, is this the outdoor -- is that before us now, this outdoor question? MR. FRANTZ: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just the one on the PDI that I just discussed that says everything is now a change that's got to go to the Board instead of an insubstantial minor change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I should have put page numbers on here. I apologize. I don't have any comments or questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. So will we get to vote on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're going to take a vote on it. First we're still in discussion. I'm going to vote no on the motion as I previous -- for the reasons I previously stated. This is not consistent with our enabling act, and it just should not be passed. But that's my position. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 7 of 11 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Aye. Motion succeeds 3-1. Jeremy, let's go back to the -- we have two more, right? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. So the first amendment is to LDC Sections 2.03.03 and 2.03.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page? MR. FRANTZ: This begins on Page 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And, Commissioner Fryer, this is the amendment that we've had discussions about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: So this amendment you saw last time. There have not been any changes by staff since then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The concern I have is an apparent contradiction between -- and, again, I apologize; I don't have the page number. But in Line 8 of the relevant page, it refers to outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise as being not permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. FRANTZ: This is Page 3 of 38. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Line 8, Page 3 of 38? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. There's a reference to -- it says -- this language was already in there. It says, the District is not intended to permit blah, blah, blah, or uses that have associated with them the need for outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise. Then when I looked down at the -- in line, looks like, 37, we're adding the word "outdoor" with some qualifiers, including boat rental, miniature golf course, bicycle and moped rental, rentals of beach chairs and accessory uses. I guess my question here, is it -- is the new language intended to permit outdoor storage of rental inventory like boats, beach chairs, and mopeds, or must all of that be brought indoors at the end of the sales day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think when you're dealing with a product, it's not -- and the product that's utilized, such as a rental products would be, it's not considered dead storage or storage that I think that section of the code is referring to. And the only reason I jumped in is because this issue came up recently in a difficult case involving Bayshore, and we had to address that section of the C3 code specifically to that, and that's basically the outcome of the way it was looked at. And, Mike, you were involved in that. Do you see it any differently? MR. BOSI: I believe that your recollection is the way I think we agreed upon. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, not having been a party to or present at that, I don't know how the thought process went. But just, as I look at this language, it's prohibiting outdoor storage of merchandise. And so if your merchandise is for rental -- and merchandise would include that which is for sale as well as for rent, I believe -- it seems to me that what we're saying is they have to bring it in every night; otherwise, it would amount to being stored outside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll leave that -- Mike, I mean, I didn't see it that way, but maybe -- do you have a way of responding to that? MR. BOSI: (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be like saying, then, that a car dealership -- well, you can't have car dealerships in C3, but the rental would be a similar operation. If you've got something that you're trying to rent and it's a large -- like, a boat, you'd be storing it outside. Very rarely would you have a room big enough to put them in. The way we had previously discussed it for the C4 district in regards to some storage areas there, it was in the premises that they were for sale. It wasn't dead storage, but maybe that isn't clear enough. February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 8 of 11 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the language that I had proposed as a fix would have said somewhere in Line 7, "except as otherwise provided below," something to that effect, so that the language would be in harmony. I guess the premise of my concern -- and this is, obviously -- well, it's a little more substantive than the first question I raised, but it's not earthshaking, I grant you. But to me merchandise is that which is either for sale or for rent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's -- whatever you -- whatever -- if you want to clean it up, go ahead. I'm not -- I don't have a concern over it. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. My previous response to Commissioner Fryer was, you know, that there might be some ambiguity here in the introductory language. I'd rather tackle that type of amendment on its own because it would address uses in all C3 -- all types of uses in the C3 district rather than the, kind of, limited changes we're making in this amendment. I understand the confusion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, what about putting some language, like, down in Line 37, "notwithstanding the foregoing," approaching it that way. It just seems to me that, you know, ever since I have been on this commission I have raised questions about language and drafting, and in some cases I'm probably wrong and in others I think I may be right. For instance, the use of the word "comparable" is something that really bothers me, and I know that our LDC is replete with that, when really what is meant is similar in all material respects. So going forward, when we are proposing enactment of new language, why would we want to do it when we acknowledge at this early point that there is an ambiguity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to Ned's point, if we're going to clean it up, there might be some other reasons why just adding the phrases at the end of the sentence, like he suggested, would work. For example, we have automobile parking is allowed. We have educational plants which are basically bus depots. They store the buses outside. I'm just looking through them now. There's all kinds of little things that could pop up if someone wanted to push that issue. So it doesn't hurt to clean it up, Jeremy. I mean -- MR. FRANTZ: I don't think it hurts to clean it up. As a part of this amendment, I haven't reviewed each of those uses to, you know, kind of know exactly how that might impact each use. It seems, on its face, to make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the other hand, if the intent of that sentence was to not allow people who have got, like, an apparel store to have coatracks hanging outside in their parking lot trying to sell something, I don't -- I mean, then they would be allowed to do it with that kind of language added because, basically, every one of the hundred -- well, actually, there's 96 uses allowed in the C3. Every one of those uses, if they wanted to put something outside that they couldn't have put there because of that sentence, would now be able to. MR. FRANTZ: And I did get a chance to talk to Ray Bellows, our zoning manager, about that phrase, and his recollection was that the intent of that language in the introductory provision was targeting, kind of, like lumber store type of uses. So I think that there was, like, a specific meaning at the time that it was -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. You know, the problem with the drafter's intent is that if it's not clear, it's not going to hold much water down the line, particularly when there's -- somebody challenges this and they refuse to move their moped inventory indoors at the end of the sales day, which I think you could make a case that "storage" would require them to do that. But if you don't want them having merchandise out of doors at all, I think you've opened the door here. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I mean, just to clarify, I don't necessarily disagree. I think my recommendation would be to bring this back in another cycle, though, to address that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're saying do not add it to the bottom? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Get it right or don't do it at all. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't bring it back. You don't enact and say I'll fix it later. Just -- if the February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 9 of 11 Planning Commission's not comfortable with it, all right, it either gets voted down or staff fixes it. We don't enact legislation knowing we're going to fix it later. Only Tallahassee does that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just add it to the bottom. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be my preference. And I acknowledge that this is not an earthshaking highly substantive issue, but it just -- I find it bothersome because, frankly, there are a lot of ambiguities in the LDC, and I don't want to be a part of putting another one in there knowing full well that it is an ambiguity. And this is one where there could be litigation resulting. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So where we're at now, I think -- are we talking about adding to the end of the introductory provision or down in the conditional uses? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, maybe to address your concern, Jeremy, that we don't want to open this so wide that we haven't thought through the whole universe of things that might be changed by adding the exception in Line 7. What about saying, "except as provided in," and then add the citation to where the word "outdoors" appears; except as provided in blumf (phonetic) below, what is it, C, 1C below? MR. FRANTZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then that way -- that way we're not at our peril not knowing what -- you know, what other things may have been affected. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So except as provided in the LDC section -- citation would come after -- at the end of this sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you are affecting every other of the 93 uses because you're saying that's the only use that could have outdoor storage and equipment to the ability that it's shown on that particular line. Now, that means everybody else can't. And to the extent they could because it was similar to how that line was going to operate without that language, we've now become more restrictive in the C3. And if we're going to do that, I would suggest it go back to the whole -- we need to have other -- I mean, the stakeholders involved in this are the C3 landowners. The -- if we get that finite with describing what we're trying to prohibit by allowing something else, which the intent seems to have wanted to allow more and, in essence, we'll be reducing it if those other business -- some of those other 93 uses relied on some outdoor activity that they now can't do because they're not specifically allowed to by the end of that sentence's new language. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with you. I'm just looking for resolution of the ambiguity one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you won't -- I wasn't -- I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just telling you the out -- I was just suggesting the outcome to this may be harsher than we're thinking. If you're going to redefine it, why don't you redefine it on that Line 7 where it's at and not go up to that general paragraph? I mean, if that's what's determined to be needed. Where is that line you were -- what line? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It says in 7, permit wholesaling types of uses, which is not what we're talking about, or land uses that have associated with them the need for outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but -- see, this is being asked for as a conditional use. It's got to go through a separate public hearing anyway, so it's not a use -- it's not going to be a buy-right situation to begin with. Isn't that the one you're working on? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want outdoor storage subject to 7999, you've got to do it through public process for a conditional use. That takes care of it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it's not only a conditional use. It's going to be contrary to the current language if it is to be interpreted the way I interpret it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's what conditional uses are for. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, are they? If it's specified as a conditional use that's not in direct conflict with the permitted uses -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, conditional uses are ones not normally allowed without some additional review and attention to -- February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 10 of 11 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, this language says the district is not intended to permit outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise. So it's almost reaching further than just a permitted use. It is saying what is not to be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's saying what's not intended. It doesn't say it's not allowed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I grant you that nuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm comfortable leaving it like it is. You've got a conditional use required for the new use that we're adding. That sure makes it real clear it's going to have to go through additional public vetting, compatibility references, and other kinds of issues involving its site planning. I'm not sure we need the change if it's under a conditional use, and that's the only place it's occurring. If we make a general statement change up there, it's going to change all 93 uses to some extent. I'm not sure we need to go there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if you said in C1, outdoor, something, parentheses, the foregoing notwithstanding, closed parentheses, so that it's clear that it's just -- that the outdoor miniature golf course rentals and the like are not to be interpreted as storage of merchandise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do we want to have any more discussion on this? Does anybody want to make a motion and something to do with it? We need to get off the dime and get it done, so -- I don't -- I think by it being a conditional use, it's covered. No one's going to come in and get a conditional use without now showing what they have to do. That's the whole purpose of the conditional use. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Conditional use; that's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm comfortable that we've not opened up any new doors for that issue. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm going to agree with you and make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 3-1. Your next one, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: This is to LDC Section 4.04.14 and several zoning atlas maps. And, again, there's been no changes to the amendment since the January meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any discussion on this one? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Karen. All in favor, signify saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. Does that wrap it up, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: That is all of our amendments for today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Darn. We had scheduled to 10 o'clock. Any -- of the huge audience, is February 7, 2018 “Special LDC/CCPC” meeting Page 11 of 11 there any member of the public that would like to speak on these matters tonight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none and seeing none, we have no public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, second by Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:39 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.D TO: STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION.ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARINGDATE: MARCH 1,2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PE-PL20170002684, 3106 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PARKING EXEMPTION PROPERTY OWNER/ AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Sandbanks LLC 700 Old Trail Drive Naples, FL 34103 Agent: Frederick E Hood, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 REOUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Parking Exemption Application (PE) to permit off-site parking for the subject parcel, which is zoned C-4, General Commercial, and allow for parking on an abutting and contiguous parcel directly east of the subject property, which is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family. The parking area is referred to as off-site because it is located on abutting residentially zoned parcels. However, the project area is one contiguous site. The requested PE seeks to repeal the previous parking exemption that was approved under Resolution 2009-152 by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The proposed parking exemption would permit additional parking area for a proposed new retail building at 3106 Tamiami rrail North adjacent to the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consisting of +0.46 acres of land is located at the northeast comer of US-41 Tamiami rrail North and Rosemary Lane, Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, of collier County, Florida (See location map on page 2). Parking Exemption, PE PL2017 0002684 Page 1 of I @(oNooot\ oNJ(L Uoo E zco .F c)(I LOCATION MAP o_ (E Co GooJ . T-] o r 0 l"PropertySubject toParkingExemption 3 t I t0 It 8 .ccoN = Il* t,liI j II .^.gt-, EIl! ii i$ro tIit il Page 2 of 9Parking Exemption, PE PL201 70002684 0l 0l o- 4 ..:, PURPOSEiDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The existing retail plaza at 3100 Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41) will be demolished in favor of a new construction building. The proposed building setback fiom U.S. 41-Tamiami will be greater than the existing building. The applicant has proposed a new reconfigured parking lot with 98 spaces shown on their proposed concept plan. The applicant states that ofthe proposed 98 parking spaces, 21 parking spaces at the east side ofthe proposed lot are included in the PE application. They are shown on the concept plan east of the dashed bold line that delineates the lots in the proposed PE area ofthe site. The additional 21 spaces make up the PE and would be utilized to meet the parking calculations for the proposed concept plan. The project area includes the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant, which witl remain at its present location. The concept plan details some proposed site development changes for the restaurant, including relocation of the trash enclosures and a new parking lot configuration for customers. The proposed concept plan drawing has been included as (Attachment A - Conceptual Site Plan). The zoning for the subject property is C-4 General Commercial except for the east portion of the property, which consists of lots 14, 53, and 55 ofthe Rosemary Heights Addition Subdivision. These three lots are zoned RSF-4 Residential Single-family and are the basis of the PE request (See the zoning map on page 2). A color map that details lots 14, 53, and 55 for the PE request is included as (Attachment B - Parking Exemption Area Map). As stated, the applicant seeks to eliminate and repeal a previous parking exemption from 2009.ll is Resolution number 2009-152. There were several commitments and conditions connected to the resolution and it has been included as (Attachment C -BZA Resolution 09- 152). The residentially zoned lots, for which the parking exemption is proposed, are currently vacant. The parcels will remain zoned RSF-4 Single-Family Residential. In accordance with Section 4.06.02 of the LDC, the proposed commercial use project must provide a Type B l5-foot buffer for the residentially zoned property to the east. The concept plan submitted by the applicant shows a Type B buffer for residential property to the east. lt should be noted that Section 5.03.02.H ofthe LDC requires the applicant to construct a fence or wall on the commercial property to screen it fiom the adjacent residential use. The applicant would be required to meet this standard at the time of Site Development Plan review. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: East: South: West: City of Naples, PD, Planned Development RS4, Single-Family Residential C-4, General Commercial City of Naples, HC, Highway Commercial Parking Exemption, PE PL2017 0002684 Page 3 of 9 Area to be developed GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property for the requested PE is in the Urban Residential Sub district land use classification on the county's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This land use category is designed to accommodate a variety of residential uses including single-family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and mixed- use projects. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. The GMP does not address parking exemption requests and the Comprehensive Planning Section leaves this determination to the Zoning Section as part of the LDC review and analysis under Section 4.05.02 K.3 of the code. ANALYSIS: Zoning Review: In accordance with Section 4.05.02.K.3.a(2) of the LDC, an applicant may seek a parking exemption when off-site parking is requested for land not zoned for commercial use. The Zoning Division has completed a review of parking exemption criteria fiom Section 4.05.02.K.3.b of the LDC for consideration by the CCPC for a potential recommendation to the BCC, and responses to each criterion is below: Parking Exemptron, PE PL2017 0002684 Page 4 of I ll/hether the amount of olf-site parking is required by sections 4.05.04 G. and 4.05.09, or is in *cess of these requirements. The applicant has proposed off-street parking which exceeds that required by the referenced LDC sections. It is below the excess parking and pavement standards in Section 4.05.04.C. However, the applicant could remove seven parking spaces and provide additional landscape area in an effort to reduce heat island effect and create additional drainage and percolation soil. The distance of the farthest parking space lrom the facility lo be served The concept plan provided by the applicant (see Attachment A) clearly details the spatial dimensions of the proposed parking exemption area and the concept building. The furthest parking space to the building is approximately 95- 100 feet to the nearest entrance of the proposed building. The applicant has proposed a reasonable maximum distance fiom the building to the farthest parking space. Pedestrian safely if lhe lots are separated by a collector or arterial roadway. The proposed parking exemption area is not separated by a collector or arterial roadway. A pedestrian would not have to cross an arterial or collector roadway to utilize the PE area. It appears the applicant has eliminated the need for a pedestrian to cross a public right-of-way to access the proposed building fiom the parking area. Pedestrian ond vehiculor safety. Based on the proposed design ofthe parking area by the applicant, there do not appear to be any pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. The concept plan does not indicate internal sidewalks. It should be noted that pavement markings outlining pedestrian walkways may be stipulated during the SDP process. The character and quality of the neighborhood and lhe future developmenl of surrounding properties. The Zoning Division does not believe that the proposed parking exemption would negatively affect the character and quality ofthe neighborhood. It does not appear that the future development of sunounding properties would be negatively affected. A wall or fence and 15-foot wide buffer is required along the residential property boundaries to the east. Potential parking problems for neighboring properties. The proposed parking exemption does not appear to present potential parking problems for neighboring residential properties. As it relates to parking availability only, the proposed concept plan appears to ameliorate the existing conditions and provide more parking at the project location site. Additionally, the proposed reconfiguration and new building parking will provide vehicular access to both Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street which improves the parking access for the restaurant and the concept building. (r) (2) (3) (4) (, (6) Parking Exemption, PE P120170002684 Page 5 of I Whether the interual tofftc flow is required to leave the site lo reach the proposed off- site parking. As stated, the proposed parking exemption is off-site in terms ofthe RSF-4 zone district. Intemal traffic flow for parking is not required to leave the site. IV'hether vehicular access shall be from or onto residentiul streels. None ofthe proposed access to the proposed conceptual building is from Tamiami Trail North. The Tamiami rrail North fiontage access for the Mr. Tequila restaurant will be removed as will the access to 3100 Tamiami. while reduction of curb cuts is generally a goal along major arterials like North rrail, it will increase the level of vehicular traffic on the residential side streets, Ridge Street and Rosemary Lane. ll/hether buffers adjacent to lhe prcperty zoned residenlial are 15 feet in width and include a wall in addition lo required landscaping. The proposed concept development plan shows only a l5-foot Type B buffer for the residential properties to the east. Section 5.03.02.H.1 of the LDC is applicable in this case and a wall or fence is required for the commercial use abutting and adjacent to residential property. The applicant will be required to comply with the code. (10) Whether the off-sile patking area will be used for valel parking. The applicant has not indicated any intention to provide valet parking. (11) Whether the off-site parking area will be usedfor employee parking. The applicant has not indicated the that the off-site parking exemption will be used for employees only. It is likely that employees will park in the PE area as it proposed behind and east ofthe proposed building. (12) ll'hether there are mote viable alternatives available. The Zoning Division f,rnds that the proposed parking exemption site configuration is the best altemative for the proposed parking area apart from the issues mentioned in this report. . Seclion 4.05.02(3)(c); Off-steet parking areas musl be accessihle from a street, alley or other public right-of-way and all off-sfieet parking facilities musl be so arranged that no motor vehicle shall have to back onto dny strcet, excluding single-family and two-family residential dwellings and churches approved under section 2.3.16. In accordance with LDC requirements, the parking lot has been designed so that motor vehicles would not be required to back into any abutting public right-of-way. (7) (8) (e) Parking Exemption, PE PL201 70002684 Page 6 of I The table provided indicates that the parking calculations for the proposed concept plan meet the standards from Sections 4.05.04,4.05.06, and 4.05.07 of the LDC. Parking Calculations Section 4.05.04(G) Table 17, 4.05.06, and 4.05.07 Shopping Center: < 400,000 sfgross floor area :21,721 GSFA @ I space per 250 sffloor area 87 spaces Section 4.05.04(G), No more than 20% of shopping center floor area composed of restaurant w/o providing additional parking for area over 2O%o Restaurant = 4,593 sf, allowable 4,344.2, exceeds 2oo/o by 248.8 sf or 60/o. Additional spaces calculated at 248.8 sf @ I space per 60 sf floor area 4 spaces Loading Spaces: 3 loading spaces required 3 spaces Handicap Accessible Spaces: 4 spaces required 4 spaces Total Parking Required 91 spaces Total Parkinq Provided 98 spaces NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING O[IM): For parking exemptions, the LDC requires petitioners to nodry neighboring property owners by mail, but no meeting is required. For this case, the applicant did hold a NIM on December 20,2017.The applicant has provided an audio recording and a synopsis ofthe meeting. The applicant has provided documentation and the affidavit of compliance for the notification letter that was sent to residents on December 5,2017 , the materials are included in the supporting documentation. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The Office of the County Attomey Reviewed this Zoning Division report on February 8, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PE-PL2 017 0002684 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to: l. Amend the concept site plan to remove 7 parking spaces for a maximum of91 parking spaces and add additional landscape area for parking lot islands with shade trees and permeable soil; and Parking Exemption, PE PL20'170002684 Page 7 of 9 2. J. 4. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and The Parking Exemption is limited to a maximum of 2l parking spaces and shall be restricted for use by the proposed concept building and Mr. Tequila restaurant only; and The following commitments from former Resolution 2009- I 52 shall apply: a. The use ofthe PE area shall be restricted to normal business hours ofoperation. Signage will be posted to restrict the PE spaces to hours ofuse between 7am and 6pm, Monday through Friday. b. Parking within the PE area is restricted to paved surface parking. c. Landscaping buffers within the PE area abutting residential lots shall include:(i) A 6-foot prefabricated concrete wall shall be located a minimum of4 feet from the common property line within a 15-foot Type B buffer; (ii) Vegetative plantings shall be located extemal to the wall such that 50% of wall is screened within one-year of planting. A continuous hedge shall be installed to ensure viability of the vegetative screen; and (iii) I tree per 25 feet, trees at time of planting shall be a minimum of 30 gallons, 16 feet height, 2.5 inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground), and a 6-foot spread. Note: The agent was notified regarding the recommendation to retain conditions in Resolution 2009- 152. They wish to discuss removal ofprevious conditions at the hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Concept Plan Sandbanks Redevelopment Attachment B: Parking Exemption Request Detail, Lots 14, 53, 55 Rosemary Heights Sub Attachment C: Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution 2009- 1 52 Parking Exemption, PE P120170002684 Page 8 of 9 , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER IVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTTON z tb-lb DATE z-Lo.t9 DATE U-)o- l8 DATE 2-2/- /? DATE REVIEWED BY: MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: RAYMO . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION AMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Parking Exemption, PE P1201 70002684 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT Aifliff r:iqcfiiiEEI;tE : ;iii; : :;lil I Iillr IiqE: i!E!!5iEti:;!. E;rEEi:sE; irt,; EIE*att3l li;;iEE;c!tffr:ir;frt 'i ,l98,aIE:t rIEl ilEl !!'t! r!E; tc *Ea !;{ +*B --lr I T lr^lt TM|L llfiIX O S fllGHWAY aT (PUAUC RIGHT.OF.WAY) 25 FRONT YARD SETBACK I I | (,: a'! PTlx;Dio rT- 15'TYPE 8 LANDSCAPE gUFFER 2 6 6 6 i i o lE It tc + I r EBc: !8Eg?i;lliH =o<r - "' F tr,l. v 'z i a ri lIi,h ;r[ i-L- aoz ts ,L /i\-1, 9A er ty Eli irm Ei4=?,u im i} Eeo I I ll:" Parking Exemption, PE PL2017 000268/. ATTACHMENT B Parking Exemption, PE PL2017 0002684 ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTTON NO. 09-j2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAI.S OF COLLIER COT'NTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING PARKING EXEMPTION PETITION PE-2OOE.AR- I4O7I, IN ORDER TO PERMIT OFF-SME PARKING ON A CONTIGUOUS LOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF.4), LOCATED BETWEEN ROSEMARY LANE AND RIDGE STREET, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANCE 25 EAST IN COLLIER COUNT, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the state ofFlorida in Chapter 125, Florida sratures, has conferred on all couaties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and erforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection ofthe public; and WHEREAS, the county pursuanr thcreto adopted a Land Dcvelopmear code (ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of panicular geographic divisions ofthe Count)t and WHEREAS, section 4.05.00 of the Land Development code sets forth requirements and standards for off-street pa*ing and loading facilities and permrts an exemprion from these standards undcr cenain circumstances; and WHEREAS, after proper notice, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing to consider Parking Exernption Pclition PE-2008-AR- I 4oz'l and found thal the critena ser foflh in Section 4.05.02.K.3 of the l-:nd Development code has b€en met and the petition should be approved; and WHEREAS, all interested paflies have been given opponunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting and the Board having considered all maners presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONTNG APPEALS OF COLLIER COtJNry, FLORIDA, thAt: Parking Exemption, PE PL20'170002684 Page I of2 Petition PE-2008-AR- 1407 r fired by Michael R. Femandez of planning Development Incorporated representing Sandbanks, LLC is approved to permit off-site parking on contiguous land zoned Commercial (C-4), more particularly described in Exhibit A. The off-street parkrng shall comply with the Site plan dated December, 200g, and prepared by Planning Developmenr Incorporat€d., atrached hereto as Exhibit B, and shall be subject to the conditions atrached in Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESoLVED rhar this Resolurion be recorded in rhe minures of this Board. PASSED AND DIILY ADOPTED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida this 4G day of -{ uxs€-. ,z(l()g. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Steven T. Williams Assistant County Anomey Erhibits:Legal Description Site PIan Conditions of Approval B C tlFlt-a r.r Approved as to form Parking Exemption, PE P120170002684 Page 2 of 2 COLLIER By, EXHIBIT A -IDl:ltue --r.Affio-"aptr." S/T/R Street Address 1' -f m 3! o l,m 1't-No -{oooNo) { lglg91ooo2 nos.mary ncierrts roE2Ja o _P -]091t2lqt RoscmaryHcGEGrs8Elo -- OR Book OR Pege 22149t25 3l l4 Tamiami TEil I.t. 4357 1462 0.46 0.31 9 _?o!?oryooa E".-,,*y=ffi6 1-ffi1r7r;;i*i l8 iitcstx--g2t Rosc-rzrt lale- -cl:7 - zlead 0.23 _" :o?@ qo*I n".r,n".v- n"flO," ffi 22149125 917 Rosernary lane qO1'5 -iOn 22t49/25 923 Rosemary kni 4075 l-"**irEEGEortrA r"t" cr,al, af71020080000 47,4s &w nTrtast 22/49125 3 I26 Tamiami Trail N.E 71020160001 Rosernary HeigStsIdIiti,on E ,;i L"t it 2149125 .- 924 Ridg€ St cct-- - :4-183 1:Il,F 71020240002 Rosemary Heignts naaition foG SfE 5S 0.31 4100 2325 0.46 046 03422/49125 924 Ridge Strea 426E 1643 .*".-^-JCr8tfltE* iDl. ro .. qr^,.o ^7 ^ rsr.il|od or..arr ro nffrir!!rorcEfa. Rlrulo firHrru Ittrrr*...**,**^, 'trrkritD <dirE llg,cNrs. rca? ^l{o ,r!E! I rtlt p.ira &rrrir rEt eirrirtrndr EI E H +gl------@.# <,-.r.€*ffi* lsf;saL''..-"".-*- rE:a D Fiar d 4ft. 'r.lrutoao 6rrtr.orEr a rueitrao^rrrfuarfE! yf-HEH:Effi i#I:#.1*9. i: *,8 i#,$:a?: '88,5#;F- 'La'=:ffi?:r9ffi.*1"# Pr,llx!.G_qglE!9prclMggRpoE4IlED Parking Exemption, PE P120170002684 PE-200t-AR-l4O7l Midtown Point Corunitnenr6: l. The use of the addition8r 0.691 acrcs parking exemption area shall be r'sEictcd to ssrvc Signagc wil, l;*#,7 ,. o for olEcc space...# Midtown 5. Prting lot lithting within rhe parking cxanption area wilr bc r*tricred ro lghr fixhfts having aa ovaall hcight no greatcr than 42 iochcs.U. aking cxcmption area. 7' F"rytY' heishr of 7 fcet and ".r-,,-T,"*?ffdlsif*.o* *"t " minirnum clcar 8. Thc bullcrs Eom thc parking cxemption area to thc rdjaccnt uscs shall be:a. To Abutting Rcsidartial lrtr: o A 6-foot prcfabricstcd coEcrctc walL tocarcd e minimum of4 fcet from rhe common prolrcrry [ine; within a l5-foot widc Coltcr Couoty fOC Typc B Landscape Buffcr; o vcgetative plmtings shalr be locstod fiEmst to thc R,.n snd/or f€Dc. such f th! at thc timc of instdlation shell be a minimum havc a 2.5 inch calipcr (at ! 2 inchcs abovc b. To Ri e tught-o f-Way: o A 4foot prcfabricalcd coDsrete wall within I lO_foot lvide LDC Trye D . Lrndrcape Buffcc uch e composire hcdgc-shaI o" ;H;ffi H:m5 [,] H$i ;?r]:. ollc (l ) Ece pe_r 30 fcet, tbc Ee€s at the time of installation sh.Il be aminimum of25 gallons,.l4 fca in-helght, have 8 2.5 inctr oaliperi"itZinches above tho ground) and a 5-foot-spred. Parking Exemption, PE PL2O'17 0002684 RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING A PARKING EXEMPTION, TO ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING ON A CONTIGUOUS LOT ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF-4) AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 09-152, RELATING TO A PRIOR PARKING EXEMPTION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN ROSEMARY LANE AND RIDGE STREET, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20170002684) WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, Section 4.05.00 of the Land Development Code sets forth requirements and standards for off-street parking and loading facilities and permits an exemption from these standards under certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, after proper notice, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing to consider a Parking Exemption on property zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and found that the criteria set forth in Section 4.05.02.K.3 of the Land Development Code has been met, and the Petition should be approved; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting and the Board having considered all matters presented. [ 17 -CPS -0 1733/1394231/1] 48 Sandbanks/PL20170002684 Page 1 of 2 2/9/18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition PL20170002684 filed by Frederick E. Hood of Davidson Engineering representing Sandbanks, LLC is approved to permit off-site parking on contiguous land zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4), more particularly described in Exhibit A. The off-street parking shall comply with the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B, and shall be subject to the conditions attached in Exhibit C. Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 2009-152 is hereby repealed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko �. Managing Assistant County Attorney Exhibits: A Legal Description B Site Plan C Conditions of Approval [17 -CPS -01733/1394231/11 48 Sandbanks/PL20170002684 Page 2 of 2 2/9/18 2018. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ANDY SOLIS, CHAIRMAN COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC. A CECI GROUP COMPANY EXHIBIT "A" OFF-SITE PARKING CECI Group Services Coastal and Marine Engineering Environmental and Geological Services Land and Marine Survey and Mapping Website: www.coastalengineering.com LOT 14, ROSEMARY HEIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 83, AND LOTS 53 AND 55 OF ROSEMARY HEIGHTS ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 78, BOTH OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 20,239 SQUARE FEET OR 0.46 ACRES OF LAND. 3106 S. horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 *Phone (239) 643-2324 *Fax (239) 643-1143 *E-mail: infb(_)icecifl.com �0"'i,'/V1, 0)4,"'1A 1 (-0W1it` SM 1 ---------------------- 25' FRONT YARD PROVIDED PARKING98SPACES C-4 <T> RSF-4 ZONING ZONING RIDGE STREET (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) --------------—__ 10' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER PROP. SHOPPING CENTER AREA 17,128 SF 25FRONT YARD SETBACK TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER ------------------------- ------- C-4 ROSEMARY LANE (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) ZONING I— — La � m I w LL LL m ::) W m aw �Q � U N 0 �e RSF-4 ZONING -----------.----------------------------------- N o to® SCALE IN FEET PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION moo 1 OF 1 ' — — —SETBACK �e. a I I I I I _ ' � I I I EXIST. SHOPPING - CENTER AREA i I IF ESTA59URANT) _ PARKING REQUIREMENTS ±4,3 SF SHOPPING CENTER < 400,000 SQ. FT. @ 1 SPACEl250 U } SQ. FT. F.A = 3 SHOPPING CENTER G.F.A. = 21,721 SQ. FT. WccO PER LDC SEC. 4.05.04 G, NO MORE THAN 20 PERCENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER'S FLOOR AREA ao S2 I CAN BE COMPOSED OF RESTAURANTS WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THE AREA ow I I OVER20 PERCENT. U TOTAL RESTAURANT FLOOR AREA =4,593 SQ. FT. of 7) I THIS EXCEEDS THE 20% RESTAURANT AREA Q I ALLOTTED (4,344.20 SQ. FT.) IN THE SHOPPING I I CENTER PARKING CALCULATION BY 1.14% OR 248.8 _ SQ. FT. I ADDITIONAL PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR THE EXISTING RESTAURANT PER LDC REQUIREMENTS SHOPPING CENTER PARKING (21,721 SF 1250) _> 86.88 SPACES REQUIRED I 15' TYP61 D LANDSCAPE I - I I I EXCESS RESTAURANT PARKING (248.8Q SF 160) BUFFED I _> 4.15 SPACES REQUIRED OVERALL PARKING REQUIREMENT'. 1 L 86.88 (SHOPPING CENTER WITH ALLOWABLE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE) « 4.15 (EXCESS I - RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE) = 91.0 SPACES I\ REQUIRED PROVIDED PARKING98SPACES C-4 <T> RSF-4 ZONING ZONING RIDGE STREET (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) --------------—__ 10' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER PROP. SHOPPING CENTER AREA 17,128 SF 25FRONT YARD SETBACK TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER ------------------------- ------- C-4 ROSEMARY LANE (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) ZONING I— — La � m I w LL LL m ::) W m aw �Q � U N 0 �e RSF-4 ZONING -----------.----------------------------------- N o to® SCALE IN FEET PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION moo 1 OF 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and 2. The Parking Exemption is limited to a maximum of 21 parking spaces and shall be restricted for use by the proposed concept building and Mr. Tequila restaurant only; and 3. The following commitments from former Resolution 2009-152 shall apply: a. The use of the PE area shall be restricted to normal business hours of operation. Signage will be posted to restrict the PE spaces to hours of use between lam and 6pm, Monday through Friday. b. Parking within the PE area is restricted to paved surface parking. c. Landscaping buffers within the PE area abutting residential lots shall include: (i) A 6 -foot prefabricated concrete wall shall be located a minimum of 4 feet from the common property line within a 15 -foot Type B buffer; (ii) Vegetative plantings shall be located external to the wall such that 50% of wall is screened within one-year of planting. A continuous hedge shall be installed to ensure viability of the vegetative screen; and (iii) 1 tree per 25 feet, trees at time of planting shall be a minimum of 30 gallons, 16 feet height, 2.5 inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground), and a 6 -foot spread. Exhibit C AGENDA ITEM 9-E ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-93, THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO REVISE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND CORRECT THE ACREAGE OF THE MPUD; TO UPDATE THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDING DESIGNATING A LAKE/RECREATIONAL AREA, ADDING EXTERNAL ACCESS POINTS ALONG THE EASTERN MPUD BOUNDARY AND ADDING THE COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX; TO PROVIDE CONVERSIONS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HOTEL AND MOTEL UNITS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX, WITHOUT INCREASING THE OVERALL ORIGINALLY APPROVED BUILDOUT TRAFFIC; TO PROVIDE DEVIATIONS FOR SIGNAGE, FLAGPOLES, PARKING AREAS, LANDSCAPE AREAS AND BUFFERS, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STANDARDS, NATIVE VEGETATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT; TO CLARIFY PERMITTED USES AND ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX, INCLUDING BUILDING HEIGHTS; TO UPDATE BUILDING HEIGHTS ELSEWHERE IN THE MPUD; TO REMOVE OUTDATED COMMITMENTS; TO ADD EXHIBITS INCLUDING EXHIBIT A-3 PERMITTED USES BY SIC CODES, EXHIBIT A-4 CROSS SECTIONS -NORTH BUFFER, EXHIBIT A-5 SIGN DEVIATION EXHIBIT, AND EXHIBIT A-6 REQUIRED YARD PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 291.55 ACRES IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF I-75 AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20170002330] WHEREAS, on December 13, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted (1) Ordinance No. 88-93, the City Gate Commerce Park Planned Unit Development (the "PUD") and (2) Development Order 88-02 (the "Development Order"), which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Citygate Commerce Park Development Order; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 09-69 to allow streets to be public, and 117 -CPS -01712/1394700/1] 231 Underlined text is added; 84fuck through text is deleted. City Gate PUDA-PL20170002330 2/13/18 Page 1 of 3 Attachment A WHEREAS, on November 9, 2010, the Board of County Comrnissioners approved Ordinance No. 10-42 which amended the PUD to remove the provisions relating to the Red -Cockaded Woodpecker Mitigation; and WHEREAS, 850 NWN, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and CG II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, (collectively "Petitioner") owns the PUD property east of the FPL Easement; and WHEREAS, Roger B. Rice, of Roger B. Rice, P.A., and Frederick Hood AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing the Petitioner, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend the PUD; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on ; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner and the Board of County Commissioners desire to amend the PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD DOCUMENT IN ORDINANCE NO. 88-93, AS AMENDED, THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PUD. The Planned Unit Development Document in Ordinance Number 88-93, as amended, is hereby amended and superseded by Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION TWO: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. 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. 117 -CPS -01712/1394700/1] 231 City Gate PUDA-PL20170002330 2/13/18 Underlined text is added; &+�t}g}3 text is deleted. Page 2 of 3 SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DW1G1-IT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: {AL- A Fleidi Ashton-Cicko N3 Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — PUD Document L17 -CPS -01712/1394700/11 231 City Gate PUDA-PL20170002330 2113118 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Underlined text is added; Stmek HFeao text is deleted. Page 3 of 3 GIPGATE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT Prepared by Josh Fruth Davidson Enpineerin&, Inc, 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Roger B. Rice. Esn,. P.A. 9010 Strada Stell CourtSuite 207 Naples FL 34109 Date Filed: 4-16-87 Date Approved by CCPC: Date Approved by BCC12 13 88 Ordinance Number: 88-93 2009 Amended Date A roved by BCC: 12 01 2009 Ordinance Number: 09-69 2010 Amended Date Approved by BCC: 111x912010 Ordinance Number: 10-42 City Gate Commerce Park MPUD ' Underlined text Is added; C+r�.*44raNg4; text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 INDEX SECTION PAGE I. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION -1 6 33=8 II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 7- 14 9-24 III. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 15 2325-32 IV. PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 24 2:7 3 - 35 V. TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS 29 2936-37 VI. UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS 30-4838-44 "nI ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A-1 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXHIBIT A-2 TABLE 12.B.3 EXHIBITA-3 PERMITTED USES - SIC. CODES EXHIBIT A-4 CROSS SECTIONS -NORTH BUFFER EXHIBIT A-5 SIGN DEVIATION EXHIBIT EXHIBIT A-6 RE UIRED YARD PLAN City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 2 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; Str4&44reugh text is deleted January 25, 2018 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property to be developed under the project name of: GFP�G CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK. 1.2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is ,Q� 291.55 acres in area. The legal description follows this page. 1.3. PROPERTY O NERSHIP Title to the property is currently in Land Trust #5360, held by Citizens & Southern Trust Company (Florida) National Association, Naples, Florida, P.O. Box 1857, Naples, Florida 33939-1857. The land trust constitutes a unified ownership vehicle. Decisions regarding trust management are made by a single trustee in accord with management guidelines approved by a majority of the trust beneficiaries. The successor in title and deveioper are Citygate Development, LLC, 850 NWN, LLC and CGIi, LLC, Florida limited liability companies_ [here anti after "City Gate Successor") City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 3 Underlined text is added; c'•uGk thrG gh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 .. a a ■ r.R•w ■ a •r,■ ■ � ■ ■ /�• l! • 1 • ■ al L• F •dam 11411M.■ A 1 ■ ,­- IrlAIC T& R a . ■ ■ a ■ NO• , a • ■ , ■ r a • ■ f w ■ i ■ a • , R R ■ ■ r ■ ■ , • 1 ■ • ■ a • • M, City Gate Commerce Park MPUD Underlined text is added; S#uGk4*ouqh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 1 ■ • ! • a ■ A 1 ■ ,­- IrlAIC T& R a . ■ ■ a ■ NO• , a • ■ , ■ r a • ■ f w ■ i ■ a • 14 a a • • a _ ■ 1 ■ •41FIw - R r l a ■ a+ ■TWEurc C&A+ o r-9 CgrTR ■■ a City Gate Commerce Park MPUD Underlined text is added; S#uGk4*ouqh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 A PORTION OF SECTION 35 TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE WESf QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA THENCE NORTH 89"00'01" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 112 OF SAID SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 306.27_FEET TO A POINT ALONG SAI D_50UTH EINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 35, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 43047'54" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 94.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 336.0 FEET, DELTA OF 41001'26", AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 23'14'57" WEST, 235.47 FEET, RESPECTIVELY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 240.58 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 02°46'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 750.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04°21'08" WEST,_ A_DISTANCE OF 294.22 FEET _TO AN INTERSECTION WITH PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD NO. 1 AS SHOWN ON THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR STATE ROAD NO. 93 1-75 SHEET 8 OF 10• THENCE NORTH 89031'01" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 454,07 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF COLLIER COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT AS RECORDED IN OR 1022, PG 1257• THENCE SOUTH 00°47'14" WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF TREATMENT PLANT AND THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY GATE PHASE ONE A DISTANCE OF 653.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89004'40" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 690.82 FEETTO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF A 170.00 FEET WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OR 681 PG 1210; THENCE NORTH 00°47'14" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EASEMENT AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT, A DISTANCE OF 332.74 FEET TO A POINT ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID EASEMENT; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00°47'14" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,066.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58°30'03" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT,_A DISTANCE OF 596.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL "A" PROPOSED CONVEYANCE TO CITY GATE A5 RECORDED IN OR 3695 PG 2872- THENCE SOUTH 61°10'06" WESTALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A" AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT A DISTANCE OF 203.97 FIE ET; THENCE 50UTH 00°47'14" WEST ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY GATE PHASE ONE AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT A DISTANCE OF 870.28 TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 89'31'01" WEST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHTOF WAY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 456.52 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 951 THENCE NORTH 00029'22" WEST ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 951 AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 12_6.0.46 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE NORTH 89°13'02" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 5,182.54 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH 00°30'14" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 2,669.36 TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE EAST LINE OF 5ECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH W2T31" WEST A DISTANCE OF 66.98 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 18, WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK, PHASE THREE; THENCE 50UTH 89°00'01" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 112 OF SECTION 35,_A DISTANCE OF 4,910.20, FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PROPERTY CONTAINS 12,699.846 SQUARE FEET OR 291.55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Clty Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; StFuGk-thraugh text is deleted January 25, 2018 1.4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The 297.'x,-�-affe 291.55 -acre tract lies in the Northeast quadrant of the 1-75 / CR 951 Interchange. The property is bounded on the west by CR 951 and on the north by the Golden Gate Canal. B. The property is zoned A-2 Agricultural, proposed to be rezoned to PUD — Planned Unit Development. The property lies in the Collier County Water Sewer District. 1.5. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The property elevation ranges from about 10.3 feet to 12.2 feet above mean sea level, averaging about 11 feet. Wetlands on the property are limited to about 28.5 acres, most of which has been previously subjected to extended periods of over drainage and exotic vegetation invasion. Most of the property is vegetated with pine and associated upland plants. Soil types on the property include Arzell, Keri, and Pompano Fine Sand. Water management for the Citygate City Gate Commerce Park project is to be the lake and natural surface detention type. Surface water discharge will be to the north into the Golden Gate Canal through a single control structure. 1.6. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The original PUD, Ordinance No. 88-93, was found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that t1me Ordinance No. 83-54). Development of Gitygate City Gate Commerce Park as a Planned Unit Development will comply with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Policy which most specifically relates to the Gitygate City Gate project is Policy "D" of Objective 3: City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 7 Underlined text is added;text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 Asn January 25, 2018 OBJECTIVE 3 An appropriate mix of land uses to provide for the present and future needs of Collier County. D. Guide economic development to encourage a diversification of the county's economic base and to meet the employment needs of present and future residents. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan rests on the following factors: 1. The Gitygate City Gate property meets the Comprehensive Plan rating point system with respect to the availability of public services and facilities. 2. The planned land use mix conforms to the Future Land Use Map. 3. All project improvements will comply with applicable regulations. 4. The project will constitute a major work center with an excellent working environment. 5. The project will be served by a complete range of services and facilities. This 2018 PUD Amendment is found consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance No, 89-05, as amendedl as the uses and intensities are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policv 5.3 and the Future Land Use Man desienations in which the PUD is located. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD ti PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; StRw*44text is deleted January 25, 2018 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to describe the basic development objectives and to generally describe the project development plan. 2.2. GENERAL A. Gitygate City Gate Commerce Park is planned as a mixed use, non-residential, commercial/industrial/office/related services project. The uses on some, if not all, of the sites nearest CR 951 west of the F. P. & L. easement will provide a variety of commercial services to h:..h.. @y tFavelers, with ^ speeial emphasis an the prevision of to m~�^fstate 4FayeleFS. The remainder of the sites, both east and west of the F. P. & L. easement, will be utilized by commercial and industrial firms associated with technological research, product development, light manufacturing, storage and distribution, offices recreational and a wide variety of utilitarian and commercial support businesses. it : ntlempated that seme of the rityg to land uses ..ill be f.. gad with Pd-wati. lla1.1Hst Gitygate City Gate Commerce Park will provide sites which accommodates a variety of entrepreneurial activities in a physical setting which is spacious, attractive, and free of the nuisance type characteristics which are typical of industrial districts of the past. A primary development objective of Gitygate City Gate is that the structures, the amenities, and the natural and installed landscape be attractive and constitute a pleasant, satisfying employment environment. B. Development of this project shall be governed by the contents of this document and applicable sections of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance., -at the time of_de_v_eiopment order application for Site Development Plans (SDP) or Subdivision Construction Plans and Plat (PPL) approval. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 9 Underlined text is added; Str, irk th ro, 0 text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 C. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Zoning Ordinance, at the time of development order application for 5DP or Plat approval. D. "SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT" —References herein to the "Sports Complex Proiect" shall mean the Sports Complex Lot and any abutting property within the City Gate Commerce Park MPUD which is owned and/or leased by Collier County, as a unified plan of development. 2.3. PROJECT PLAN A. The Master Development Plan for the project is was indicated on Map (H) of the Application for Development Approval and is an integral part of this PUD Document.—A reduced version of the updated and amended Master Development Plan is attached at the rear of this document as Exhibit A-1. Elements of the Master Development Plan include: Land Use Streets Lake and Recreational Tract F. P. & L. Easement Sports Complex Lot Building sites (includes wetlafW Total Acres 24 t 23.16 " t 13.84 49 4.2 t 10.00 i 61.00 (±2.50 -acres) 299 t 183.55 (±2.50 -acres) 2,P t 291.55 Project Development shall conform to the approved Master Development Plan in general and to the approved PPL and for SDP_ City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 10 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlinetext is added; S#4id;-ihm January 25, 2018 -- text is deleted 2.4. B. In addition to the plan elements shown on the Master Development Plan, such easements and rights-of-way shall be established as may be necessary or desirable for the service, function or convenience of the project. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY A. Development intensity permitted within 6itygate City Gate Commerce Park shall be limited to the amount of building development, .,..--.bee of e.,.,.,leyees and .,,,.. beF 0 paFkjAg sria6a6 set forth in Table 12.6.3., as Exhibit A-2, reproduced from the Gitygate City Gate Commerce Park A.D.A., and attached at the rear of this document. The proposed development includes 90,000 square feet of commercial. 836,000 square feet of office 1,920,000 s uare feet of industrial as stations 250 hotel motel rooms and 80,000 square feet of public, utilitarian recreational and educational space see Table 12.6.3. The amount of building development devoted to the various land uses which will occupy the project may vary from the estimates incorporated in the A.D.A., but the aggregate amount of building development indicated by A.D.A. Table 12.6.3. may not be exceeded. B. HOTELS AND MOTELS (CONVER510N): For -over 250 roams. • For every hotel/motel room, the industrial development [see footnote 4 in Table 12.8.3] shall be reduced by 519 square feet or offices (see Table 12.13.3) shall be reduced by 577 square feet. At time of SDP, Developer shall elect which conversion ratio to apply. C. SPORTS COMPLEX( CONVERSION a For the County 5ports Complex Project general purpose sports fields, an amateur championshi P stadium, and a field house1, at time of 5DP, offices development see Table 12.13.3] shall be reduced by 293,600 square feet. The County may vary its recreational uses within the Sports Complex Lot, but the conversion rate will not change. The Developer may, at its option, submit an alternative study to revise this conversion rate, which will be processed as a Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Chane (I)DO. Clty Gate Commerce Park MPUD 11 U derlined text is added; text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 2.5. PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. PURPOSE The Master Development Plan indicates the basic nature of development permitted for the project as a whole, consisting of a road network, a centrally located lake, a system of pedestrian ways, a lake front amenity site and corridors of development sites along which individual development parcels will be established. Installation of required streets, utilities, etc. may occur either in the entirety, or in a series of increments. The purpose of the plan approval requirements is to provide a mechanism for the county staff to review detailed development plans and to determine if those plans will comply fully with commitments established by the PUD document, DRI Development Order, County Zoning Regulations and all other applicable standards and regulations. County Staff approval of detailed development plans must be obtained prior to the construction of project infrastructure. B. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIRED Prior to the issuance of building permits for a structure or structures on any development site, Site Development Plan approval must be obtained in accord with g,ec4ieFi-19.5 Chapter 10 of the Coilier County '^ ^~E" Land Development Code. The Site Development Plan must be in substantial compliance with the project Master Development Plan, as that plan may be modified by Collier County from time to time. In addition to the listed concerns of Se .6 Chanter In the Site Development Plan review and approval process shall include consideration of architectural design, quality and building materials suitability as those matters relate to the development quality commitments set forth in Section 2.2.A. of this document. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 12 Underlined text is added; 4SfA4G 4ro4 s text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 C. RECORD PLAT APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Prior to recording the record plat, final plans of the required improvements shall be approved by the Planning/Zoning Director and appropriate other Collier County Departments and Officials to insure compliance with the project Master Development Plan, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Regulations, and platting laws of the State of Florida. 2.6. EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following requirements shall be waived or modified: A. Article X, Section 16: Sidewalks shall be required as shown on the approved Master Development Plan, on at yeast e Side of the Acting access ad when it Is FeEeraStFUGtedaS required byand on at least one side of all internal project streets. B. Article X, Section 19: Street name signs shall be approved by the County Engineer but need not meet the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Street pavement painting, striping, and reflective edging requirements shall be waived. C. Article XI, Section 10: The requirement to install monuments in a typical water valve cover shall be waived if all monuments are installed in accord with state standards and In a manner approved by the County Engineer. D. Article XI, Section 21: The requirement for blank utility casings shall be waived if all required utilities are installed prior to construction of the street base and pavement. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 13 Underiined text is added; StF6Gk thmugh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 2.7. DEVIATIONS TO COUNTY LDC REGULATIONS_ (See_ Exhibit A-5 Sign Deviation and Exhibit A-1 Master Development Plan, page 2 of 6) (The -following deviations are being sought from the latest version of the Collier County LDC at the time of the adoption of this PUD Amendment Ordinance and shall valid through any subsequent and superseding CDC versions.) See also Section II — Para ra ph 2.2.D. above. TEMPORARY EVENTS AND SIGNS —SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT OFF-SITE 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.05 F.1 "Temporary Event Time Limits," which defines maximum number of event days allowed for each temporary use permit and the maximum event days allowed per calendar year, to instead a) remove the limitation for the maximum number of days -allowed for each temporary use permit, and b) remove the limitation for the maximum number of events per calendar year. The removal of these limitations shall only apply to the Sports Complex temporarry. uses and events. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06 A.3.a "T_e_mporary Signs," which prohibits temporary signs and banners within anypublic_right-of-way, to inste_a_d aIlow temporary signs for the Sports Complex Project and its events, within the Collier Boulevard (C.R._951) right-of- way and City Gate Boulevard North right-of-way. This deviation, with Board approval, shall permit a maximum of two (2) temporary signs at any time an Collier Boulevard C.R. 951 right-of-way and multiple signs on City Gate Boulevard North right-of-way, with no size limitation and no recLuirement for a temporary use permit. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 14 Underlined text is added; ctnwk4 ugh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 DIRECTORY SIGN — MPUD (PLATTED_ LOT 7, PHASE ONE) 3. Deviation 43 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 F.1 "On -Premise Signs," which requires for siingie-occupancy or multiple -occupancy lots, having frontage of 150 -feet or more on a public street, or combined public street frontage of 220 linear feet or more for corner lots, to have one pale or ground sign; and requires a minimum separation of 1,000 -feet -as measured along the street frontage, and all setback requirements are met, to instead allow a) one additional directory_sign forthe City Gate Commerce Park MPUD on Lot 7, located within City Gate Commerce Park Phase One Plat, as recorded In Plat_ Book 41, pages 6-7, of the Public Records of Collier Count • and b) a minimum separation of 100 -feet from any on-site monument signs. FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES —SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ON-SITE 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06_04 F.S.a "Flags and Flag Poles," which requires that a flagpole shall not exceed 50 feet in height from the finished grade, nor extend more than 20 feet from any b u i Id i ng to which it is attached to instead allow within the Sports Complex Project al a maximum height of 100 -feet from finishedgrade; b) extension up to 40 -feet from any building to which it is attached; and JI unlimited flagpoles separated by a minimum distance of 100 -feet within the Sports Complex Proiect, except flag poles attached to the stadium structure are not subiect to the 100 -foot minimum separation, City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 15 Underlined text is added; Strang text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 5. Deviation 45 seeks relief From LDC Section 5.06.04 F.8.b "Flags and Flag Poles," which permits non-residential deve€opments at least 10 acres in size having multiple entrances, may have uta to 3 flagpoles at each entrance that provides ingress/egress off an arterial or collector road provided that there is a minimum 300 -foot separation between entrances to instead allow six (6) flagpoles at each entrance within the Sports Complex Proiect. The three flagooles that are clustered are not subject to the 100 -foot minimum separation in Deviation #4. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS — MPUD 1 SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT (WITHIN MPUD 6. Deviation 46 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 F.9 "Can -Premise Directional Signs," which requires that directional suns shall not exceed 6 square feet in area, 4 feet in -height, be limited to two 2 at each vehicle access point and a maximum of 4 internal to the MPUD, and LDC Section 5.06.04 G.2.e "Off -Premise Directional Suns" which reouires that directional suns_ be limited to within 1,000 feet from the building, structure, or use for which the sign_is_disp>ayed to instead ailow combined off -premises and on-prernises directional signs, forthe MPUD and the Sports Complex Prolect, within the MPUD's internal public or private right-of-way, or abutting thereto (but more than 200 feet from Collier Boulevard) as follows, aj provide no more than 12 -square feet in area Rer sign; b) directional signs shall not exceed 8 -feet in height; c) up to seven (7) directional suns, which must be separated by a minimum distance of 250 - feet; and dj directional suns may more than 1,000 feet from a building,, structure, or use(including the S orts Complex Project) for which the sin is displayed. 7. Deviation 47 seeks relief From LDC Section 5.06.04 F.9.a "On -Premise Directional Signs," which limits on -Premise directional si ns internal to a subdivision or development to maintain a minimum setback of 10 -feet from property lines, to instead allow a minimum setback of 0 -feet. This deviation shall apply to on -premise directional signs along_pubIic or private rights-of-way, throughout the City Gate Commerce Park MPUD. This deviation does not apply—to directional signage on the Sports Complex Pro'ect. See Deviation ##I2. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 16 Underlined text is added; StpuG''",;eagh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 POLE MOUNTED SIGN WITH DISPLAY—SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT B. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 G.1 "Off -Premises Directional Signs," which permits off-site directional signs only in nonresidential zoning districts, agricultural districts and designated nonresidential components of PUDs, to instead permit one (1) off-site identification, promotional and sponsorship sign, for the Sports Complex Proiecfi within the Collier Boulevard (C.R. 9511 rieht-of-way with Board approval or off-site along lands outside of the PUD. Please refer to the Master Development Plan Exhibit A-1, page 2 of 5, and the Sign Deviation Exhibit A- 5. 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 G.2 "Off -Premises Directional Suns," which allows no more than 2 one-sided or 1 double -sided off -premise directional signs be permitted for a building, structure, or use which is not visible from the roadway serving such building,. structure, or use, provided that each sign shall not be more than 12 square feet in area, the sign shall not be more than 8 feet in height above the lowest center grade of the roadway adjacent to the sign location, the sign shall not be located closer than 10 feet to any property line, the applicant shall submit with the permit application and the sign shall be located no more than 1 000 feet from the building, structure , or use for which the sign -'is displayed, to instead permit a sign for the Sports Complex Project that: a) shall not exceed 350-s ware feet in area• b) shaII not exceed 25 -feet in hei ht above the lowest center grade of the roa dway adjacent to the sign location; c) shall not be located closer that 0.5 -feet from a ny p rope rtline• and d) shall not be located more than 4,500 feet from sports Complex Project. 10. Intentionally Omitted. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 17 Underlined text is added; 8# a, oi+gh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 MONUMENT SIGN — MPUQ SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G "Off -Premises Directional Signs," which permits a sign no more than 12 -square foot sign in area, to instead allow for a combined ground/monument sign for the Sports Complex Proiect_and the City Gate Commerce Park MPUD as follows: a) 64 -square feet in area; b) location in the road right-of-way, labelers Clty Gate Boulevard North on Exhibit A-5. within the traffic separator; and. c) more than 1,000 feet off-site from the Sports Complex Project. Once City Gate Boulevard North is accepted by the Board of County Commissioners as a public road, any structural changes to the directional sign shall require a right-of-waypermit. The signage shall be perpetually maintained by the City Gate Commerce Park Master Property Owner's Association, Inc. or its Successor. Collier County reserves the right to remove the sign to accommodate road exl2ansion of City Gate Boulevard North. SIGNS —SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY — ON PREMISES 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LOC section 5,06.05 A,3 "Sign Exemptions," which permits signs to be located on fences or walls surround Inv, athletic fields, or within sports -arenas, stadiums and the like not to exceed 32 square feet in size er side er sign and that signs also be oriented along the fence or wall to face the fieldsfs) or playing area. and away from any adiacent public or private roads, to instead allow directional. advertisement, promotional_ display, and sponsorship signage, without limitations for type of, location, size, or number, within the Sports Complex Proiect. Clty Gate Commerce Park MPUD 18 Underlined text is added; �k-throvo text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 PARKING - SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.07 B.J. "Parking Lots and Spaces - Surfacing Standards," which requires that parking lots, driveways and access aisles be paved ..., to instead allow for grassed driveways and access aisles, in grassed parking areas, for the Sports Complex Pr�oie_ct. 14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04 G Table 17 "Parking Space Reguirenze_n_ts which permit grassed parking for not more than 50 percent of the provided parking for the facilities planned for the Sports Complex, to instead allow fpr the Sports Com pl_ex Project up to 75 percent of the provided parkin s paces to be grassed varkin . 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.03 B.1 "Landscaping in Vehicular Use Areas," which requires at least ten percent of the amount of vehicular use area on-site shall be devoted to interlor landscaping areas, to iristead allow no landscaping requirements in grassed vehicular use areas within the Sports Complex Project. This deviation shall only apply to grassed parking areas. 16. Deviation #16 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.03 B.3 "Landscaping and Vehicular Use Areas" which requires all rows of parking spaces shall be bordered on each _end by curbed landscape islands, to instead remove the requirement for landscape islands, when located within grassed parking areas within the Sports Complex Project. This deviation shall -only apQly to grassed parking areas. 17. Deviation #17 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.03 B.4 "Landscaping and Vehicular Use Areas which requires interior landscaping areas shall require protection from vehicular encroachment through appropriate wheel stops or curbs or other structures, to instead allow for no wheel stops, curbs or other structu res within the Sports Complex Proiect. This deviation shall onlypJv to prassed parking areas. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 19 Underlined text is added; girwGk�Fewgk4 text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS - SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT - EAST BOUNDARY 18. Deviation #18 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 A "Buffer Requirements which requires that developments shall be buffered for the protection of property owners from land uses. to instead eliminate the landscape buffer requirement alone the eastern property boundary of the 5 arts Com lex Lotprovided there is unified ownership of the S arts Complex Lot and the abutting prope rtyto the east, where the development is iointly planned. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS —MPUD 19. Deviation #19 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 A "Buffer Requirements," which requires a separate buffer tract or easement on the final subdivision plat, to instead remove this reg uirement from public or private right s -of -wawithin a ny existin or s u bs eg vent Subdivision Plat (PPL, within the City Gate Commerce Park MPUD,_east of the F. P. &_L, easement. 20. Deviation #20 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.010.5 "Landscape Buffers," which requires a separate buffer tract or easement on the final subdivision plat, to instead remove this requirement from public or private rights-of-way, within any existing or subsequent Subdivision Plat (PPL), within the City Gate Commerce Park MPUD, east of the F. P. & L. easement. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 20 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; +sk#ke3k+ text is deleted January 25, 2018 RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION - SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY 21. Deviation #21 seeks relief, for the Sports Complex Project only, from the PUD's Required Yard Pian which requires native vegetation retention to be on-site and LDC Section 3.05.07 H.1.f "Off -Site Vegetation Retention," to allow at a minimum 50% of the Required Yard Plan to be completed on-site (MPUD) and at a maximum 50% to be completed off-site (currently outside of the MPUD boundaryl. To accomplish such, a m1nimurn of 50% of the Required Yard Plan (for the Sports Complex Project), shall be shown on the first site development plan and concurrently a unified site concept pian shall designate the additional required off-site Yard on the adjacent parcel, which shall be under unified control. Thls shall satisfy the Required Yard Plan associated with the Sports Complex Pr legit. CARETAKER RESIDENCES — MPUD INCLUDING SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT 22. Deviation #22 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.05 A "Caretaker Residences," which_reguires that the residence shall be constructed as an integral part of the principal_ structure and shall be entered from within the principal structure to instead allow for a maximum of six 5 attached or detached caretaker's residence(s), limited to locations East of the F. P. & L, Easement. WATER MANAGEMENT— MPUD INCLUDING SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT 23. Deviation #23 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.01 "Water Management Requirements," which requires a complete stormwater management system shall be provided for all areas within the subdivision or development, including lots, streets, and alleys, to instead permit water management detention and or retention areas, for the City Gate Commerce Park, to be located outside of the MPUD boundary per review and acceptance of the South Florida Water Management District. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 21 Underlined text is added; &ruGkate through text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STANDARDS—SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT 24. Deviation #24 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08 "Architectural and Site DesignStandards " which provide architectural guidelines, to instead allow for the deviation process in Section 5.05.08 G. of the LDC for hulfdIngs located within the Sports Complex Project. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 22 Underlined text is added; Stn 'thmg text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 2.78 STREETS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Except as otherwise agreed between County and owner or as determined by the Board of Supervisors of the Community Development District, all streets within the project shall be common property of the project landowners and shall in all cases be open to travel by the public. 2.89 IMPACT FEES The Gitygate City Gate Commerce Park project shall be subject to all impact fees applicable to it at the time of project approval. In the event future impact fees are adopted to assist with various public service facility financing, such fees shall be applicable to the Gitygete City Gate Commerce Park project in accord with the terms of the ordinances which impose the fees. 2.10 P.U.Q. DOCUMENT COMPLIANCE Responsibility for compliance with the terms of this PUD document, the DRI Development Order and all other applicable public regulatory requirements shall initially be that of the project developer or his successor(s) in title. Prior to the developer or his successor(s) in title being relieved of this responsibility, a project management entity shall be established and given responsibility for continuing maintenance of the project infrastructure, lake, water management facilities, common open space, streets, etc. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 23 Underlined text is added; Strusk-t#re text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 Entity is the City Gate Commerce Park Master Property_Owner's Association Inc. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney, After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts,_ the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its restionsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 24 Underlined text is added; t w*44R�ugh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 SECTION III PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 3.1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Section is to set forth the development regulations applicable to the Gitygate City Gate Commerce Park project. 3.2. USES PERMITTED 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 [See Exhibit A-3, Permitted Uses -SIC Code 1. WEST OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEMENT: a. One gasoline service station or fuel dispensing facility b. Hotels or motels including integral cocktail lounges c. Retail sales and personal sales service businesses. whiel; are .J.,r:..ned and 2. EAST OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEMENT: A. One gasoline service station or fuel dispensing facility b. Light manufacturing and/or processing c. Research, testing, product development d. Service and repair businesses e. Showrooms and sales centers in association with permitted uses f. Storage and distribution uses L Publishing, reproduction, communications City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 25 Underlined text is added; &P, �^k-'�. lhFoug ; text is deleted PUDA•PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 h. Retail sales and personal service businesses., hick aFe designed and ope 3. SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT [See Section it -Paragraph 2.2.E a. Amusement and Recreational Services,._ Field House/Event Center, and Stadium b. Recreational uses designed and operated to primarily serve amateur athletes andlor the public. c. Passive Recreation (such as, but not limited to, walking, hiking and/or bikin trails). d. Any uses that are com plimenta ry to and in s pport of the Recreational uses. 4. BOTH EAST AND WEST OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEMENT: a. Restaurants, including fast food restaurants b. Utilitarian, recreational, educational, and medical uses and services c. Business and professional offices; financial institutions d. Hotels and Motels e. Any other use which is determined by the PlaA.,ing. Zei;!Ag Di_eEte Board of Zoning Appeals to be comparable and/or compatible with the tie listed permitted uses. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures which are customarily associated with the permitted uses 2. Project sales and administrative offices and facilities 3. Signs as permitted by the Collier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of application for the sign permit City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 26 Underlined text is added; Strusi4#fe text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 3.3. 4. A maximum of five (5) Gcaretaker's residences, within the PUD, subject to Section 9.40 Of the Ze fli.... QFdinanre 2.7 of this document. S. A perimeter security fence and/or wall, not to exceed 8 feet in height. L. Boat docks within the Recreational and Lake Tract Matffial which is exEavated DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Parcel Size: West of F. P. & L. easement: 1 acre East of F. P. & L. easement: 2 acres B. Minimum Parcel Width: West of F. P. & L. easement: 150 feet East of F. P. & L. easement: 200 feet City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 27 underlined text is added; S#uok-t#rouo text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 C. Minimum Yards: West of F. P. & L. easement: front, side and rear yards: 25 feet unless adjoining parcels are jointly planned, in which case the adjoining side yard requirements may be waived or modified during the SDP approval process. East of F. P. & L. easement: Front yard — 50 feet Rear yard — 50 feet Side yard — 25 feet, unless adjoining parcels are jointly planned, in which case the adjoining side yard requirements may be waived or modified during the SDP approval process. Sports Complex Project: Front yard —50 feet Rear yard — 50 feet Yard adiace nt to White Lake Planned Unit Develo Pment — 50 feet Side Vand all other req uired) — 25 feet unless a butting parceIs are io 1 n tly Planned in which case the abutting side yard requirements may be waived or modified during the SDP approval process. In those instances (East and West of F. P. & L. Easementl where multiple buildings are to occur on a single site, yard requirements shall pertain only to the site boundaries, not to separation between buildings. On site multiple building separation adequacy shall be determined during the SDP approval process. No more than 20% of required yards may be devoted to vehicular drives and parking spaces within the City Gate Commerce Park MPUD. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 28 Underlined text is added; St;6Gk-t#rvu# text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 D. Minimum On Site Natural and/or Installed Landscape Area: West of F. P. & L. easement: 20% of gross site area East of F. P. & L. easement: 30% of gross site area The term "Landscape Area" is construed to include fountains, pools, ponds and other water features, walks, terraces, courtyards and other pedestrian spaces when such non -botanical features do not exceed 15% of the required area. E. Maximum Building Height: West of the F. P. & L. Easement: Zoned Height: Platted Lots Abutting the Golden Gate Canal: 36 -feet All Other Platted Lots: 617 -feet Actual Height: Platted Lots Abutting the Golden Gate Canal: 43 -feet All Other Platted Lots: 67 -feet City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 29 Underlined text is added; StFuGk t#r text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 East of the F. P. & L. Easement: Zoned Height: Platted Lots Abutting the Golden Gate Canal: 36 -feet All Other Platted Lots: 60 -feet Actual Height: platted Lots A butti ng the Golden Gate Canal: 43 -feet All Other Platted Lots: 67 -feet Sports Complex Project: Zoned Height: 75 -feet Actual Height: 85 -feet Taller buildings may be authorized upon application, following advertised public hearings with due public notice by the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, a recommendation by the Collier County Planning Commission, and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Prior to authorizing a taller building, determination shall be made by the County that the nature of the use to which the building is to be devoted warrants the additional height, that the taller building will not depreciate the intended character and quality of the overall Gitygate City Gate project, and that It will not have negative impacts upon surrounding properties or be detrimental to the public welfare. F. Minimum Principal Building Floor Area: 1,000 square feet (Gasoline service stations are exempt from this standard.) G. Merchandise Storage and Display: ThP—re cl"" be SO 9.45id., Ste Fage or display e fie -Outdoor storage and display of merchandise Is allowable east of the F, P. & L. Easement ursuant LDC Section 4.02.12. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 30 Underlined text is added; ct.,,..k thgh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 H. Utilities: Electrical, telephone and television service lines shall be placed underground. Pad mounted transformers and other components of underground service systems which are normally located above ground shall be placed and screened so as not to be visible from a street right-of-way or an adjoining property. I. Parking/Loading: Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provided in accord with the standards of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of building permit application. Parking and loading facilities shall be so arranged that backing into, or out of, a street right-of-way is unnecessary. J. Performance Standards: Noise, odor, vibration, glare (as differentiated from general Illumination), smoke and dust readily detectable by human senses at property boundary lines shall not exceed the background levels characteristic of retail commercial areas. In the event some or all of the theses performance characteristics are regulated by applicable federal, state, and/or local law, such regulations shall control. Uses which generate special or hazardous waste shall not be established or permitted to operate unless definitive plans for dealing with the waste product have been approved by all agencies with jurisdiction over the matter. Further, said uses shall be governed by all applicable federal, state, and/or local laws as may be adopted or amended from time to time. The future performance characteristics of a give land use are often not predictable with accuracy at the time of building permit Issuance. The above listed performance standards not only apply at the time land uses are initiated, but are continuing performance obligations, unless overridden by applicable federal, state, and/or local law. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 31 Underlined text is added; Struck thpeug# text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 K. Golden Gate Canal Buffer requirements: Development of sites which abut the Golden Gate Canal shall include installation of landscape and/or structural buffers which insure that residentially zoned properties on the north side of the canal are not subjected to inappropriate views. Buffers shall be shown on site development plans as req U P Fed by Sect ion � . In evaluating the buffer component of site development plans, the Planning/Zoning Director shall determine adequacy of the planned buffer, taking into account the nature of the planned site utilization, the character of the planned structures(s), and the presence of natural vegetation which will be left in place and which will contribute to the buffering function. At a minimum, the buffer adjacent the Golden Gate Canal shall comply with the cross sections provided within Exhibit A-4, attached hereto standards, of Sestien 947 ^` 'he ZaRi g QFdi aAr;e. The tree and shrub species, sizes, and spacing shall be approved during the Site Development Plan approval process .;,Ad- if a be Reeessap� by the P'a R 196Flg. Z 9 R 0 Ag 01 Fe CAGE sha 11 be Fn 0 Fe eAe A5...e ►haw. FeqU Fed by Cectie.. Q a7 City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 32 Underlined text is added; Strwokthrough text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 SECTION IV ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 4.1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Section is to set forth the stipulations by the Environmental Advisory Council. The development of the project shall be subject to these stipulations: 4.2. GENERAL The grovislon f r native vegetation retention re uirements for this ro'ect are set forth in the Regulred Yard Plan, Exhibit 12 to the e_ Determination of Vested Rights for City Gate Development of Regional Impact and PUD and an updated Required Yard Plan is attached as Exhibit A-6. 413 DEVELOPER REQUIREMENTS A. The developer shall be subject to Ordinance 75-21 (or the tree/vegetation removal ordinance in existence at the time of permitting), requiring the acquisition of a tree removal permit prior to any land clearing. A site clearing plan shall be submitted to the Natural Resources Management Department for their review and approval prior to any work on the site. This plan may be submitted in phases to coincide with the development schedule. The site clearing plan shall clearly depict how the final site layout incorporates retained native vegetation to the maximum extent possible and how roads, buildings, lakes, parking lots, and other facilities have oriented to accommodate this goal. B. Native species shall be utilized, where available, to the maximum extent possible in the site landscaping design. A landscaping plan will be submitted to the Natural Resources Management Department and the Community Development Division for their review and approval. This plan will depict the incorporation of native species and their mix with other species, if any. The goal of site landscaping shall be the reestablishment of native vegetation and habitat characteristics lost on the site during construction or due to past activities. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 33 Underlined text is added; Sew ^�text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 C. All exotic plants, as defined in the County Code, shall be removed from development areas, open space areas, and preserve areas during each phase of construction. Following site development, a continuing maintenance program shall be implemented to prevent reinvasion of the site by such exotic species. The maintenance plan, which describes control techniques and inspection intervals shall be submitted to and approved by the Natural Resources Management Department and the Community Development Division. D. If, during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other constructional activities, an archaeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is discovered, all development at that location shall be immediately stopped and the Natural Resources Management Department notified. Development will be suspended for a sufficient length of time to enable the Natural Resources Management Department or designated consultant to assess the find and determine the proper course of action in regard to its salvageability. The Natural Resources Management Department will respond to any such notification in a timely and efficient manner so as to provide only a minimal interruption to construction activities. F-rE. To increase lake productivity and habitat values, lake side slope will be 4:1 out to a depth of 3' from mean low water levels. Petitioner shall investigate vegetating littoral shelf areas with various native plant species (upon request, NRMD can provide pertinent information concerning plant species) &F. Petitioner shall design and implement a program to prevent and/or reduce populations of noxious/exotic plant populations within the lake(s), specifically, but not limited to, preventing growth of hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillate), water hyacinth (Elchhornia crassipes), and to a (lesser degree) cattails (Typha latifolis); this program will be subject to the review and approval of NRMD. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 34 Underlined text is added; S#a4&k-t#r-9uO text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 4-.G. Where applicable, due to development, components of plant communities will be transplanted within preserve areas and/or as landscape elements within the project, Examples of plant species appropriate for transplant would include sabal palms (Sabal palmetto), and butterfly orchids (Encyclia tampensis). ,61-1. Due to the concern of the use/generation of hazardous substances, all businesses proposed for the parcel must be subject to the review and approval of NRMD. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 35 Underlined text is added; S44 ick- text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 SECTION V TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS 5.1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Section is to set forth the traffic improvements requirements which the project developer must undertake as an integral part of the project development. 5.2. GENERAL Specific transortation conditions are found In the Developer A regiment by and between City Gate Successor and Collier County (December 1, 2009, recorded in OR Book 45171 Page 640 et sea.) and the Amendment to the Developer Agreement (June 23,-201.5, recorded in OR Book 5198 Page 3989 et seg.) 5..23 DEVELOPER REQUIREMENTS A. Access to this site from CR 951 may present design problems due to the limited distance between Golden Gate Canal and the limited access right-of-way for 1-75. Access drives onto CR951 shall be limited to the existing one which aligns with the water treatment plant access drive and one additional which may be located north of the existing access drive. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 36 Underlined text is added; S4w&- " text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 6,B.The driveway to the water treatment plant shall be widened to a minimum of 24 feet if it is utilized as an access to the adjacent tracts. &rC.The close spacing of the CR 951/landfill access road intersection and the landfill access road/water plant entry drive intersection will cause traffic control problems as traffic volumes through the two intersections increase. In order to avoid unnecessary aggravation of those problems by traffic movements into and out of the commercial sites which are closest to the Intersection s, special attention shall be given to the location of the entry/exist drives when site development plan applications for sites abutting the water plant access drive and the landfill access road are being reviewed. It shall be understood that the number of access points will be limited in number. &D.Appropriate left and right turn lanes shall be provided on CR 951 and the landfill access road at all project accesses. Street lighting shall be provided at major access points per County requirements. F,7E. Traffic signals shall be installed at CR951 access points when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signals shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the County. The Eitygate Cit v Gate project shall pay a fair share portion of the signal installation costs. &F.The above improvements are considered "site related" as defined by Ordinance 85-55 and shall not be applied as credits toward any impact fees required by that ordinance. N-.G.Detailed site drainage plans shall be submitted to the County Engineer for review. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by the County Engineer. i-H.An excavation Permit will be required for the proposed lake in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 80-26, as amended by Ordinance No. 83-3, and as may be amended in the future. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 37 Underlined text is added; StFUGk-thmugb text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 SECTION VI UTILITIES REQUIREMENTS 6.1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the potable water, irrigation water, and sewer utilities requirements which the project developer is committed to meet. 6.2. [7EVELOPER REQUIREMENTS A. Water distribution and sewage collection and transmission systems will be constructed throughout the project development by the developer pursuant to all current requirements of Collier County and the State of Florida. Water and sewer facilities constructed within platted rights-of-way or within utility easements required by the County shall be conveyed to the County for ownership, operation and maintenance purposes pursuant to appropriate County Ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of conveyance. All water and sewer facilities constructed on private property and not required by the County to be located within utility easements shall be the Developer, the assigns or successors. Upon completion of construction of the water and sewer facilities within the project, the facilities will be tested to insure they meet Collier County's utility construction requirements in effect at the time construction plans are approved. The above tasks must be completed to the satisfaction of the Utilities Division prior to placing any utility facilities, county owned or privately owned, into service. Upon completion of the water and/or sewer facilities and priorto the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for structures within the project the utility facilities shall be conveyed to the County, when required by the Utilities Division, pursuant to County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time conveyance is requested. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 38 Underlined text is added; S# uGk4#ro�4g# text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 B. All construction plans and technical specifications and proposed plats, if applicable, for the proposed water distribution and sewage collection and transmission facilities must be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Division prior to commencement of construction. �Rsnainnie. i�nn��!�ra�rnRrrs�.,ars++zsr-rsr_� & An Agreement shall be eRteFed inte betweeR the county wid the IDevelape6 binding 9 } City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 39 Underlined text is added; X94 text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 , MW r.TTIW WE City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 39 Underlined text is added; X94 text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 �s�srrtsr�ars Clty Gate Commerce Park MPUD 40 Underlined text is added; StFUsk-through text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 Mz s, �s�srrtsr�ars Clty Gate Commerce Park MPUD 40 Underlined text is added; StFUsk-through text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 -1-,- Main sewage lift -SWAI R a -ed fwce main inte.69AneetdAg with the County r • a a Mr-MI ..heR eh s steFA : of Ee_r neeted t9 +he eff_4-40- IA';-;teF v-fseweT City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 41 Underlined text is added; ask-thmugh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 TTL♦eF 561 1 +ri�.�i.�,� r,d d' t� 'I+tiE$— TCGI—�u�RCG'L�7'Cl'f�T�R"'R.7 eF the elln.-r'. F , ,S:eA AR tFeatn'e►t facilites, The Lease, if FeqUiFed, of: bmtpl sursh tome that bulk Fate wateF and�eF seweF Shell Femain in .,ria..+ sewice affeements aFe 44C. Data required under County Ordinance No. 80-112 showing the availability of sewage service, must be submitted and approved by the Utilities Division prior to approval of the construction documents for the project. Submit a copy of the approved 0-614 DEP permits for the sewage collection and transmission systems and the wastewater treatment facility to be utilized, upon receipt thereof. 1�! !!�TSl7:RlI�1':S RltlflrTZT.T�1:*: R..L7 T GS�l: RT.!T-TSiTa Rid T!'T'RI: . 7�7lT.!!7RfiS�[ifilSi RilTJ � � a 4D. Detailed hydraulic design reports covering the water distribution and sewage collection and transmission systems to serve the project must be submitted with the construction documents for this project. The reports shall list all design assumptions, demand rates and other factors pertinent to the system under the consideration. wow City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 42 Underlined text is added; S'•"�� text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 43 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; Stfuak-fk;Fei�qt; text is deleted January 25, 2018 If2rMrY.T.M.�Ar. WWI qr va- _ - - - i A Mr City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 43 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; Stfuak-fk;Fei�qt; text is deleted January 25, 2018 sir City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 44 Underlined text is added; S#uGk4hm6p text is deleted PUDA-131-20170002330 January 25, 2018 MAP H City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 45 StFUG�_!hFo gh PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; 9 text is deleted January 25, 2018 .A CA Iwo I LNEST OF FPL EASEMENT T EAST OF FPL EASEMENT CITY GATE BOULEVARD NORTH I RIGHT-OF-WAY LOTS SOUTHCOUNTY REGIONAL TOTAL WEST I! � .. WA7ER TREATMENTPLANT (NOT CITY GATE •�il� FL . CITU [ TE DRIVE "'' COMMERCE PARK MPUO) 29155 AC � �. I --•-------j 1� ! 'I NIJ l A ��I • �` __�-_ Ur_�_•1 WESTENT OF EAST OF FPL EASEMENT EASEMENT GOLDEN GATE CANAL cTTY GATE BOULEVARD NORTH LAKE AND RECREATIONAL TRACT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 26 E COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA F dm wjW �j i WON$ FOR DRIVEVIAYSI PEDESTRIAN ACCESS is ; I lit ONLY: INTERNAL ACCESS N' R ROADWAYS ONLY SPORTS COMPLEX LOr FOR DMVEWAYSI PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLY: INTERNAL ACCESS ROADNAYS ONLY LAND USE TABLE WEST OF THE FPL EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY LOTS 7.16AC 2077 AC TOTAL WEST EAST OF THE FPL EABEME191" RIGHT-OF-WAY1586 AC OTS 164 20 AC LOTS" SPORTS COMPLEX II6700 A- LA (E AHD RECREATIONAL TRACT 113&1 AC (*2 50 AC) (x2.50 AC) TOTAL EAST 25510AC TOTAL CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK RID 29155 AC )1) TOTAL REQLARED NATIVE VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED NATHIN LOTS = 30.57 ACRES [2) INCLUDES *10.00 ACRES OF FPL EASEMENT MAP H A-1 a =+`"' •-� WESTOF FPLEAST .q •�h ZONED HIRGHT.1 Ar TLWL HEIGHT EASEMENT .Wu (� 43 -FEET ALL OTHER PLATTED LOTS I WEST F,PL EASTOFFPI I.0 1 EASEMENT �� EASEMENT a 23 ARE PROPOSED ro 22 23�� OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE 0TY GATE COMMERCE CITY GATE 110 III 7di ; 2 -- + \. 4 1fV ~� :I \, • Y SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL ? �� WATER TREATMENT PLANT .pie l�._.....�._.. {' •` (NOT WITHIN CITY GATE CITY GATE DRIVE COMMERCE PARK MPUD) \4 t ? 7----------------- • upl O , _ __... 2U TYPE O LANDSCAPE BLFFEIE �^ li ALONGCOLUFR SOUL= I �T j ZONING ESTATES ZONNG W COER COUNTY 1 ! LAND USE; CANAL RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK IPUD WdDUSE COUNTY FACILITIES 11 j GOLDEN GATE CANAL I i TYPE C LANDSCAPE BUFFER 4 ALONG NORTHERN PUD BONDAR-� (CONSISTENT WITH EXHI9UITNAD Y I ZONNG: gGRK:IA.TURAL iy. fI 23 23 i 231I j :23 1 LAND 23 USE UNDEVELOPED ! ; ; s'I ( ` I jI M DRTH 1 t 2 6 7 1920 --�.I CITY GATE BWLEVMD NORTH- 1 2 6 7 19 20 I.E2]3 23 23 12 13 14 r } i 15 16 17 ff ' 21 23 24 f, I ZONING AGRICULTURAL TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER f LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED _ I ALONG EASTERN PUD BOUNDARY ! LAKE AND }fl RECREATIONAL TRACT 2$ \y. W ■�+ II 3 i -----�------ }YSr B POEDEDSTRIAN ACCESS E 7—" 1 T 1 21 ` ONLY:INTERNALACCE53 l; ROADWAYS ONLY k 'SPDRTe COMPLE%LOT' ; �— 1 H41 5 I D ii z ,14 y 9 a I 23 23 C' E15Ull, i7 i!UJ W I D. I FOR DRIVEWAYsr AX O. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS t W q.TYGATEBOULEVAROSOUTH 6 7 19 2 L ONLY; WTEIiNAL ACCESS j. > 18 ROADWAYS ONLY O ` W 21 U o TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER �—� 5• 23 10' TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER W _ ALONG PORTIONS OF SOUTHERN PUD BOUNDARY ALONG PORTIONS OF SOUTHERN - a Iy H FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY -TO BE EVALUATE[)IAOUN PBDARY } - >. I€ Q DUtINGSOPAPPUCATION o 1 =+`"' •-� WESTOF FPLEAST OF FPL ZONED HIRGHT.1 Ar TLWL HEIGHT EASEMENT EASEMENT 43 -FEET ALL OTHER PLATTED LOTS ~ DEVIATION REQUESTS 67 -FEET •\ a 23 ARE PROPOSED ro 22 23�� OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE 0TY GATE COMMERCE 43 -FEET ALL OTFER PATTED LOTS PARK MPUD I U I �. \ - II - ,_ ♦\` , ALL OTHER DEVIATIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIRED AND _ GENERALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION MASTER CONCEPT PLAN PLEASE REFER TO I9 EXBIT A4: MASTER N 3 OF5 - 5 OF 5 FOR ALL DEV ATION SPEgFIGgTIONS AND REGI ESTS REQUIRED OPEN SPACE CALCULATION ���9p CIT1'GATECOMMERCE PARK NPUD 29155 AC S&KE 0 _ `- _ 2975fit30%=9747 ACRES ZONING WHITE LAKE PUD LANDUSE: DEVELOPEDAND UNDEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL ZONED AND ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHTS WEST OF F P a L EASEMENT RIGKT-0F-WAY LOTS 7.1B AC I 2927AC ZONED HIRGHT.1 Ar TLWL HEIGHT PLATTED LOTS ADJACENT TO GOLDEN GATE CANAL 3,FEET 43 -FEET ALL OTHER PLATTED LOTS WEET 67 -FEET EAST OF F.P. A L EASEMENT PLATTED LOTS ADJACENT TO GOLDEN GATE CANAL 36fEET 43 -FEET ALL OTFER PATTED LOTS 67FEET T (SPOR60PEET EAST OF F P a L EASEMENT COMPUM SPORTS COMPLEX LOT 7SPEET I BSFEET LAND USE TABLE WEST OF THE FPL EASEMENT RIGKT-0F-WAY LOTS 7.1B AC I 2927AC TOTAL WESY 36.45 AC EAST OF THE FPL EASEMIENTTO RIGHi-0F-WAY15.96 AC LOTS'I 164-28AC (x250 AC) SPORTS COMPLEX 61.00 AG (t250 AC) LAKE AND RECREATIONAL TRACT 13 B4 AC TOTALEAST 255.tOAC TOTAL CRY GATE COMMERCE PARK PUD 291.55 AC III IOIAL NEWIKED NATIVE VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED WITHIN LOTS = 30.57 ACRES RI INCLUDES t10.00 ACRES OF FPL EASEMENT A-1 LIST OF DEVIATIONS TEMPORARY EVENTS - SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT DEVIATION 111 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.04.05 F.1 'TEMPORARY EVENT TIME LIMNS- WHICH DEFINES MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EVENT DAYS ALLOWED FOR EACH TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AND THE MAXIMUM EVENT DAYS ALLOWED PER CALENDAR YEAR, TO INSTEAD a) REMOVE THE UMFTATION FOR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DAYSALLOWED FOR EACH TEMPORARY USE PERMIT; AND b) REMOVE THE LIMITATION FOR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EVENTS PER CALENDAR YEAR. THE REMOVAL OF THESE LIMITATIONS SHALL ONLY APPLYTO THE SPORTS COMPLEX TEMPORARY USES AND EVENTS. DEVIATION 42 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.04.06 A-3.. 'TEMPORARY SIGNS,' WHICH PROHIBITS TEMPORARY SIGNS AND BANNERS WITHIN ANY PUBLIC RIGOR-0FWAY, TO INSTEAD ALLOW TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT AND ITS EVENTS, WITHIN THE COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CFFY GATE BOULEVARD NORTH RIGUT-OF-WAY. THIS DEVIATION, Wfm SOARD APPROVAL. $NA.L PE RMITA MAXIMUM OF TWO (2) TEMPORARY SIGNS AT ANY TIME ON COLLIER BOULEVARD ICI.951) RIGHT-OFWAV AidQ MULTIPLE SIGNS ON CITY GATE BOULEVARD NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITH NO SIZE LIMITATION AND NO REQUIREMENT FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT. DIRECTORY SIGN - MPUD - PLATTED LOT 7, PHASE ONE QEted, �_ i DEVIATION 43 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5A6_04 F.1 "GWPREMISE SIGNS," WHICH REQUIRES FOR ONGLE-OECUPANCY OR M ULTIPU-OCC UPANCY LOTS, HAVING TROHTAGE OF 156FEET0R MORE ON PU6UC STREET, OR COMIRNED PUBLIC STREET MNTAGE OF 2201JNEAR TO INSTEAD ALLOW COMB tri 13 OFF -PREM I5ES AND ON•PRDIRECTIONAL RECTIONAL SQVS, FOR THE MPUD. AND THE SPORTS COM PLEX PROJEt t. WDHN THE ALPUO'S O4TERNAL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY, ORABLMDNG THERETO JDUrMORE THAN 206 FEET FROM COLLIER Isj JJJ{{{vvv gg 151, BOULEVARD). AS FOLLOWS.. FEET OR MORE FOR CORNER LOTS, TO HAVE 0NEP OLE OR GROUND SIGN; AND REQLRRES A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 1.000 -FEET AS MEASURED ALONG THE STREEF FRONTAGE, AND ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, t b L 44 g; ` a) PROVIDE NO MORE THAN I2 -SQUARE FEET IN AREA PER SIGN: TO INSTEAD ALLOW `E b) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED S.KET IN HEIGHT: a) ONE_AODMONAI DIRECTORY SIGN FOR THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARI MP UD ON LOT 7, LOCATED WITHIN CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PHASE ONE PLAT, AS RECORDED IN P1AT11QOK 41, PAGES 6.7, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF CDLLIER COUNTY; AND .. c) UPTO SEVEN (7) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, WHICH MUST BE SEPARATED BY A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 256FEET;AND b) A MINIMUM SEPARATION 100-FEEF FROM ANY ON-SITE MONUMENT SIGNS. C Cly a� d) DLREcnCINAL SIGNS MAY BE MORE THAN 1,006 FEET FROM BURDIHC1a STRUCTURE. OR USE (INCLUDING THE SPORTS COMPLEX PRQIECTO FOR WHICH THE SIGN IS DISPLAYED. oyJ�� e DEVIATION 87 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOC SECTION SA6D4 F.9A'ON-PREMME DIRECTIONAL SIGNS; WHICH LIMITS ON -PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS INTERNAL TO A SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 10 -FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES, TO INSTEAD FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES -SPORTS COMPLEX PROTECT � loci, Co DEVIATION 44 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.04 FS.'FLAGS AND FLAG POLES." WHICH REQUIRE 5 714ATA FIAGPOLE SNAIL HOT EXCEED SO FEET IN HELGHF FROM THE FIMSHED GRADE NOR EXTEND MORE THAN 20 FEET FROM ANY BUILDJRG TO W HIGH IT IS ATTACHED. RR SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT. SEE DEVIATION 932. - EXHIBIT A-1 7O INSTEAD ALLOW, WITHIN THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT, j Z a) AMAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 100 -FEET FROM FINISHED GRADE; a 'I < R b)DMENSIONUPTO40-FEET FROM ANY BUILDING TOWHICH ITISATTACHED; AND Q a Z W c) UNLIMITED FLAGPOLES SEPARATED BYA MINIMUM OF IMFEETWFTHIN THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECL U 4 W O l ! DEVIATION IS SEEKS REUEFFROM LDC SECF10N5.06.04 FJLb'FLAGS AND FLAG POLE5,-WHICH PERMITS NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AT LEAST IOACRES IN SIZE HAVING MULTIPLE ENTRANCES, MAY HAVE UP TO 3 FLAGPOLES ATEACi ENTRANCE THAT PROVIDES J j INGRESS/EGRESS OFF AN ARTUM OR COLLECTOR ROAD, PROVIDED THAT THERE IS A MINIMUM 3WFOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN ENTRANCES, TO INSTEAD ALLOW SIX(6)FLAGPOLES AT EACH ENTRANCE WITHIN THE SPORTS COMPLEXPROJECT. THE THREE FLAGPOLES THATARE U O CLUSTERED ARE NOT SUBIECTTO THE 100 FOOT MINIMUM SPEARATION IN DEVIATION 94. < Y IILI (9 N p g22 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS • MPUD/SPORTS COMPLEX PRO] ECT (WITHIN RRPUD) I-{ DEVIATION 86 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.0&04 F.9 -ON -PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS,' WHICH REQUIRESTRAT DIRECTION/LL SIGNS SHALL NOT C(CEED 6 SQUIRE FEET IN AREA, 4FUTIN NOW, BE LIMITED TO TWO (21ATEACHVEHKLE ACCESSP NNTANDAMAXIMUMOF4 QEted, INTERNALTOTHE MPUD AND LDC SECTION 5.06.04G2.e'OFF-MMLSE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WHICH REQUIRESTWLT DIRECTIONAL SIGNS BE LIMITED TO WITHIN 2,000 FEET FROM THE BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR USE FOR WHICH THE SIGN LS DBPLAYED TO INSTEAD ALLOW COMB tri 13 OFF -PREM I5ES AND ON•PRDIRECTIONAL RECTIONAL SQVS, FOR THE MPUD. AND THE SPORTS COM PLEX PROJEt t. WDHN THE ALPUO'S O4TERNAL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY, ORABLMDNG THERETO JDUrMORE THAN 206 FEET FROM COLLIER Isj JJJ{{{vvv gg 151, BOULEVARD). AS FOLLOWS.. g1*.I a) PROVIDE NO MORE THAN I2 -SQUARE FEET IN AREA PER SIGN: b) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SHALL NOT EXCEED S.KET IN HEIGHT: c) UPTO SEVEN (7) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, WHICH MUST BE SEPARATED BY A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 256FEET;AND d) DLREcnCINAL SIGNS MAY BE MORE THAN 1,006 FEET FROM BURDIHC1a STRUCTURE. OR USE (INCLUDING THE SPORTS COMPLEX PRQIECTO FOR WHICH THE SIGN IS DISPLAYED. DEVIATION 87 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOC SECTION SA6D4 F.9A'ON-PREMME DIRECTIONAL SIGNS; WHICH LIMITS ON -PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS INTERNAL TO A SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 10 -FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES, TO INSTEAD ALLOWAMINIMUMSETBACKOFDFEET. THIS DEVIATION SHALL APPLY TO ON -PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGN SALE)NGPUBLICORPRIVATERnM-OF-WAY,THROUCHUUTTHECITY GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD. THIS DEVIATION DOES NOTAPPLYTO DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGEONTHE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT. SEE DEVIATION 932. - EXHIBIT A-1 LIST OF DEVIATIONS (CONT.) E POLE MOUNTED SIGN WITH DISPLAY - SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT Fl—q] DEVIATION KB SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDCSECTKN15.06.04 G.1'ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS,' WHICH PERMITSOFFSLEE DIRECTIONAL SIGNSONLY94 NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTSAND DESIGNATED NONRESIDENTIAL COMPONENTSOFPUDSTO INSTEAD PERMIT ONE (1) OFF51TE IDENTIFICATION, PROMOTIONAL. AND SPONSORSHIP SIGN, FORTHE SPORTS COMPLEK PRO1ECf, WffHIN THE COLL&R BOULLVARD IC.R 9511 RIGHT-OF-WAYWITH BOARDAPPROVAL OROFFSITEALONG IANDSOUTSWE OFTHE PUD. PLEASE REFERTO THE MASTER DEVELOPMENTPLAN EXHIBITA-1, PAGE 2 OF 5 AND THE SIGN DEVIATION EXMBTTA-5. ' I ® DEVIAT" 119 SE&M XWEF FROM IOC SECTION 5,06,04 G -DOFF -PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGNS.' WHICH ALLOWS NO MORE TKkN 2 ONE•SADED OR l DOUBG•STDED PRF• PAEMLW DIRK -HO FULL SIGNS BE PERMITTED FOR ASUIIDING- STRUMAE. OR USE WHKH 13 WGTVWW FROM THE ROADWAYSERVNIS 5UCF18LK1DANG,SnUXVJRE, OR USE, PROVIOED TNATEACH $$GN SHALL NOTBE MORE THAN 12 50UARE FEETIN AREAy TTHE SIGN SHALL NOTBEMORE THAN! FEETIN H06HTABOVE THE LOWESTCENTER GRADE OF THE ROADWAY ADIACENT TO THE SIGN LOCATION THE SIGN SHALL HOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 10 FEET To ANY PROPERTY UN THE APPIKW SHALL SUBMIT WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION ANU THE SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 1.000 FEETFROh1THF TWILOING, STRUCTURE, ORUSE FOR WHICH THE SIGN IS DISPLAYED, TO INSTEAD PERMIT A SIGN FOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT THAT - a) SHALL NOT EXCEED 350 -SQUARE FEET IN AREA; 9 M) SHALL NOT E EEM 2S -FEET IN KI GKT ABOVE TN€LOWESTUEHTER GRADEOF THE ROADWAY ADNCENT TO THE SIGH LOCATION: I H c) SHALL NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAT 0.5 -FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE; AND II J 1 d) SHALL NOT BE LOCATED MORE THAN 4,500 FEET FROM SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT. V T 0 INTENTIONALLY OM IITED. 6 b ie Y MONUMENTSIGN - MPUD/SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT 5 F TTI DEVIATION ATI SEEKS ARIEF FROM LDC SKMON S.06.04.9 -OFF-PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGN ' WHILIT PatbMA SIGN NO MOUE THAN 32•SOUARE FOO: SIGN IN AREA, TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR A COMDINED GROUNDIMON UMENT SIG N FORTH SPORTS COMPLEX PROJE CT AND THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD AS FOLLOWS: j a) 64 -SQUARE FEET IN AREA; h) lgg� 3 EOCAITIOTI IN THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, IABELEP CITY GATE LWt%"ARLS NORTH ON EXHIBIT Al, WITHIN THE TRAFFIC SEPARATOR: AND 5 ~ c) MORE THAN 1,000 FEETOFFSITE FROM THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT. ONCE CITY GATE BOULEVARD NORTH IS ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASA PUBLICROAD, ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO THE DIRECTIONAL SIGN SHALL REQUIRE A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT THE SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERPETUALLY MAINTAINED BY THE PTY GATE L] � Z a COMMERCE PARK MASTER PROPERTY OWNER'SASSOCTATIONS, INC. OR ITS SUCCESSORS. COWER COUNTY RESERVESTHE RIGHTTO REMOVE THE SIGN TO ACCOMMODATE ROAD EXPANSION OF CITY GATE BOULEVARD NORTH. ¢ F Q a Z w SIGNS -SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY= ON PREMISES o a rc w 0 121DEVIATION N12 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.05 A-3 'SIGN EXEMPTIONS; WHICH PERMITS SIGNS TO BE LOCATED ON FENCES OR WALLS SURROUNDING ATHLETIC FIELDS, OR WITHIN SPORTS ARENAS, STADIUMS ANDTHE LIKE, NOTTO EXCEED 32 SQUARE FEET IN SUE, PER SIDF, p w PER SIGN AND THAT SIGNS ALSO BE ORIENTED ALONG THE FENCE OR WALLTO FACE THE RELD(S)OR PLAYING AREA, AND AWAY FROM ANY ADJACENT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADS, TO INSTEAD ALLOW DIRECTIONAL ADVERTISEMENT, PROMOTIONAL. DISPLAY, AND SPONSORSHIP U O SIGNAGE, WITHOUT LIMITATIONS FORTYPE OF, LOCATION. Sig, OR NUMBER, WITHIN THE SPORTS COMPIEXPROJECT. w Q W PARKING- SPORT COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY 13 DEVIATION 913 SEM ft(LKFMM LDC SECTION 4.45.02 ILL 'PARKING LOTS AND SPACES- SURFACING STANDARDS,- WHICH REQUIRES THAT PAWN DRIVEWAYS, AND ACCESS AISLES, TP BE PAVED..., TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR GRASSED DRJVEWATS AND ACCESS COSIES, IN GRASSER PARKING AMM,FOR THE_SPORTS COMKD PROJ ECT. 14 DEVIATION II14 SEEKSREUEF Mm LPC 5K -I -IM US)% G TAME 17'PARIONG SPACE REOUMEMENTS,'WHICH PERMIT GRASSED PAkwe M NOT MORE THAN SOPERCENTOFME PRDYIDED PARIONG FOR THE FACILITIES PLANNED FOR THE SPORS'S COMPLIX TO INSTEAD ALLOW COR THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROTECT UPTO25 PERCENT Or -THE PROVIDED PARKING SPACES TO BE GRASSED PARKING. A-1 LIST OF DEVIATIONS (CONT.) PARKING - SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY (CONT.) TS DEVIATKON9155EEKSREUEFFROMLDCSECTIDN4.06.03B.1-LANDSCAPING IN VEHN:ULAR USE AREAS,- WHICH REQUIRES AT LEAST TEN PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT OF VEHICULAR USE AREA ON-SfTE SHALL BE DEVOTED TO INTERIOR LANDSCAPING AREA5. TO INSTEAD ALLOW NO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS IN GRASSED VEHICULAR USE AREAS WITHIN THE SPORTS COMPLE%PROJECT. THIS DEVIATION SHALL ONLY APPLY TO GRASSED PARKING AREAS DEVIATION 916 M SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.03 03'IANDSCAPING AND VEHICULAR USE EAS,- WHICH REQUIRES ALL ROWS OF PARKING SPACES SHALL BE BORDERED ON EACH END SYCURBED LANDSCAPE ISLANDS, TO INSTEAD REMOVETHE REQUIREMENTFOR LANDSCAPE I6 ISLANDS, WHEN LOCATED WITHIN GRASSED PARKING AREAS WITHIN THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT. THIS DEVIATION SHALL ONLY APPLY TO GRASSED PARKING MEAS. 17 DEVIATION 017 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.03 8.4 -LANDSCAPING AND VEHICULAR USE AREAS,' WHICH REQUIRES INTERIOR LANDSCAPING AREAS SHALL REQUIRE PROTECTION FROM VEHICULAR ENCROACHMENT THROUGH APPROPRIATE WHEEL STOPS OR CURBS OR OTHER STRUCTURES, TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR NO WHEEL STOPS, CURBS OR OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT. THIS DEVIATION SHALL ONLY APPLY TO GRASSED PARKING AREAS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS -SPORTS COMPLEX LOT- EAST BOUNDARY TB DEVIATION 016 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SEC'f10N 4.06.07 A'BUT'TER REQUIREMENTS,' WHICH REQUIRES THAT DEVELOPME NTS SHALL BE BU 4f RED fORTHE PAOTECWH OF PROPERTY OWNERS FROM LAND USES, TO INSTEAD ELIMINATE THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER FIECEUIREMENTALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY OFTHE SPORTS COMPLEX LOT, PROVIDED THERE IS UNWED OWNERSHIP OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX LOT AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE EAST, WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS JOINTLY PLANNED. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS- MPUD T8 DEVIATION 919 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LIC SECTION 4.06.72 A -BUFFER REQUIREMENTS,- WHICH REQUIRES A SEPARATE BUFFER TRACT OR EASEMENT ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, TO INSTEAD REMOVE THIS REQUIREMENT FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WITHIN ANY EXISTING OR SUBSEQUENT SUBDIVISION PLAT(PPU. WITHIN THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD, EAST OF THE F. P. & L EASEMENT. ® DEVOTION MSEEKS REUEFFROM WCSECMN 6.O6ALO.S'LAND$CAK &JFTERS.' WHR7N REQUIRnA SFPAIIATE BLUFFER TRACT OR EASEMENT ON THE FINAL SUBDtVISLON PLAT, TO INSTEAD REMOVE THIS REQUIREMENT FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RLGHF-0FWAY, WITHIN ANY EXISTING OR SUBSEQUENT SUBOM90M PIAT IFDJ, WTTHW THE EITY GATT COMMERCE PARI MPUD, FAST OF THE F. P. & L EASEMENT. RETAINED NATIVE VEGETATION -SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY 2T DEVIATION 921 SEERS RELJEF, FOR THE SPORTS COMPLE71 PROJECT ONLY, FROM THE PUO,5 REQU I RED YARD PLAN, WHICH XEQUMSS NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION TO BE OU -M AND LDC SECTION ILMAY H.1 'OFF -SM VEGETATION RETENEION,'TO ALLOW ATA MINIMUM SOK OF THE REQUIRED YARD PLAN TO BE COMPLETED ON -SIM IM PUDI AND ATA MAXIMUM 50% TO BE CO MPLETFO OFF-SITE (CURREMIY OUTSIDE OF THE MPUD BOON DAAY]. TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH, AMINIM UM 50%OFTHE REQUIRED YARD PLAN IFOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROIECTj. SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE FIRST SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONCURRENTLY A UNIFIED SITE PLAN SHALL DESIGNATE THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED OFF-SITE YARD ON THE ADJACENT PARCEL WHICH SHALL BE UNDER UNIFIED CONTROL THIS SHALL SATISFY THE REQUIRED YARD PIAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT. CARETAKER RESIDENCES - MPUD INCLUDING SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT DEVIATION 922 SEEKS BELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.03.05 A -CARETAKER RESIDENCES,- WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE RESIDENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS AN INTEGRAL PARTOFTHE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND SHALL BE ENTERED FROM WITHIN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, TO INSTEAD MEOW FOR A MAXLMUM OF FIVE LATTACHMOROETACKEDCAREDE1XEk5 RESIDENCElS],UMIiED TO LOCATIONS EAST OF THE F.P.&LEASEMEHT- WATER MANAGEMENT- MPUD INCLUDING SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT IMI23. DEVIATION ITL 5EE%5 RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.OS01'WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS; W RICH REQUIRES A COMPLETE STJDRMWATER MANAGEM ENT SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL AREAS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING LOTS, STREETS. AND ALLEYS TO LKSMA0 PfRMfESFORMWAMR MANAGEMENT DETENTION AN D OR RM1VTION MEAS- FOR THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PAM -To BE LOCATE D OUTSIDE OF THE MPUD ROU HOARY PER REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOUTH FEO RIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DLSTTUCT. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STANDARDS - SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT ONLY 24 DEVNTTON JR4 SEW RELO FROM LOC SECTION 5.TS.08'ARCHEEELTURAL AND3TTE DESIGN STANDARDS,' YPHICH PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES, TO INSTEAD ALLOW FOR THE DEVIATION PROCESS IN SECTION S.OS.OB.G OFTHE LDC FOR BUMUGS LOCATED WITHIN THE SPORTS COMPLELPAOJECT, 0 a Y a U W 0 O U W 0 U z a J a z z LU O J w w Fw- y a EXHIBIT A-2 (1 OF 3) TABLE 12.8.3 % of Gross %of Gross Building Site Development by Phase Building Site: Building Site Parking Spaces Employees Amount of Building Site Usage Area V Acreage- (SM (U1 Building 6.6%reiociment Service Station 3 6.27 31 3 Stations Hotel/Motel (1) 4 1 1 1 1 8.36 500 200 250 rooms Restaurant/Lounge (2) 3 1 - 1 1 _ 6.27 500 125 34,000 sq. ft. Retail, personal service, medical service (4 4 1 1 1 1 - 8.36 334 208 56,000 sq. ft. Public, utilitarian, recreational, educational 5 - 1 1 2 1 10.45 516 261 80,000 sq. ft. Offices -(,'4 20 - 3 5 6 6 41.8 2062 1433 836,000 sq. ft. Light manufacturing; processing; storage and 35 5 10 10 5 5 73.15 1000 1250 1,520,000 sq. ft. distribution M Research, testing, 6 - - 2 2 2 12.64 300 313 100,000 sq. ft. development !1 Service and repair 10 - 2 2 2 4 20.9 500 522 160,000 sq. ft. businesses 11 Showrooms and sales centers in association with 5 - - 1 2 2 10.45 516 261 60,000 sq. ft. permitted uses !1 Publishing, reproduction, 5 - - 1 2 2 10.45 250 261 80,000 sq. ft. communications 141 Total 100 9 19 26 24 22 209 6,553 4,865 City Gate Commence Park MPUD 51 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; StFuGk thF ugh text is deleted January 25. 2018 EXHIBIT A-2 (PAGE 2 OF 3) TABLE 12.B.3 (Continued) City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 52 Underlined text is added; StFuGk through text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 % of Gross % of Gross Building Site Development by Phase Building Site Parking Spaces .: Empioyees Amount of West of FPL Usage Area I h _ Ilf IV A. crea w*U3 Buildin Developmeat Service Station 3 1 1 1 - - 6.27 75 31 3 Stations Hotel/Motel (1) 4 1 1 1 1 8.36 500 200 250 rooms Restaurant/Lounge (2) 2 1 - 1 - - 4.18 333 83 22,670 sq. ft. Retail, personal service, medical service 2 1 1 _ - - 4.18 167 104 28,000 sq. ft. Offices 5 - - 2 2 1 10.45 516 358 209,000 sq. ft. Total 16 4 3 5 3 1 33.44 11591 776 % of Gross % of Gross Building Site Development [{.,,�..,,•r Phase Build! r Site: - . - _ -- _Park_ ing Spates .5� Employees Anna T_ East est Split,: Area [ It Ill. IV V Acreage.-_:'..:. Building West of FPL 16 4 3 5 3 1 33.44 1,591 776 East of FPL 84 5 16 21 21 21 175.56 4,962 4,089 Total 100 9 19 26 24 22 209 6,553 4,865 City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 52 Underlined text is added; StFuGk through text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-2 (PAGE 3 OF 3) NOTES: (1) The hotel/motel designation contemplates full service facilities which incorporate overnight accommodations, restaurant and lounges, conference and business meeting facilities, recreation and other ancillary uses which are characteristic of large hotel/motel complexes. It is anticipated that initially developed motel facilities will be much more abbreviated than the full service facilities which will emerge during project buildout. (2) The restaurant/lounge category constitutes food and beverage service facilities which are Independent of those which are incorporated in the hotel/motel complexes. It is estimated that this category will consist of two quality restaurants (order at table from menu), aggregating 16,000 square feet of floor area; and two fast turnover restaurant (cafeterias or food service at counter) aggregating 17,200 square feet of floor area. Three of the restaurants will be located on the western portion of the site where they will be accessible to both highway travelers an the large number of employees within the project. GReFestaw Fan; will be leeated within the main body of the commeFee PaFk, and will exGlmsiyel, - 2. - 2 A emplayees. - W These sales awd•==w'___ Will PFiFRaFily sewe inteFS ate highway trayelefs and employees of messes Within the pFejeet, (4 Ae effie2 eategeFy is limited to a ices Whlr;h aft pFIR6ipal uses, and dees Ret iRelude effines whie i afe aReiilapj to and ifiEef-Biated iR et4 f land uses, i.e-. adFRiRiStFaVYL- ef#+ees Within a 40M FRaWfaetURAiR eF feseaFeh and 'ncvelepFnent 4FRir 11i est of tyle effie-er will 4ave exteRrive LIAR MA* IDWSIAesses eMPFRal W tie pFejest, biA seme Will Pfl##afily f-REtieR a5 sewanu of of Hier land_. firer within the. p Faj L4 4 M Parking space and employment estimates were largely based on ITE standards and averages cited by Urban Land Institute publications. When definitive published parking and/or employee standards for a specific land use were not available, the estimates were based on published standards for the most similar uses. The estimated employees include those who normally spend all or most of the work day within the project, i.e. office workers, sales personnel industrial workers; employees who shuttle to and from their place of employment during the work day, i.e. delivery truck crews; and employees who seldom visit the project, i.e. manufacturer's field representatives. It is anticipated that many of the uses within the project will be served by common parking pools which increase the efficiency of the parking space utilization. The employees estimated for service station, hotel/motel, restaurant/lounge, and perhaps other uses will be spread over two and, In some cases, three shifts within a 24-hour period. Ll The aggregate of the following group of uses is "industrial Development": 12.13.3. land use "rows": 1.1 light manufacturing,roto_ essing; storage and distribution 1.520.000 §k.. � Zj. Research testing, development 100,000 LCL. ft 3.1 Service and re air businesses 160.000 §_q. Al Showrooms and sale centers 60,000 sg ft. J, Publishing, reproduction, communications 80,000 sc j, ft. The total Industria! Develo ment is 1920 000 square feet of industrial buildings. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 53 PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 Underlined text is added; &P,4 ' "r^ text is deleted EXHIBIT A-3 (PAGE 1 OF 6) EXHIBIT A-3 PERMITTED USES- SIC CODES WEST OF FP&L EASEMENT (SIC codes for permitted uses described in 3.2.A.1 and 3.2.A.41- A. .2.A.41 A. Principal Uses: 1. Agricultural Services (SIC 0741, 0742 and 0752, except outside kenneling, and 0781) 2. Amusement and Recreation Services (SIC 7911 -7929 (indoor), 7991. 7993 (indoor), 7997 and 7999 3. Apparel and Accessory Stores SIC 5611-5699 4. Automotive Dealers (SIC 5511-5531, 5551-5599) 5. Automotive Repair, Services and Parkin SIC 7513-7515 7532-7549 L. Building Construction - General Contractors and Operative Builders (SIC 1521-1542) 7. Building Materials. Hardware, Garden Supply, and Mobile Horne Dealers (SIC 5211-525 1) 8. Business Services SIC 7311-7381 except armored car and dgg rental and 7389 -contractors` disbursement, directories -telephone, recording studios, swimming pool cleaning, and textile designers only, sublect to narking and landscapingfor retail use) 9. Communications (SIC_ 4813 — 4841 including communication towers up to specified heiaht5 subiect to LDC Section 5.05.09 10. Depository Institutions (SIC 6011-6099) 11. Eating and Drinking Places SIC 5812 and 5813 excluding bottle clubs 12. Education Plants and public schools, with an agreement with Collier County, as described in LDC section 5.05.14. 13. Educational Services (SIC 82.21-829 14. Engineering Accounting, Research, Management, and Related Services (S1C 8711-8748) 15. Essential Services s b ect to LDC Section 2.01.03. 16. General Merchandise Stores SIC 5331 and 5399 17. Facilities with Fuel Pumps 11. Health Services {SIC 8011-$0991 19. Home Furniture, Furnishings. and Equipment Stores (SIC 5712-5736) 20. Hotels, Rooming Houses. Camps, and Other Lodging Places (SIC 7011, 7021 and 7041). 21. Insurance Agents, Brokers, And Service (SIC 6311-6399, 6411) 22. Justice Public Order And Safety, SIC 9222 9224 and 9229 23. Legal Services (SIC 8111 24. Membership Organizations (SIC 8611, 8621, 86411866)_1 and 8599) 25. Miscellaneous Repalr Services (SIC 7622-7641 and 7699) 26. Miscellaneous Retail SIC 5912-5963 5992-5999 27. Motion Picture Theaters (SIC 78321 Clty Gate Commerce Park MPUD 54 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; S4ask t4ei4g4 text is deleted January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-3 (PAGE 2 OF 6) 28. Motor Freight Trans po_rtatlon and Warehousing (SIC 4225, mini- and self -storage warehousing only) 29. Museums and Art Galleries SIC 8412 30. N n -de osito Credit Institutions SIC 6111-6163 31. Personal Service SIC 72117212 7215-7217 7219-7299 except barber and beauty schools 32. Public Administration MIC 9111-9199, 9311 9411-9451, 9511-9532.9611-9661) 33. Real Estate (SIC 6512, 6531,-65521 34. Security and Commodity Broke rs,Dealers. Exchanges, and Services ISIC 6211-6289) 35. Social Services (SIC 8322-8399, except homeless shelters and soup kitchens) 36. Taxicabs (SIC 4121) 37. Transportation Services (-SIC 4724, 4725 and 47291 38. United States Postal Service (SIC 4311, except major distribution centers) 39. Any other use which_ is _comparable and/or compatible in nature with the foregoing list of permitted orincipal and accessory uses, and Section 3.2.A.1 of the „PUD document, shall be heard by the Board of Zoning Api2eals BZA . EAST OF THE FP&L EASEMENT LIC codes for permitted uses described in 3.2.A.2 and 3.2.A,4): A, Permitted Uses 1. A,gricu.IturaI Services (SIC 0742 and 0781) 2. Amusement and Recreation Services SIC 7911- 7941 indoor, exce t stadiums may be outdoor 7991,_7997 Qndoorl and 7999 iindoor and outdoor, except shooting ranges shall be indoor only). 3. Apparel and Accesson+ Stores ISIC 5611- 5699 with 15,000 square feet or fess of gross floor area in the principal structure). 4. Apparel and other fin1shed products (SIC _2-311-2391; S. Automotive Repair. Services, and Parking (SIC 7513 - 7549). 6. Bu i Id i ng Co nst ruction - Ge_neral_Contractors and Operative Builders (51C 1521-15421. 7. Building Materials, Hardware ISIC 5212-5251) These uses shall be associated with Wholesale, Trade and retail shall not exceed an area neater than 33°% of the gross floor area of the principal permitted use. 8. Business Services ISIC 7311- 7389). 9. Chemicals and Allied Products ISIC 2841 and 28441. 10. Communications ISIC 4813 - 4841 including communication towers up to specified heights, subiect to LDC Section 5.05.09). 11. Construction Special Trade Contractors ISIC 1711- 1799). 12. Depository Institutions ISIC 6011-60991. 13. Eating Places. ISIC 5812) and Drinking Places ISIC 5813 establishment -shall meet licensing rectuirements for liquor and shall only be integral to hotels or motels). 14. Education Plants and public schools, with an agreement with Collier County, as described in LDC section 5.05.14, City Gate Commerce Park MPU) PUDA-PL20170002330 55 Underlined text is added; StF Gk thrG gh text is deleted January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-3 (PAGE 3 OF 6) 15. Educational Services (SIC 8211- 8299). 16. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management, and Related Services (SIC 8711- 8748). 17. Essential Services sub ect to LDC Section 2.01.03. 18. Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equipment (SIC 3411-3479, 3491-3499). 19. Facilities with Fuel Pumps (SIC 5541 limited to one). 20. Food and Kindred Products f51C 2022 -- 2099L 21. Food Stores SIC 5411-5499 with 12,5Q0 square feet or less of gross floor area In the pilnci al structure). 22. Fuel Oil Dealers (5983). 23. Furniture and Fixtures (SIC 2511-2599 24. General Merchandise Stores (SIC 5331 and 5399 all with 15,000 square feet or less of gross floor area In the j2rincipal structure). 25. Group care facilities (category I and 11, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters. nursing homes, assisted living facilities pursuant to F.S. § 400.402. and ch. 58A- 5 F.A.C. 26. Health Services (SIC 8011-8099 except drug addiction and alcoholism services 1 hospitals). 27. Heavy Constructlon (SIC 1611-1629). 28. Home Furniture, Furnishings, and Ettuipment Stores (SIC 5712-55736). These uses shall be associated with Wholesale Trade and retail shall not exceed an area greater than 33% of the gross floor area of the principal permitted use. 29. Hotels. Motels and Other Lodging Places (SIC 7011-7041 except Rooming Houses and Camps). 30. Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment (SIC 3511-3599). 31. Insurance Agents, Brokers, and Service (SIC 6411(. 32. Insurance Carriers (SIC 6311-6399). 33. Leather and Leather Pro -ducts (SIC „313 .-3199). 34. Le al Services (SIC 8111). 35. Local and Suburban Transit and Interurban Highway Passenger Transportation (SIC 4111-4173) 36. Lumberand Wood Products ASIC 2426, 2431-2499). 37. Measuring. Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments, Photographic. Medical and Optical Goods, Watches and Clocks (SIC 3812-3873). 38. Membership Organizations (SIC 8611-8631, 8641, 8651, 8699). 39. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (SIC 3911-3999). 40, Miscellaneous Repair Services (SIC 7622-76991. Associated retail corn ponent,shaII not exceed an a_reagrreater than 33 Percent -0 thegross floor area of the principaI re ap it service/use. 41. Miscellaneous Retail (SIC 5912, 5941, 5945-5947, 5995 all with 25,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure). 42. Motion Picture Production (SIC 7812-7819). 43. Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing (4212-4226 except oil and gas storage, and petroleum and chemical bulk stations). 44. Museums {SIC 84121imited to not for profit organizations). City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 56 Un erlined text is added; ;StnjEk-ghraugh text is deleted PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-3 (PAGE 4 OF 6) 45. Non-depositorCredit institutions SIC 6111-6163). 46. Outdoor storage yards, Provided that the outdoor storage and is located no closer than 50fift feet to any right-of-way tract except for necessary ingress and egress pursuant to LDC Section 4.02_12, Outdoor storageyarrdts) shall be completely enclosed. ThiI rovision shall not be construed to allow, as ipermitted or accessory use wrecking ards 'unk ards or Vards used in whole or part for scrap or salvage_aperations or for processing, storage, -display, or sales of any scrap, salvage, or secondhand building materials, 'unk automotive vehicles or secondhand automotive vehicle parts. 47. Personal Services SIC 7211— 7219 7231— 7251). 48. PrintinuPu6lishin,, and All Industries_(SI_C 277.1-2795, except Paper M'llsl. 49. Real Estate Sic 6512 6531— 6552). 50. Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products fSIC 3021, 3052 3053). 51. Security and Com rnodity Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges, and Services (SIC 6211— 6289). 52. Stone Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products (SIC 3221.3231, 3251= 3273,_32 75, 3281). 53, Textile Mill Products (SIC 2211— 2221, 2241— 2259, 2273 ;; 2289, 2297, 2298). 54. Transportation Equipment (SIC 3714, 3716, 3731, 3732, 3751, 3761, 3764, 3759, 3792, 3799). 55. Transportation Services (SIC 4724 —4783, 4789 except stockyards). 56. United States Postal Service (SIC 4311). 57. Wholesale Trade — Durable Goods SIC 5012 — 5014 5021-5049 5063 — 5092 and 5094 — 5099 52 11-5 25 1 and 5712-5736 for all associated retail shall not exceed an area p reater than 33% of the gross floor area of the permitted principaI use). 58. Wholesale Trade — Non -Durable Goods SIC 5111-5159 5181 5182 5191 except that wholesale distribution of chemicals, fertilizers, ins_ecdcid_es,_and pesticides must be a minimum of 500 -feet from a residential zoning district,_ 5.192 -- 51991. 59. Any other use which is comparable and/or com atible in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal and accessory uses, and with Section 3.2.A;2 of the „PUD Document, shall be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals (13ZA). B. Conditional Uses 1. Wholesale trade -nondurable goods (SIC 5171, 5172), City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 57 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; StraaslFtp text is deleted January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-3 (PAGE 5 OF 6) EAST OF THE FP&L EASEMENT (SiDorts Como lex Prolect - SIC codes for Dermitted uses described In 3.2.A.3): A. Permitted Uses 1. Amusement and Recreation Services, Field House/Event Center and Fields (SIC 7941 indoor and — Wood. 2. Amusement and Recreation Services (SIC 7911— 7941 (indoor, except stadiums maybe outdoor), 7991, 7997 (indoor) and 7999 (indoor and outdoor, except shooting ranges shall be indoor only). B. Accessory Uses 1. Amusement and Recreation Services, 7999 (indoor and outdoor). a. Amusement concessions b. Animal shows in circuses,, fairs, and carnivals L. Archery ranges, operation of d. Baseball instruction schools e. Basketball instruction schools f. Billiard parlors g. Bingo parlors h. Boat rental, pleasure i. Bowling instruction L• Bridge clubs, non -membership kIL Bridge instruction I. Carnival operation m. Day camps n. Exhibition operation o. Exposition operation o Fishing piers and lake_s,_op_eration of 4 Game parlors, exce t coin -o erated r. Gymnastics instruction s. Handball courts, except membership clubs t. Ice skating rink operation u. Judo instruction v. Karate instruction w. Lifeguard service x. Racquetball courts except membership clubs y. Rental of bicycles z. Rental of rowboats and canoes aa. Roller skating rink operation City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 58 January 25, 2018 Underlined text is added; gtr.,. k4h;^u0 text is deleted EXHIBIT A-3 (PAGE 6 OF 6) bb. Schools and camps, sports instructional Kc. Shooting galleries dd Shooting ranges operation of ee. Skating instruction, ice or roller ff. Snorting goods rental gL, Soorts instructors, professional: golf, skiing, swim, etc. hh. Swimming Instruction ii. Swimming_ pools, except membership j Tennis clubs non-membershi kk. Tennis courts outdoor and indoor. a eratian of non -membership II. Ticket sales offices fors orti ng events contract mm. Yoga instruction 2. Bands, Orchestras. Actors, and Other Entertainers and Entertainment Croups (SIC 7929). 3. Bowling Centers [SIC 7933]. 4. Coin-0.perated Amusement Devices (SIC 7993 indoor and outdoor]. 5. Dance Studios Schools and Halls(SIC 7911). 6. Membership 5 orts and Recreation Clubs SIC 7997 indoor and outdoor). 7. Physical Fitness Facilities (SIC 7991 indoor and outdoor]. 8. Public Golf Courses SIC 7992 indoor and outdoor). 9. Theatrical Producers (Except Motion Picture) and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services (SIC 7922). City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 59 Underlined text is added; S#Lis4 thFGugh text is deleted January 25, 2018 la MODIFIED TYPE C 10' MODIFIED TYPE C I GOLDEN GATE } CANAL I PROPERTY LINE n m m EXISTING GRADE I EXIST. COUNTY - WELLFIELD ACCESS ROAD PROPERTY LINE i 10' SPLIT NORTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER EXIST.COUNTY - _ LQ {L,- t$ r T la WELLFIELD ACCESS = y r - ROAD rT+T r� + BAHIA SOD ,,`. - .i>:•E+ -.CLC. T.. C.Jr, �—^—CJ: -- 10' SPLIT SOUTH ❑ ❑ 20 40 LANDSCAPE BUFFER SCALE IN FEET v T L t.R t0. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 10' SPLIT NORTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER: •• TREES PLANTED ON 30' CENTERS (10' HEIGHT) •• PINE STRAWIMULCH AT BASE OF TREES HEDGE ON 4' CENTER (6' HEIGHT) « RANDOM GROUPS OF NATIVE GRASSES WITH PINE STRAW(MULCH - REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 10' SPLIT SOUTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER •• TREES PLANTED ON 30' CENTERS (10' HEIGHT) 46' SOUTH OF PL •• PINE STRAWIMULCH AT BASE OF TREES •• RANDOM GROUPS OF NATIVE GRASSES WITH PINE STRAWIMULCH D-6 PROJECT CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD M,,,,,,,,,u0><::Gn 159 SOUTH MAIN STREET D..VIDSQN _,E L r6 _ y 1 1 N IN 6 SHEET TITLE-- AKROK OM 44M 48854. Ra.a.Sub2M (moo """ `�""'°' FCROSS SECTION V. ZJB.434808p :II9.43LE001 GR. ClRWpYgwl Ha.D�1$ Z: Active Pro;ects';C=,Lity Gat<_ 07—G0M\Erginoering 22 — P=JCa,D'tti,'.pEF�:I;;:1G,2��t8-0;—(`i2—CG.dwg ;G�� X. j - d Jan 08. 20 — 12:2_pm 5 —SECT) ennc.wocaviO- r">; � DATE SMEr NO: lawn DESIDNM W. DR, V, BY: im a4ECIceD BY. �EFFL ulvlvep�, PE NQOIlI PROJECT NO_ make. f. -IH. Re Nmnm EXHIBI Ne RY 1. PZ. Ntr.V_ SEE EXHIBIT A-5• PAGE 2 OF 2 MONUMENT SIGN DEVIATION 96. AND 9 MONUMENT SIGN DEVIATION #11 DOUBLE SIDED DIRECTORY SIGN DEVIATION #3 Ll t , y ------------ I' COMBINED DIRECTIONAL SIGNS DEVIATION 06. AND 7 s s 4 ;MIN d •gip tu�i�J O CS=6� a°iMiagg ne � 0 a F Y Ln R I d w w cn U Z W 0 U W W O r Z LD L w Z"f ; M N o s iD SCALE IN FEET CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD 16' 18' �f f 1 �: e'D NWN. LLC a CO Ise SOUTH MAW STREET �F►Y �VF.7�V seer mLe. - .._ _. SUTIE SW POLE MOUNTED IDENTIFICATION SIGN WITH LED DISPLAY acRory OHIO aaos (33ole sam N�pkS quiet 34104F12W"`WM `.M94NOW4 MPUDlSPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT CM1-d hCp�yp�Ne.O Z^,Active Project C`;City Gate 07-0068`;Engineering,22 — PUGA;D1aG',PLANNING'•, SECT Optior. 2.awg !CC SIGN EXHIBIT) jenna.woc-dword Jan 15. 2013 — ?:+7prn MTF 12_1017 0ESK0,W BY. im oRAM BY: JAW CHMKEDg : PROAECT NOS Ho: .o.me1 EXHIBITA-5 PAGE 2 OF 2 x tz (Jl b N 0 N u I. EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 1 OF 28) CITY GATE "REQUIRED YARD" PLAN OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE, LOCATION AND AMOUNT OF NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION: OBJECTIVE: To provide a procedure by which the vested rights determination for the GIT�E CITY GATE DRI may be implemented with respect to the location and amount of native vegetation preservation / retention, applicable setbacks and buffers thereto, and all other regulations relating to native vegetation to be preserved on the DRI Property. 2. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Plan is to accomplish the retention of Native Vegetation within the Required Yards in a manner consistent with the GITYGATE CITY GATE Development Orders; to maintain property and aesthetic values within the ^t'Tcrr-i AT -9 CITY GATE project; to promote the survival of Native Vegetation in Required Yards and to promote supplemental planting of Native Vegetation within the Required Yards. This document is intended to be the sole source of the standards and procedures by which development permit submittals will be processed and approved by Collier County. LOCATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION / RETENTION: The preservation and retention of Native Vegetation shall be in Required Yards or Open Spaces as defined below. Such preservation and retention shall be on lots and in a manner consistent with the GAF CITY GATE Development Orders. 4. GOAL AMOUNT OF NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVED OR RETAINED IN REQUIRED YARDS: The goal amount of Native Vegetation to be preserved in Required Yards in Phase Two is 5.15 acres (6.84 acres, the agreed amount of 15% of the existing Native Vegetation in Phase Two, less a credit of 1.69 acres as provided VII (A)(2) below). The goal amount of Native Vegetation to be reserved in Required Yards in Phase Three is 24.60 acres (26.03 acres, the agreed amount of 15% of the existing Native Vegetation in Phase Three, less a credit of 1.43 acres as provided VII (A)Q) below II. DEFINITIONS: CITY GATE DEVELOPMENT ORDERS shall mean the development orders approved by"Collier County for GITYG4T-E CITY GATE as follows: On December 13, 1988 the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County adopted Development of Regional Impact Development Order 88-2 authorizing the development of the property subject to the terms and conditions of that Development Order. At the same time as the adoption of Development Order 88-2, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 88-93, which rezoned the DRI Property from "A" -Agriculture to "PUD" -Planned Unit Development known as GIT"TE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK (the "PUD"). The PUD was amended b City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 63 Underlined text is added; ask-th text is deleted January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 2 OF 28) Ordinance 92014-42 adopted on November 9 20I0. The PUD was again amended b Ord inance #2018- , adopted on , 2018. The Development Order has been amended by Development Order Amendment 90-4 (adopted August 28, 1990), Development Order Amendment 95-2 (adopted February 21, 1995), Development Order Amendment 2000-02 (adopted May 23, 2000), and Development Order Amendment 2010-01 (adopted November 9, 2010). The Development Order has been again amended by Development Order Amendment 18- (adopted 201_82. EXOTIC & NUISANCE VEGETATION shall mean all Category I Invasive exotics, as listed by the Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. Exotics shall include, but are not limited to, all specifically listed exotics in Collier County LDC, Section 3.05.08 Requirement for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation. Nuisance vegetation shall include, but is not limited to, native vegetation that is locally invasive and which a qualified biologist deems inconsistent with the management objectives of the Required Yards. For example, Caesar's Weed (Urena lobata) and Grapevine (Muscadine rotundifolia). LAYWRECREATIONAL AREA does not have a yard requirement. Within the Lake / Recreational Area, at least one (1) acre will be replanted or retained native vegetation, which shall be credited toward this Required Yard's native vegetation retention/ reservation og al/requirement. LOT shall mean (i) a single area or parcel of land established by plat or (ii) two or more contiguous areas or parcels of land established by plat owned by the same person or entity that are jointly submitted for an Site Development Plan. NATIVE VEGETATION m-e-nas native he Fl r -.than speeies s aA-te-WoJg8d b)' aeeepted valid seientfie refeFeaeea identified iii Collier County 16DE; seetion . shall mean native southern Floridian species, as determined by accepted valid scientific references identified in the Collier County Land Development Code. YARDS shall mean a front yard of 50 feet; a rear yard of 50 feet; and a side yard of 25 feet of a Lot (ORDINANCE 88-93, Section III, 3.3.C; See also; DO 90-4, Section One, 4, d.5). As it relates to the Sports Com lex propeM. the Yard adjacent to White Lake Planned Unit Development) shall be (50) fifty -feet (ORDINANCE 2018- , Section 3.3 C. REQUIRED YARD means the Yards, less 20% for vehicular drives and parking spaces. This (20%) area will be identified in a Site Development Plan submittal. (ORDINANCE 88-93, Section III, 3.3.C; See also; DO 90-4, Section One, 4, d.5). A Required Yard may include open space areas consisting of 100% native vegetation, replanted and/or retained, which areas shall be designated on the Site Development Plan. MINIMUM ON SITE NATURAL AND /OR INSTALLED LANDSCAPE AREAS: For lots east of F.P. & L. easement the minimum of on site natural and/or installed Landscaped Areas City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 64 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; StniglkA ,.^^uo text is deleted January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 3 OF 28) will be 30% of gross site area The term "Landscape Area" is construed to include fountains, pools, ponds, and other water features, walks, terraces, courtyards and other pedestrian spaces when such non -botanical features, do not exceed 15% of the total required minimum on site natural and/or installed Landscaped Area. (ORDINANCE 88-93, Section III, 3.3.C) There is no required minimum of on site natural and/or installed Landscaped Ayes Area for the FPL easement. When a Lot includes the FPL easement, that portion encumbered by the FPL easement is not included in the calculation of the gross site area used to determine the minimum of on site natural and/or installed Landscaped Areas for that Lot. OPEN SPACE: Areas that are not occupied by buildings, imperyivuLparking areas, streets, driveways or loading areas and which may be equil22ed or developed with amenities designed to encourage the use and enjoyment of the space with active or_passivc uses by the general public. Open Space(s). with 100% retained and/or replanted native vegetation, may be used to supplement the native vegetation retained within Required Yards. PLAT SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS: Improvements (e.g. water and sewer facilities, storm drainage, street lighting, perimeter berm, etc.) associated with a plat and required by Collier County Ordinances and Resolutions ("Land Development Regulations"). PHASE TWO: means the 72.9 aer-v phase of GIT�Ai"Trn CITY GATE DRI for which construction plans and a plat submittal has been approved and recorded in Book 49, Paizes 97-100 inclusive of the Public Records of Collier County Florida. As used in this Plan, Phase Two does not and is not intended to mean or include the remaining -179.75 acres of the GITe TY ria CITY GATE DRI. PHASE THREE: means the phase of CITY GATE DRI for which construction plans and a Iat submittal has been approved and recorded in Book , Pages - inclusive of the Public Records of Collier County Florida. "SPLIT" PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER: means the landscape buffer along the north property line east of the FPL easement, as set forth in the updated diagram attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which is also Exhibit A-4 to the PUD. SPORTS COMPLEX PROJECT: means the area defined in the PUD and the Master Deyeloprnent_Plan Exhibit A-1 as the Sports Corrtplex tot and any abutting lot within the PUD, which is owned or leased by Collier County as a unified plan of development. In the event that the Sports Complex Project is jointly planned with a portion of the contiguous County owned property, along the eastern boundary, the following location of the native vegetation alternatives or combinations thereof shall apply; A. Within the Required Yards of the Sports Complex Project in the PUD, B. Within an open space area(s), on the Sports Complex Proiect in the PUD, with 100% native vegetation,� and C. Up to 50% of the required native. vegetation for the Sports Complex Project mgy be retained on the abutting County owned property, utilized for the expansion of the City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 65 PUDA-PL20170002330 Underlined text is added; at;6Gk-44;ae9 text is deleted January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 4 OF 28) Sports Complex within a unified site development plan, in accordance with the IIUD deviation found in Section II — Paragraph 2,7_= Deviation #21. III. PLAT SUBMITTAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUBDIVISION MPIROVEMENTS: AERIALS & MAPS: Plat submittals must include: A. An aerial identifying Native Trees within the yards of the Lots proposed in Plat submittal; B. A map identifying the species and location of Native Trees in the Yards of the lots proposed in the Plat submittal. This Map shall be based on the characteristics of the Florida Land Use, Covers and Forms Classifications System (FLUCFCS) code. C. Within sixty days of the issuance of a clearing permit for the right of way to be platted; the aerial and map mentioned above will be ground truthed and a revised ("ground truthed") aerial and FLUCFCS map must be submitted. The FLUCFCS Map shall delineate the Native Tree species as well as the percentage utilized within an area. and the range of DB14 sizes, Add itienal ly, an aerial (wM Height(BRu) of Q" eF mefe-l•eeate _-Within—ince Required mss'0�e 2. PROTECTION DURING PLAT SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS: During construction of plat subdivision improvements, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the destruction or damaging of Native Vegetation within a Required Yard shall be taken, including the installation of protective barriers. Native Vegetation within Required Yards that is destroyed or receives major damage must be replaced with Native Vegetation in accordance with the Replacement Standards as set forth herein, before occupancy or use of that Lot or Lot(s), unless approval for their removal has been granted under permit, A. During construction, no excess soil, additional fill, equipment, liquids, or construction debris shall be placed within a Yard, except necessary for the installation of utilities. B. No soil is to be removed from within the drip line of any vegetation that is to remain in its original location, except as necessary for the installation of utilities in the Required Yard. C. Required Yards, less portions designated on the plat for the installation of utilities, shall be protected during land alteration and construction activities by placing a barrier around the perimeter of the Right of Way along the area of vegetation to be retained and on either side of any drainage easements outside of the Right of Way. This barrier shall be highly visible and constructed of wood stakes set a maximum of ten (10) feet apart, at a height range of two (2) to four (4) feet, all covered continuously with an all-weather mesh material or equal type barrier method. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 66 January 25, 2018 Underlined text is added; text is deleted EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 5 OF 28) D. Protective barriers shall be installed and maintained for the period of time beginning with the commencement of subdivision improvements and ending with substantial completion of the subdivision improvements of that plat. E. All protective barriers shall be installed pursuant to the Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers, Division of Forestry, State of Florida or other methods approved by the County Manager or designee. Temporary Signage shall be placed around the Front Yard areas to identify and protect the Required Yard during construction. The signs shall be limited to a maximum height of four feet and a maximum size of two square feet. One sign will be placed in the front yard of each Lot. 3. NATIVE VEGETATION TO BE PRESERVED DURING INSTALLATION OF PLAT SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS: A Diameter -13reast1Ieight (DB1) of 9" o reg laeoecd-:rTthin preserved. A. All Native Vegetation, located within Yards, will be preserved unless it is necessary to remove such vegetation: i. to provide ingress and egress to the Lot; or ii. when grade changes, surface water drainage or utility installations will damage or destroy the vegetation. IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING/SITE IMPROVEMENTS: 1. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL: Each Site Development Plan submittal must contain: A-. An ia@i-ial idefit;6fifig,r A. An aerial identifying Native Trees within the Required Yards. B. A Map identifying the species and location of Native Trees in the Front Yards. This Map shall be based on the characteristics of the Florida Land Use, Covers and Forms Classifications System (FLUCFCS) code. The Map shall delineate the Native Tree species as well as the percentage utilized within an area. This map shall also identify the location of golden polypody ferns and butterfly orchids, if any, on the property submitted in the SDP. Golden polypody ferns and butterfly orchids shall be relocated to an appropriate place within the Required Yard. If no appropriate place can be found within the required yard, the golden polypody ferns and butterfly orchids may be relocated to the Lake/Recreational Parcel and/or existing Required Yards. 2. WHAT MUST BE RETAINED IN REQUIRED YARDS: A. All -ether Native Vegetation, located within Required Yards, will be conserved unless it is necessary to remove such vegetation: City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 67 January 25, 2018 Underlined text is added; S#r5k44Km►g# text is deleted EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 6 OF 28) 1. to provide ingress and egress to the Lot; or 2.. when grade changes, surface water drainage or utility installations will damage or destroy the vegetation; or 3. when the permitted use of 20% of the yard for vehicular drives and parking spaces will damage or destroy the vegetation. B. Phase Two/Three Blend: In the instance where lots from Phase Two and Three are replatted together for future development, the native vegetation requirement for those combined lots shall be provided based on the location of each property within Exhibit «H„ 3. PROTECTION DURING SITE DEVELOPMENT / CONSTRUCTION: During construction, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the destruction or damaging of Native Vegetation shall be taken, including the installation of protective barriers. Native Vegetation within Required Yards that is destroyed or receives major damage must be replaced by Native Vegetation in accordance with the Replacement Standards as set forth herein, before occupancy or use, unless approval for their removal has been granted under permit. A. During construction, no excess soil, additional fill, equipment, liquids, or construction debris shall be placed within the Required Yard, except necessary for the installation of utilities and additional supplemental native vegetation within the Required Yard. B. No attachments or wires, other than those of a protective or nondamaging nature, shall be attached to any vegetation within a Required Yard during construction. C. No soil is to be removed from within the drip line of any vegetation that is to remain in its original location, except necessary for the installation of utilities in the Required Yard. D. Required Yards, not already disturbed at the time of SDP, shall be protected during land alteration and construction activities by placing a continuous barrier around the perimeter of the area of vegetation to be retained. This barrier shall be highly visible and constructed of wood stakes set a maximum of ten (10) feet apart, at a height range of two (2) to four (4) feet, all covered continuously with an all-weather mesh material or equal type barrier method. E. Protective barriers shall be installed and maintained for the period of time beginning with the commencement of building operations on a site, and ending with the completion of that construction work on the site. All protective barriers shall be installed pursuant to the Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers, Division of Forestry, State of Florida or other methods approved by the County Manager or designee. Temporary Signage shall be placed around the Required Yard areas to identify and protect the Required Yard during construction. The signs shall be limited to a maximum height of four feet and a maximum size of two square feet. One sign will be placed in the front yard, in the rear yard, and in each side yard. There shall also be a sign on both sides of the access through the front yard. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 88 Underlined text is added; Stq+sk-th ugb text is deleted EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 7 OF 28) V. REPLACEMENT STANDARDS: If Native Vegetation re aired to be preserved within a Required Yard is damaged or destroyed during site development, building or maintenance, the Native Vegetation lost must be replaced in accordance with the following standards: A. Minimum replacement planting standards: 1. The replacement of Native Trees must be with Replacement Trees that are of sufficient size and quantity to replace the DBH inches removed. 2.. Each replacement tree shall be Florida grade No. 1 or better as graded by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service. 3. All replacement trees shall be nursery grown, containerized and be a minimum of 10 feet in height. 4. Replacement trees shall have a guarantee of 80 percent survivability for a period of no less than three years. 5. Control of invasion of exotic vegetation (those species defined as exotic vegetation by the Collier County Land Development Code) shall be as provided in the Exotic Vegetation Removal Plan attached herewith as Exhibit "B". B. The quantity and identification of the species of Native Trees that were removed from a Required Yard will be presumed to be as those identified on the Aerials and Maps provided at the time of Plat, provided conditions within the Required Yard have not changed. If conditions within a Required Yard change so that the condition of the existing Native Trees deteriorates, the type of replacement Native Trees may be change to Native Trees more suitable to the changed condition as determined by a qualified biologist. C. Location of Planting Replacement Vegetation: 1. Each replacement tree will be replanted in the portion of the Required Yard in which the Native Tree was seriously damaged or destroyed. 2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, replacement trees shall not be planted in utility easements. Natiye Tis were ..,..damaged „_ desir eyed : platted „F 14Y easements must be replaead outside A -f thi-4 3. Replacement locations for Native Trees removed from utility easements in Required Yards shall be selected in the following manner, in descending order of priority: a. A location in the immediately vicinity to the native tree's original location, if practical; b. Elsewhere in the Required Yard, if a suitable planting location exists that meets the minimum required distances from existing Canopy Trees; or c. Elsewhere on the Lot. D. The understory and groundcover vegetation shall be replaced to the area from which Native Trees were seriously damaged or destroyed, including easements. The selection of plants shall be based on the characteristics of the Florida Land Use, Covers and Forms Classifications System (FLUCFCS) code. The exact number and type of species required will be based on the Replacement Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "C". E. The timing of installation of replacement plantings will be any time prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of completion. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 69 Underlined text is added; 91nick-throng text is deleted EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 8 OF 28) VI. REQUIRED YARD USES, SETBACKS AND MAINTENANCE: A. ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN REQUIRED YARD AREAS. 1. Storm Water Management shall be permitted in Required Yards, provided that a sedimentation catch basin, or equivalent pretreatment system, is employed at all discharge points of storm water into Required Yards; 2. Utility Easements are permitted in Required Yards; 3. Fences and walls are permitted along the perimeter of any Required Yard area; 4.. Signs, identifying the business/tenant(s), are permitted in Front Required Yards but must be proximate to entries drives and, if possible and practical, located in a utility easement; and 5. Benches are permitted in the Required Yard.; and 6. Per the recorded DCA (O.R. Book(s), 451.7 & 5168, Pages,640 & 3989). the provision and or construction of right turns lanes will not result in the loss of any developable area on lots affected. The setback/yard shall be measured from the adjacent property line to any right-of-way and not the right-of-way easement required for each turn lane. The required percentage of the required yard for each affected lot shall not change as noted above. B. REQUIRED SETBACKS TO REQUIRED YARDS. 1. All principal structures shall have no setback from the boundary of any Required Yard. 2. Parking lots and site alterations associated with parking lots shall have no setback from Required Yards. (DO 88-93, Section III, 3.3.C) 3.r. Wetland Prese , e Setbaeks (DO 88 93, --e-6— !I!, 3.3L). Nn_e,._ilding eles C. GENERAL MAINTENANCE. 1. Trees, including sabal palm, may be pruned of dead or dying branches\fronds. 2. Native vegetation adjacent to a boundary of the Required Yard may be pruned to prevent its growth into and/or over parking areas or buildings. If a tree within 10' of a boundary of the Required Yard continually requires pruning to prevent its growth into and/or over parking areas or buildings, it may be replaced with another native tree species that is more compatible with the proximity of parking area or building. 3. All required yards shall be kept free of refuse, debris, and exotic or nuisance vegetation. D. PROTECTIVE COVENANTS. The Maintenance Responsibility of all Required Yards shall be the Master Property Owners' Association or a Community Development District. Said Association or District shall have the authority to enforce violations, by lien and/or tax assessment, and to secure compliance of this Plan, more specifically but not limited to the requirement to replace damaged or destroyed Native Vegetation within a Required Yard with Native Vegetation as set forth in the Replacement Standards. Further, the Association or District shall have the authority and City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 70 January 25, 2018 �2nderlined text is added; &FG.' -+. m, -G p text is deleted EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 9 OF 28) responsibility to install replacement Native Vegetation on a Required Yard for violations of this Plan. The Association or District as well as the owner shall be responsible for the continued maintenance and upkeep of all replaced native vegetation so as to present a healthy plant in a condition representative of the species. Tree and Palm staking shall be removed between six and 12 months after installation. The Association or District shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance to prohibit the establishment of prohibited exotic species. Any replacement vegetation shall be replaced within 30 days of their demise and/or removal. E. COUNTY INSPECTIONS. The Required Yards shall be completed and approved for a specific Lot prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Prior to preliminary acceptance of the required subdivision improvements for a Phase or Plat, the Yards may be inspected to verify compliance with this Plan. VII SPECIFIC RULES: A. MAIN GOLDEN GATE CANAL LOTS: Those lots adjacent to Unit 28 of Golden Gate Estates or a replat thereof and the Canal Easement for the Main Golden Gate Canal: 1. PRIOR CLEARING: The Developer; the Property Owner's Association or any future property owner are not required to replant Native Vegetation on any portions of Yards that were cleared by Collier County or Collier County's contractor/agent prior to the date of this Plan. This does not obviate Developer's obligation to install any perimeter landscape buffer required by the Git=}gate CITY GATE DRI within any portion of Yards that have been cleared prior to the date of this Plan. 2. NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATIONS: In any calculation to determine whether the amount of Native Vegetation retained in Required Yards on Lots in the plat of a subdivision phase is sufficient, the total amount of Native Vegetation to be retained in that phase shall be reduced by an amount equal to sixty percent (60%) of the portion of lots contained in that phase that were cleared by Collier County or Collier County's contractor/agent prior to the date of this plan. The Developer shall not be required to replant or recreate native vegetation in any portion of this area. The agreed amount of land cleared in Phase Two is 2.81 acres; therefore the total amount of Native Vegetation to be retained in this Phase is reduced by 1.69 acres. The agreed amount of remaining land cleared is 2.38 acres. 3. °++SPLIT" LANDSCAPE BUFFER: The Developer agrees that all the vegetation used for the split perimeter landscape buffer will be native but shall not be required to meet the Replacement Standards or Recreation Standards. B. FPL EASEMENT LOTS: Those Lots adjacent to the 170' wide Florida Power & Light easement. I. SETBACK: There is no setback from the 170' wide Florida Power & Light easement. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 71 „G Underlined text is added; .c+Rk_+ham,. ,g text is deleted EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 10 OF 28) VIII EXHIBITS OF PLAN: Attached hereto are Exhibits "A — H", Attached hereto as composite Exhibit "D" are three examples of site plans that are consistent with and compatible with this Plan. Exhibit "E", Exhibit "F" and Exhibit "G" provide the Native Vegetation calculations for the plats of Phase Two and. Phase Three, respectively. In the instance where lots from Phase Two and Three are replatted together for future development, the native vegetation me uirement for those combined lots shall be calculated based on the location of each property, as provided in Exhibit "H". City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 72 January 25, 2018 Underlined text is added; &Fur* hFew 9 text is deleted EXIST. COUNTY WELLFIELD ACCESS ROAD BAHIA SOD 31 0 10 20 Sa SCALE IN FEET ' . --0 --d. Sub 201 Iip. Flee 34104 P.239A34AMO F:239434.6 so' 10 MODIFIES£ EE C VLA 113LJL3R 45 vu 91 10' MODIFIED TYPE C BUFFER LANDSCAPE 20' UTILITY EASEMENT RuFFER GOLDEN GATE CANAL I PROPERTY LINE m m m EXISTING GRADE EXIST. COUNTY WELLFIELD ACCESS ROAD PROPERTY LINE 10' SPLIT NORTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER La Lg L$ LB. - �- + M `fes � `�• �`•• •.'; 10' SPLIT SOUTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER LB . I L. PBOJECY. SHEET TIRE . EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 11 OF 28) REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 10' SPLIT NORTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER: « TREES PLANTED ON 30' CENTERS (10' HEIGHT) « PINE STRAWBNULCH AT BASE OF TREES •• HEDGE ON 4' CENTER (6' HEIGHT) •• RANDOM GROUPS OF NATIVE GRASSES WITH PINE STRAW/MULCH REQUIRED LANDSCAPING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 10' SPLIT SOUTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER « TREES PLANTED ON 30' CENTERS (10' HEIGHT) 46' SOUTH OF PL •• PINE STRAW/MULCH AT BASE OF TREES •• RANDOM GROUPS OF NATIVE GRASSES WITH PINE STRAWIMULCH CUs. DATE- .... r4a, N0 12-2017 CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK MPUD BS0NWN,LLC &CGO 1DEaKiNEGB': 159 SOUTH MAIN STREET JAW SUTIE SBD DRAWN BY: AKRON, OHIO 41309 JAW {0)99&&M CHECKED BY: CROSS SECTION 1R0,�N0_ JITFLxNF7W.oF Na 7M§ �wr*�■+n«.E 14173M EXHIBIT Z:\.Act;se Fro:ecFS C\:,jtf n -rile 77- 0 R:eEn inecr;n \22 - �I ;"--. 1 :r C:. (.. _ - 9 5 :JDA=;DVi P.NW.:I,;F.SE.T.d1vc :.GG %C-cEr*) jen:x.woohword ,:or. Dss. 2018 - 72c+i r E�BIT A (EXHIBIT A-4 WITHIN THE PUD) EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 12 OF 28) EXHIBIT B EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL PLAN A. All Category I Exotics, as defined in the latest exotic plant list published by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, must be removed from the entire platted phase of development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a plat submittal includes a tract that must be re -platted, then Exotic will be removed from that tract in conjunction with the re -plat. B. Exotics within the yard shall be physically removed, or the tree cut down to grade and the stump treated. The base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. C. Exotics in a yard may not be "treated in place". D. Control of exotics shall be implemented on a yearly basis to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. I . Prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the following locations, and within the following timeframes: a. From all rights-of-way and easements prior to preliminary acceptance of each phase of the required subdivision improvements. b. From an entire building site prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for that building. C. From property proposing any enlargement of existing interior floor space, paved parking area, or substantial site improvements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2. Herbicides utilized in the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall have been approved by the.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. 3. Exotic vegetation maintenance plan. Annual plans, which require prohibited exotic vegetation removal and describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. This maintenance plan shall be implemented on a yearly basis. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 74 January 25, 2018 Underlined text is added; text is deleted EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 13 OF 28) EXHIBIT C SHRUB LAYER AND GROUND COVER REPLACEMENT PLAN TREES Tree re uirements are provided for in Required Yard Plana e 7 of 28. An exam le of tree re lacement would be removal of one 1 8 -inch DBH pine tree may be renlacedf�(4) 2 -inch DBH pine trees or any combination of pine trees that total the removed DBH. SHRUBS Replacement Shrubs within Required Yard Easements: The shrub layer is proposed for planting on 20' centers. The shrubs will be appropriately clustered throughout the Required Yard to mimic natural conditions. Replacement shrubs will meet all standards for restoration and will be a minimum of 3 gallon in size, graded Florida Number 1 or better. Replacement Shrubs within all other portions of Required Yards: The shrub layer is proposed for planting on 5' centers. The shrubs will be appropriately clustered throughout the Required Yard to mimic natural conditions. Replacement shrubs will meet all standards for restoration and will be a minimum of 7 gallon in size, graded Florida Number 1 or better. FLUCFCS 411 & FLUCFCS 321: Based on vegetation typical of a pine flatwoods and palmetto prairie communities, the species of shrubs planted will selected from the table below, with at least 3 species utilized: January 25, 2018 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Callicarpa Americana beautyberry Serenoa repens saw palmetto Myrica cerifera wax myrtle Myrsinefloridana myrsine Ilex glabra gallberry/inkberry Rhus copallinum winged sumac FLUCFCS 427: Based on vegetation typical of an oak community, the species of shrubs planted will selected from the table below, with at least 3 species utilized: January 25, 2018 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Callicarpa Americana beautyberry Serenoa repens saw palmetto Zamia pumila coontie Ilex glabra gallberry/inkberry Rhus copallinum winged sumac City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 75 Underlined text is added; ask-tiFawo text is deleted January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 14 OF 28) EXHIBIT C SHRUB LAYER AND GROUND COVER REPLACEMENT PLAN CONTINUED Ground Cover The, herbaceous layer is proposed for planting on 5' centers. The plants will be appropriately clustered throughout the planting area to mimic natural conditions. Replacement plants will meet all standards for restoration and will be a minimum of bare root in size, graded Florida Number 1 or better. FLUCFCS 411 & FLUCFCS 321: Based on vegetation typical of a pine flatwoods and palmetto prairie communities, the species of herbaceous groundcover planted will picked from the table below, with at least 3 species utilized: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Coreopsis spp, Tickseed Liatris gracilis blazing star Panicum virgialum switchgrass Saccharum giganteum giant plumegrass Spartina bakeri sand cordgrass Tripsacum dactyloides Fakahatchee grass Piloblephis rigida Florida pennyroyal Aristida spp wire grass FLUCFCS 427: Based on vegetation typical of an oak community, the species of herbaceous groundcover planted will picked from the table below, with at least 3 species utilized: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Coreopsis spp. Tickseed Liatris gracilis blazing star Panicum virgiatum switchgrass Piloblephis rigida Florida pennyroyal Aristida spp wire grass General Notes: 1. Specific species chosen from the above lists will be subject to nursery availability. Substitutions of similar species may be made. 2. Individual plants may be grouped or "clumped" to more accurately mimic natural conditions. 3. All plants will be graded Florida Number 1 or better. 4. This plan may be modified to allow for changing conditions. Should conditions within a required yard change so that the condition of the existing native vegetation deteriorates, the above lists of native species may be amended to add native plants more suitable to the changed condition. As an example, if a saw palmetto is destroyed within a Required Yard but the duration of hydro -period has increased to the point that a replacement saw palmetto may not survive, then it may be replaced with a more water tolerant native species. City Gate Commerce Park MPUD 78 PUDA-PL20170002330 � Underlined text is added; � text is deleted January 25, 2018 COMPOSITE EXHIBIT D City Gate Commerce Park MPUD PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 15 OF 28) SDP EXA MPL E1 GOLDEN CATE CANAL N01E LAND USE IS 100K OFFICE -WAGE BUFFER EASEMENT SEMENT LAND USE MATRIX PHASE TWO LOTS 2&3 TOTAL S17E 4.01 AC BLDG 1.17 AC (23X') ® PA4EAIEJYT 1.16 AC (29K) im NATURAL /LANDSCAPE (PUD 3.3.D) CALC 1.37 AC (345) ® CC URL 17ES RAW WA7ER EAS9WiDV7* 0.31 AC (BXV EXAMPLE- PHASE TWO LOTS 2 & 3 n YARD ANALYSIS REQUIRED YARD 1.38 AC ® PRONDED YARD 1.46 AC ® CC U77U71ES RAW WATER EASEAIE]VT R31 AC ® 07HER U71UTY EASEa MT (U.E) Q 17 AC ® REWAINDER OF REAR YARD Q45 AC l Ri3fANVDER Q5J AC EXAMPLE- PHASE TWO LOTS 2 & 3 n U ca PROPOSED 51,000 - - - < <=�• �. =:. -�" - - fit'-zVal ,' - v da ���Yfi;}���:�R��iL�i���at--,i��•-�-�i�i ��:-_ - .'�IY�e�.. �`i-i.'�3': �_- ����1���;��� mom ��.a • � - -•:+-' • �:�"' P �•r _ __ -- -1 �.�r, r- - .:,_,ate.:: -.'-•r_ 'I� �4�; may. a.-�� S�.. -r. -: f�7�F-`,:: ' iii-:-.. - - - - v yE. - _ - — - _ Ws - �,. was c - _ - _ - r. _T =r - In -s:. I:;J' � ---- - — } Fw _ `Sec:, :��``..��.-....'�� I F: :ly Ft NMI - _- - -_ -- i 1 _ �. _€. �_. - ".� �,_� � k-� .l;v,1�?I� ;f E ! -'R - t'i -- c+� err a _ F js� gat RE Lz AK Im — _ MPF -Fo 1w.-- - -_- - -- --c: I. r,--- ....., � �..� _.... _.."G ��.• ,air= _ �J . ...... _� . II ._t r � i� � ...... — - - -- - — — �f'`"-= c — - - _'�—;_. .... €' a .� ?- ix � -- _--- - ...i _—_ I��- -- - - �'� =�. _ ■:1 �-� �:� �.- 1� t _. _= �::-rt=r] VMS ppppyy } IFn �__ c� s 71 ._ _ —— —_ — — — _ - , r — .- 1� =3 _ ,.:: �• ,e , -b, ., _�_,. _ .Jlr :��r�-c'tL'--_:.c__.. .. ...,� s �i;-T�_I�-_ " •�a�oti- -`-= _ "k=� �. ##+!lilt♦iii .;;_�._' ,. - i!+•••#ill♦ i+iii##il#il =: •- f� •; - �•li##ill! iti#•#ltl+♦� '#!l*�*tel**�+�♦�*!#l!#♦� � _ _ r ��_ _`'� ,ii`ii+iiillillllil!♦#` .•' � - �. Jtii##tlllii . w. • .ter � - ♦iiiiiiiilii :::�•-.._• •��♦ , ►ilii##1#+il� ._ .. _„ ►!!•i•ii#lll•:,...-_--�.----,-- :' -.--- - - --:,.mss y=: �:._�.•, - • til##1##1+++--_:�-.:;_' -.--'-: _ .- +ll+i+i+ittltlllil+gala- � �iiil#li;li♦+li+ililli!* ��:' _ -:--' .` - - - _ _ ; . :-; ►llllllll#rill#li#lllll� � r - - - _ - - - - _ - - - `!*ll++iiiiilill*ltiit•� . _ ,. - _ _ = • • 1##tllil+#1##fi+ti*!#ilk � :. ' _ ., . ►#ill!iii#i# ;'..'.:-_.::- . ::::• : '. -• �� `: ' ; -''; -- �• is*!+i#pis •� = -- Ali♦•iill#llll;ilir+iiia `�'�y: �" r iiiii!•++iiia. , i♦iii!#i*til � •.;t. ►till♦l•♦•tip-`-.,;r _ �,, -::' It+ #J+iililill#iiiilli!« - �tititlii*t!*#i#1++il** - _ - - - �`� � • -� FILVI IVA IVA MA , 1#11 MA, 114 . .. A WA PROPOSED 41,100 so I *A I M WK I I MA, FA MA A 1 4 W W M FT BUILDING WA, ►MA, MA WA :14 r IM M, ME *f* mal QW, MAN FA WA q MEMO, ME INS M OR Z:SM"1p pp a AP PROPOSED 4 1, 100 SO Ll FT BUILDING I F .... ... ... ..... ... ... ... .r . .... j;4 SV, rX 9. 1p FILVI IVA IVA MA , 1#11 MA, 114 . .. A WA PROPOSED 41,100 so I *A I M WK I I MA, FA MA A 1 4 W W M FT BUILDING WA, ►MA, MA WA :14 r IM M, ME *f* mal QW, MAN FA WA q MEMO, ME INS M OR Z:SM"1p pp a .: � ...I-- I' � ' - _ � �i1i N � FBF . - r .s .��• . �A�gpq�ypjll;I ray �::: ..T.... G pis. i �� �NgA� 1:4T a '; a' ,w,.�' :_�„ Will. ,I I 1' .... _ J.� 1 gip:- ' i ��� '�'� i• I �j I` � r a III ,:.:. - � 1!'+.:���� •.1.. �:;,i:j;;;��;�� .. '-�:::., ; _ - - "E�'�`-'�• �1 I' _ AliHIS , @@ I. 11; ; ,r ,�a�,�y,►+I� BIW 1 N!I p ?:_ , 1 N . ��dii�',':iix,I q�lv'���'v6a �i 1 J,mNIIMm"r 1!i illl r � II' ,16 i,.,�ry; GIS >nl � >�•• � '� �- 4► � � �'' �iA, JIUI �• U la"'SCO Ai i1►�N+'! . I.. .11 a � 1. �! � �► � +7� . � � � � � ,, I �,.;1:.!��:�I.;;�:!�I!!.�;!I.,I,�,..,,,,;�!;.! :;. .... ,., ......:. �� :', •.r .. ' i a'�. i ::.. I:.i. NO111 i!:. . �. ... ..I...... ...: .1..11. - ^'W "EF: -I til: '� ... i. I...I i::.:....i i':::1':Ii1 >:.- i..:� . .. - �A. $ �^ 1< .' : _:al.' 9�: i.i.. ii................I .. I.. ...II .i .� a I.�.: I.. ,ypa N,I......p. . .. "� N!.. I. - k I I i ... i.. q;: � :..:. �:•�c:..��i .nil!. 1::.1. �,,. .;. ; r;'� :.i � � i.. a. .I... ....... ..-:!!I:: - .. �. n:o•�..II . o.. .i .. i... • •11.:...1.,1 ...:. •:.i...i.,i. ,.. 1 1 u1. I..I..II w ..n 1. _ 5. ..4 -0!1 . III.i n.l.. I 1, .I. .1.1 I � 1x4 .1. I 11.:.....N��! .1!:: 1......111 II .11.,.1. ...�.... .... I ..,... 111::11:. K:- pp.L. p I� .. p... .......1.11. .. 11.1 . �. . :,.:1 :::.e .: •: lI �.7 w� ..-, ., !!!,I •. , I ., I I � .i �.....i .......... �.�... . i ...... gill'''' d li _.k I. 11..,.._ b1.,.11....1......1.::...i.::..:..!4...i...,1.,, I'- '• :... ,..: 1,.!1.71... i1 .,:, _.' a _ I.II.II a!!i r21111 .�. ,..:� it i 1111 "Ili �1.-11:.1:.:1..411::..4: .''� � ... I. ,. 1 .... �.y.i.... 1 .......... ...... .I ���: 11. :Ir del . b. r a . �� ? ... r:=. _ :_ .l ..., ...,.« , .... . . 1..a • . ���.1!.: •. �..! �, . .,;. rr lI ."! .. •� �. �` � "�-'� !lid. :1 7. i .'�!IIr ail.: r` J 1,:!:.;111,1 F ;! ! 4.. ,!................::.:................�.. ;r,!.:.:; ��.. 111 WR 'W ... 1 Ro .I - �r — if AP AT X � � �I.I .1 II 1.1 . �..�� 1. _.1..11..x.: �...:......:.�;. ..I�.11 ;.J' 11 � � .11.....11 ' .:. 1 ' �:1 "....� ................... _ ....... 1.... 1. :.:.., i !iIIJ �ia' c1II �.: fib° '� O 'n i .. 1.119...... .:II,.,1 _. , .. ., ...1... . .1I.I lll..,......c...._ Y' � � �. �� . , �' _ � 1..111.. 1.1111.1 I .. _ tll '�y.-- .,i f �N11 Illi �� - ... _ � LI ' .i r - -- _y 9 j G'I Nh..' r = +' 1jl!1111u'� role m N JK­ yWOW + C .�".0. y '11.. ' 111!1yy .�..� . � : , -ilia ' 4 7;. ..!9i! _ .41;1. , ...y5 f:�1 i1� ''.. II:....1'..:.. l�y,� +� �' � ;�' �; t 9' !.'Gr�,��II' !: , � _•�Ill,i:;l:�l�lr"= '�T �T�d 1, 1 vft ' �W 1i ill p Il'1 - V. x `l 1 1 Yi Lam:' .as •I!!1 11111 ii .:'I-i Flo i= is i . 1 • ' " ` ' '. +" aa11 'nor •r s '. : H. 7 IIS: #- ':iqr I:''i...' F: :;1 :'I'.:'.!i" i. a• .I S. - :@ - 7{br 1�;alllu9 116E 9 I! = r tis. 3" _IJ �►. �!.:.1. 14 . ....!I,:' Ear _ _ -':} ������•� ��.� iii'II��r;:� 9111anl�i�I a��' 'u1 ,�'• 1 'fid .! ►y��►" l:^ ,:. a= .114;1" g �' �..yi„Y• �'' � 4 �. 1'a;;IJlJlijlli. !�l{a!INll� 1. . -ire. �!I: i 7.« Il •' �;-^'.=3; ` a'���y�'I ,"I' � i '�: � �':� � •. V GV' �' '� �� '�'. a�' � .. BE - r F , K. I a� .�� � i� 4.1 : l '1 - . .�.� �n 1� 1 . 1. _ �. • r t. P h r G '� � +4� �' �" •�'''�' : -� 1;� jM1 �I�1is>��;�ra' �J�'�'a �"''hl� �r OR i...,. ^'p4,'1::1` 1 :;p _ J• .?s i"',r:`i'. ' , Ti '►' � !gid:' �� pmaw-,�mlwniel w h.:. � Na; P !i. �- ,�� .: _�'s' 11� � f � • :' �_ �,. .. lad1 1' q�. h' Vii, _� • _ •:.;i..:,L �11' I�%INlll�ry;n�l:- Iql; _ Ih .hi 4rrP .. n:T..11ip - �'wm• ..' .. i4in 16' ,`sTl�". ,'1•I 1 Ru I. tlIhJ6 4' 1� 1 �. �.liefm:..@.: •'r^ - hRFI lNpl'm 'wao .la; - -:r. II •G; . ' R } _ 'aW :.JL r�. -.� JJ Im�WIRima" pp ,i . ..' ', y' +Ih^�•u..•r a'��5 -iJ�}• ." - _ _ "l-�� � ..: -. � _ `�°i"'�:..�,a�1..� __ � �a'.I ` ; i:,;. � I..�1• ,� 1 �� .I. m!_u,;;o� ii . ry.. a , •ry ry1 y4wJ.i - K '��` -- f+?,i • ;1111!., '; a',�ryi .I �' j1 �1 ., ., �A: I .N.. '� - p 114111 AT ! 11!1j. �� y.��� , ! -.1 ' �' �N 1 w".. ml.. ! m m11111 � ' . w�!�1 !:1! -.:.1:!:��i!I!,::::>, '•� w: $ . 1 . � -_ _ •:..,. 1 ... 11 ;.......:.. :Ir,::.�_._ . F�� �.;1's.�,t�,�J.11r•,�I � �, u ... 1' ..:' a:�1�9!m: -'�pll � • C;i�; rp:,.. ,+w:; 11:1:_1F! m • "N',.:u,�"i .... .... ...1E '-� i.-..:,-.." s� �,:' .. 1.•. ..1114 �'a:i. !.T� !.. ter;;;; 1 1 , - •. ;1': _ �_• .'- -- �' .. _ - 111':.' 1 , ....i''� ' .. ;..:� , .,... N . .1'11• , _j1i�nli�1'. _ stili r ^ • v P.. -_....-,,,..AL1. P. X N gaff R , W06A�Mi:!,W � Fmiu IMPF ON . ... ..... ­E� 4 4f L? F -Iff ......... .... ...... .... Qn- 1.5 U. —r E t6 rr�-U I _Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % W. A Ql­ 5E 5 FE.g Rit CC - Til IL -.21 -ANK& ` gT L dr �J7 M—_tipJr. Qm J. ip A, Sir rE ba sly _gym=... EXHIBIT A-6 (PAGE 24 OF 28) COMPOSITE EXHIBIT D "KEY TO LOTS" 1 COLLIER COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOTS 2 & 3 SDP EXAMPLE #1 2 1 3 it 12 y 13 14 15 16 $' 17 15'{yE BD' RAN 10 8 1 7 LOTS 15,16,17 SDP EXAMPLE #2 ti,j 1% �y0 � 18 19 20 Go �;ity fiate Commeroe Park MPUD 86 PUDA-PL20170002330 January 25, 2018 EXHIBIT D, PG 10 OF 10 5 1S DE LOTS 7,8,9, 10 SDP EXAMPLE #3 6 ,S DE N w Ob PHASE TM u PHASE NATIVE VEGETATION ONE REQUIREWENTS ++++++,i. + + + + ++++++++ PHASE !;„ , I + + + + ! TWO + + + + + + 4 !� ++ ++++ ++++ CTTCAREMVE I+ ++++++++ +++ I { + + + + + + + + 1 + + + + + + + + + + +++++ PHASE ++ �¢ + J++ +++ ONE + + + + • I I I -- lJ «_ •. __i �•, PHASETNO PFIASE NATIVE VEGETATION ONE REQUIFREMENTS CL saue w rTir -- -- - - PHASE TAX) NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS PHASE THREE NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIRBAENTS PHASE THREE NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS PHASE THREE LEGEND REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION FOR PHASE ONE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN REQUIRED YARD PLAN ®REQUIREDNATIVE VEGETATION FOR PHASE TWO = 5.15 ACRES REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION FOR PHASE THREE= 24.59 AC. �zrQ g- a=IE H m 2 = OW Qw f m w= wa >') �Z W 72 dN W 2j 6 W K EXHIBrr E LEGEND PHASE TWO NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION L L g PHASE TWO NATIVE VEGETATION �36 y tz ir I rc � i z CALCULATION PER ACRE W oa ® NON-NATIVE VEGETAnON WITHIN TOTAL PHASE TWO ACREAGE = 72.90 AC. I-1 PHASE TWO MY GATE (27.30 AC) TOTAL NON-NATIVE VEGETATION = 27.30 AC_ TOTAL PHASE TWO ACREAGE 72.90 AC. WE�T�� 411KEI I.15 TRACT R OMITTED' 10.88 AC. -•- - •- PHASE TWO LOT LINE TOTAL NATIVE VEGETATION' = 45.60 AC. 15% OF NATIVE VEGETATION (LDC 3.05.07.6) = 45.60 AC ' 0.15 = 6.84 AC. TOTAL DEVELOPABLE PHASE 1R GENERAL NOTES: 'NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION BASED ON PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED 2004 FLUCCS TWO ACREAGE = 62.02 AC_ CLEARING CREDIT = 1.69 AC. TOTAL REQUIRED NATIVE 5.15/62.02 1. TOTAL CITY GATE PUD (291.55AC.) - (OR 4532 PG 524;OR 4751 PG 3112) VEGETATION PER ACRE - 0.083 AC. PHASE THREE 082 70 AC.) - PHASE ONE TOTAL REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION = 6.84 AC -1.69 AC = 5.15 AC.-TIGHTOF V Ar TRACT {36.45 AC. y - YHASE Two (72.90 AC.) 0.083 AC OF NATIVE 2. NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION VEGETATION REQUIRED BASED ON PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND PER 1 ACRE OF APPROVED 2004 FLUCCS DEVELOPABLE LAND WITHIN PH/SE7YA7 PHASE TWO PHASE TWO NATIVE VEGETATION NATIVE VEGETATION IS REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS 1 GOLDEN GATE CANAL r ERN NET eC1. I PHASE TWO t* NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS AV nv +11 113.00 +11 53.08 +11 •T1NE2 3.4$ -All os+ HE3 L L g o II a w Y I wgg �36 y tz ir I rc � i z W oa jj�o 2 FQ�Q U O I-1 ul � +bN{�1U- z i 735 WE�T�� 411KEI I.15 tri N +�QI 663 3 1R N� I.-, 'NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION BASED ON PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED 2004 FLUCCS I EXHIBIT F LEGEND PHASE THREE NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION PHASE TWO NATIVE VEGETATION NON-NATIVE VEGETATION TOTAL PHASE THREE ACREAGE _ 182.20 AC. CALCULATION PER ACRE 1203 WITHIN PHASE THREE CITY TOTAL PHASE THREE ACREAGE = 182.20 AC. GATE (8.74 AC.) TOTAL NON-NATIVE VEGETATION = - 8.74 AC. TRACT R AND RL OMITTED' = 20.93 AC. ...... - •- PHASE TWO LOT LINE/ TOTAL NATIVE VEGETATION' = 173.46 AC. TOTAL DEVELOPABLE PHASE FUTURE PHASE THREE 15% OF NATIVE VEGETATION (LDC 3.05.07.8) - 173.46 AC . 0.15 = 26.02 AC, THREE ACREAGE 161.27 AC. GENERAL NOTES: CLEARING CREDIT = 1.43 AC. TOTAL REQUIRED NATIVE 24.59 1. TOTAL CITY GATE PUD (291.55 AC.) -PHASE (OR 4532 PG 524;OR 4751 PG 3112) 3.88 6 1.0 ACRE CREDIT FOR RL TRACT 1.00 Two (72.90 AC-) - PHASE ONE (3x_45 AC.) = TOTAL REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION - 26.02 AC - 1.43 AC = 24.59 AC. TOTAL REQ. NATIVE VEGETATION PHASE THREE (182.20 AC.) WITHIN PHASE THREE LOTS = 23.59 2. NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION BASED 073 TOTAL REQUIRED NATIVE 23.59/161.27 ON PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND 424 VEGETATION PER ACRE = 0.146 AC. APPROVED 2004 FLUCCS RIGHT OF WAY AND WO WGREATIONAL TRACT 11�I PHASE THREE J kil�__. �•-----i NATIVE VEGETATION 411 Ise u 424-E4 1 32 GATE CANAL 422 1.47 jj 427 0.67 321 Z7.00 PHASE THREE 411 113.00 0.146 AC OF NATIVE 411 VEGETATION REQUIRED 09° PER 1 ACRE OF DEVELOPABLE LAND WITHIN 411 PHASE THREE ss oe 611H.E3 3 22 4T1H{-1 3.917 Z 411e,•El 1,15 mei 1039 N 424l4 -E4 V 1 32 a ,� w PHASE THREE� N lrfr N NATIVE VEGETATION IL'O��- M1REQUIREMENTS 1� 'NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION BASED QN am---------- -- PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED 2004 FLUCCS E81T G I 0 w 424 0 � 1203 SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL 0Z VATERTREATMENTP[AHT X (NOTNITHINCITYGA,TE w COML*RCE PARK PURI 0 q g 3.88 6 u IN 832 1233 414 073 .740 424 160 14 15 GATE CANAL 422 1.47 jj 427 0.67 321 Z7.00 PHASE THREE 411 113.00 0.146 AC OF NATIVE 411 VEGETATION REQUIRED 09° PER 1 ACRE OF DEVELOPABLE LAND WITHIN 411 PHASE THREE ss oe 611H.E3 3 22 4T1H{-1 3.917 Z 411e,•El 1,15 mei 1039 N 424l4 -E4 V 1 32 a ,� w PHASE THREE� N lrfr N NATIVE VEGETATION IL'O��- M1REQUIREMENTS 1� 'NATIVE VEGETATION CALCULATION BASED QN am---------- -- PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED 2004 FLUCCS E81T G I 1 N ' PHASEONE I NOREOURED I YARD OTSCALE W FEET Oo PHASE TWO NATIVE VEGETATION REQIAREMENTS -0 �\; ��ti PHASE THREE EXAMPLE i1 REQUIRED PHASE _-------- ACREAGE LOT ACREAGE LOT ACREAGE TWO NATIVE VEG. PHASE TIM NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS PHASE TWO PHASETMREE NATIVE VEGETATION REOUREMENTS iPHASE ` THREE f i PH45ETHREE NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENT FOR PHASE TWOJ THREE LOTS TOTAL LOT ��ti PHASE THREE REQUIRED PHASE REQUIRED PHASE TOTAL REQUIRED ACREAGE LOT ACREAGE LOT ACREAGE TWO NATIVE VEG. THREE NATIVE VEG- PHASE TWO PHASE ONE ;h 3.60 AC NATIVE VEGETATION NOREOUED YARD 0.57 X 0.146 = REOUREMENfS PHASE TIM NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS PHASE TWO PHASETMREE NATIVE VEGETATION REOUREMENTS iPHASE ` THREE f i PH45ETHREE NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENTS NATIVE VEGETATION REQUIREMENT FOR PHASE TWOJ THREE LOTS TOTAL LOT PHASE TWO PHASE THREE REQUIRED PHASE REQUIRED PHASE TOTAL REQUIRED ACREAGE LOT ACREAGE LOT ACREAGE TWO NATIVE VEG. THREE NATIVE VEG- NATIVE VEG. 1 EXAMPLE 01 1 4.17 AC 3.60 AC 0-57 AC 3.60 X 0.083 = 0.57 X 0.146 = 030-0.08= (86.33%) (13.67%) 0.30 AC 0.08 AC 0.38 AC EXAMPLE #2 4.40 AC 3.18 AC 124 AC 3.16 X 0.083 = 124 X 0.148 =µ 028 + 0.18 = (71.84%) (28.18%) 026 AC 0.18 AC 0-44 AC EXAMPLE 83 4.11 AC 2.18 AC 1.93 AC 2.18 X 0.083 = 1 93 X 0.146 = 0.18+ 0.28 = (53.04%) (46.98%) 0.18 AC 028 AC 0.46 AC t�>ef a o gW a > Y Z W F a w ILI _ Ir W o0 tz a~ V � W �Q H 9^ d 4J tTj N 00 O 00 EXHIBIT H Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA # 1244, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, Growth Management Manager Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: January 26, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ — PL20170002330: REV 4A PETITION NAME: City Gate Commerce Park Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) REQUEST: The petitioner is proposing to add/provide for: A list of permitted principal, accessory and conditional uses - with SIC Codes - for lots East and West of the FPL easement, including for the new sports complex lot. ® A specific list of permitted principal and accessory land uses for the new Lake/Recreational Area Development standards for the required buffer along the northern PUD boundary a Language for landscape requirements a Development standards for permitted principal and accessory uses within all land areas of the PUD o Numerous deviations that address temporary event uses, signage, flag poles, and parking • Updates to the Master Development Plan • External access points along the eastern PUD boundary, as shown on the Master Development Plan LOCATION: The 291.55 -acre subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 75 (1-75) and Collier Blvd. (CR 951), lying south of the Golden Gate Canal, east if Collier Blvd. (CR 951), and north of Shaw Blvd., in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The western portion of the subject site lies west of the Florida Power and Light (FPL) Easement (36.45 acres) and is depicted as Urban Designation, Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #9 on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The eastern portion lies east of the FPL Easement (255.1 acres) and is depicted as Urban Designation, Industrial District on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The South County Regional Water Treatment Plant is not part of the City Gate Commerce Park PUD. Policy 5.3 in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states, in part, "All rezonings must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan." Staff has reviewed this petition for FLUE consistency notwithstanding a Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive 0 Naples, FL 34104 * 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 5 Attachment B prior Vested Rights Determination as staff is uncertain as to the effect of that Determination in relation to DRI and PUD amendments and review for GMP consistency. The western portion (±36.45 acres) of the proposed project — that portion lying west of the FPL easement - lies within the Interchange Activity Center #9, which defers to the Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict for most provisions. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states, "The Mixed -Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. Further, they are generally intended to be developed at a human -scale, to be pedestrian - oriented, and to be interconnected with abutting projects — whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged." The FLUE states, "All new projects within Activity Center #9 are encouraged to have a unified plan of development in the form of a Planned Unit Development. The mixture of uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center #9 shall include all land uses allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses shall be allowed in the northeast and southeast quadrants of I-75 and Collier Boulevard, and in the southwest quadrant of Collier and Davis Boulevards." The FLUE goes on to state, "Allowable land uses in Mixed Use Activity Centers include the full array of commercial uses (C-1 through C-5), residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a maximum density of 26 units per acre, community facilities, and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designation. The actual mix of the various land uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the factors listed below." The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project, or portion thereof, within an Activity Center, are -listed below. Inasmuch as the currently approved PUD allows a wide variety of commercial uses in the Activity Center portion of the site, staff is of the opinion that a review and analysis of these factors is not necessary. a. Rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) radial miles. e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. f. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. g. Natural or man-made constraints. h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. i. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. j. Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. Zoning Division 49 2800 North Horseshoe Drive 0 Naples, FL 34104. 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 5 k. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting proj ects. 1. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code." The proposed land uses by SIC Code (PUD Exhibit A-3, Permitted Uses — SIC Codes) were presented in two lists, one for the western portion in the MUAC and another for the eastern portion in the Urban Industrial District. The petition for the City Gate Commerce Center PUD, which is partially within the Mixed Use Activity Center #9, includes a wide variety of proposed commercial land uses — but no proposed residential uses. The PUD petition proposes to develop facilities for the community, which will create a destination and focal point within the community. The Conceptual PUD Master Plan shows interconnections to the east of the PUD marked for driveways/pedestrian access only. All of the uses proposed within the Activity Center portion of the site are allowed within one or more of the C-1 through C-5 commercial zoning districts. The eastern portion (±255.1 acres) of the proposed project — that portion lying east of the FPL easement - lies within the Urban Industrial District. The FLUE states, "The Industrial Land Use District is reserved primarily for industrial type uses and comprises approximately 2,200 acres. Besides basic Industrial uses, limited commercial uses are permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited, except as accessory to Industrial or Business Park uses. The C-5, C-4 and PUD Commercial Zoning Districts along the perimeter of the designated Urban Industrial District that existed as of October 1997 shall be deemed consistent with this Land Use District. Industrially designated areas shall have access to a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Transportation Element, or access may be provided via a local road that does not service a predominately residential area. Intensities of use shall be those related to: a. Manufacturing; b. Processing; c. Storage and warehousing; d. Wholesaling; e. Distribution; f. High technology; g. Laboratories; h. Assembly; i. Computer and data processing; j. Business services; k.Other basic industrial uses as described in the Industrial Zoning District of the Land Development Code; 1. Business Park uses as discussed below and as described in the Business Park Zoning District of the Land Development Code; and in. Support commercial uses, such as child care centers and restaurants." Many of the proposed uses in Exhibit `A' for the eastern portion of the PUD are industrial land uses and many are commercial uses. In reviewing the proposed land uses by SIC Code for consistency with the FLUE, staff first compared the list of proposed uses with those allowed by the Urban Industrial District. For the remaining uses — those not considered consistent with the Urban Industrial District - staff reviewed the uses to determine if they were a clarification of the general listing of uses found in Section III of the existing City Gate PUD (based upon the principle of FLUE Policy 5.3 pertaining to uses "consistent by policy"). Staff's opinion is that those remaining uses are a clarification of uses presently listed in the PUD. Of note, one of the existing uses for East of the FPL Easement is "7. Retail sales and personal service businesses which are designed and operated to primarily serve the City Gate Commerce Park market." Given that the I, Industrial, zoning district is deemed consistent with the Urban Industrial District, and that the "I" district already allows some Zoning Division 0 2800 North Horseshoe Drive 0 Naples, FL 34104 0 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 5 support retail uses, staff is of the opinion that there are likely few additional retail uses that would and could be "designed and operated to primarily serve the City Gate Commerce Park market" (that is, the businesses within City Gate, and the employees and patrons of those businesses), and that any such businesses should likely be limited in size — perhaps as is done in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts where certain uses are limited to a specified building s.f. The petitioner has listed several retail uses by SIC Code, some with size limitations; staff finds these uses consistent with the FLUM designation and/or with the existing PUD's broad listing of permitted uses. The same goes for listed personal service uses. Also, staff notes specifically that hotel use listed by SIC Code and added to the area east of the FPL easement may be deemed a clarification of existing PUD use based upon the Both East and West of the FPL Easement use #4. Any other use which is determined by the Planning/Zoning Director to be comparable and/or compatible with the listed permitted uses. Staff finds that hotel use is compatible with the other permitted uses east of the FPL easement which include many uses permitted in the Business Park and C-5 zoning districts, both of which allow hotel use by right. Finally, regarding the sports park use, staff notes that essential services are allowed which include government facilities and county parks; and, the PUD allows recreational uses per Both East and West of the FPL Easement. Select FLUE Policies are given below, followed with [bracketed staff analysis]. FLUE Policy 5.6 states: `New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). " [It is the responsibility of the Zoning Services staff, as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis.] FLUE Policy 7.1 states: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The Conceptual MPUD Master Plan, Exhibit `C', shows two ingress/egress access onto an arterial as identified in the Transportation Element of the GMP, Collier Blvd. (CR 951 — one using City Gate Blvd North and one using City Gate Drive) and one ingress/egress access on a local road to the south of the PUD.] FLUE Policy 7.2 states: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit `C', Conceptual MPUD Master Plan, shows a couple of roads within the project that encourage internal accesses to all the areas of the project. Internal access will be provided.] FLUE Policy 7.3 states: 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. [Exhibit `C', MPUD Master Plan, shows three interconnections with adjoining land to the east (undeveloped land zoned `A' - Agriculture) — two of the interconnections state that they are driveways/pedestrian access only; internal access roadways only. There is also an eastern interconnection shown on City Gate Blvd. North, leading to the undeveloped land zoned `A'. The Master Plan also shows an interconnection to the south (White Lake Industrial Corp. Park). To the west is Collier Blvd. and to the north is Golden Gate Canal.] FLUE Policy 7.4 states: 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 petition is proposing community facilities that will have a walkable component with open space and the potential for civic facilities. No housing is being proposed.] Zoning Division ® 2800 North Horseshoe Drive 0 Naples, FL 34104 0 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 5 Aside from specific FLUE consistency analysis, staff notes this petition would allow for the displacement of±63.5 acres from potential "light" industrial uses for a sports park. Staff acknowledges that a significant amount of development authorized by the existing PUD is for commercial uses — so the PUD was never envisioned to be developed solely with industrial uses, and that heavy industrial uses are not presently allowed in this PUD, and that the character of this PUD may change with the interconnections to the east. Nonetheless, there is general concern for the loss of Industrial lands — even light industrial - given the relative difficulty to establish new industrial development areas, especially given the inherent compatibility concerns, traffic impacts, etc. The historical industrial parks within the coastal urban area - zoned I, Industrial, which allows heavy industrial uses, and located on the east side of Old 41; on the north side of Pine Ridge Road and west side of Airport Road; and on the east side of Airport Road and north side of Radio Road - are all near buildout and the newer areas are being developed now, those being White Lake Industrial Park PUD to the south of the subject site and City Gate itself. CONCLUSION This rezone petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PUDZ-PL2016-3054 Mini Triangle R4.docx PUDZ-PL2017-2330 City Gate Commerce Park 134A GACDES Planning ServiceslConsistency Reviews120181PUDZ dw11-26-18 Zoning Division 0 2800 North Horseshoe Drive 0 Naples, FL 34104 0 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 5 _5Co er C;ounty Growth Management Division — Planning & Regulation Department of Planning & Zoning -Zoning Services Section June 2, 2014 Ms. Amanda Townsend Operations Support Director Collier County Government 3299 Tainiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 RE: Zoning Verification Letter regarding a proposed soccer athletic park and stadium within the City Gate Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Dear Ms. Townsend: You asked this office to provide verification that a proposed soccer athletic park that includes a 145,000 square foot indoor facility and a 7,000 seat outdoor stadium are permitted uses within the currently approved East Gateway PUD. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) numbers for the primary uses are noted below. In addition, you have indicated that the proposed athletic facility is to be developed in three phases as follows: Phase I• • Build four full size soccer fields with accessory parking lot that includes multi sport league tournaments and league games (SIC #7999 &7941) Provide recreational facilities for local soccer, football and lacrosse clubs that include training events, camps and clinics (SIC #7032) Phase II • Build a 145,000 square foot indoor arena with accessory locker and conference rooms and retail store which can accommodate three indoor soccer fields, basketball/futsol courts that convert to volleyball courts (SIC #7941) • Build a fitness center that allows for yoga, zurnba and spin classes (SIC #7991) Phase III v Build a 7,000 seat outdoor stadium (SIC 47941) Multiuse complex for sporting events, concerts and other community events Based upon my review of the City Gate PUD document (Ordinance Number: 88-93), the approved permitted uses (no SIC numbers listed) include: Light manufacturing, research, showrooms, storage facilities, publishing, retail, hotels and a gas station. In addition, this PUD specifically allows recreational, educational, utilitarian, business & professional offices, financial institutions and medical land uses on both east and west sides of the Florida Power & Light easement. Department of Planning & Zoning a 2800 North Horseshoe Drive a Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-5603 Attachment C Ms. Amanda Townsend June 2, 2014 Since the City Gate PUD lists recreational uses and facilities as permitted uses, this PUD can be developed with the proposed Phase i uses that include soccer fields with accessory parking lot. This will also allow multi sport league tournaments and league games as well as providing facilities for local soccer, football and lacrosse clubs with accessory training events, camps and clinics. Conversely, this PUD doesn't include the indoor arena or outdoor stadium as proposed in Phase II and Phase III as noted above. Therefore, this PUD would have to be amended to include these uses and activities. Please be advised that the information presented in this verification letter is based on the Collier County Land Development Code and/or Growth Management Plan in effect as of this date. It is possible that subsequent amendment(s) to any of these documents could affect the validity of this verification letter. It is also possible that development of the subject property could be affected by other issues not addressed in this letter, such as, but not limited to, concurrency related to the provision of adequate public facilities, environmental impact, and other requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code or related ordinances. This letter represents a determination of Planning & Zoning Department staff. Should you disagree with this determination, you may request an Official Interpretation by the Planning & Zoning Director of the provisions of the Land Development Code pursuant to Sections 1.06.01.A and 10.02.021.1 of that Code. The fee for an Official Interpretation is identified in the most recent Fee Schedule Resolution as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Should you require further information please do not hesitate to call me at (239) 252-2931. Sincerely, Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Section Manager Department of Planning and Zoning cc: Mark Strain, Collier County Hearing Examiner Nick Casalanguida, Administrator Growth Management Division Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Department of Planning & Zoning Steve Cannell, Department Director Laurie Beard, PUD/SRA Monitoring Civil Engineering m Planning • Permitting DAVIDSON E N G I N E E R I N G MEMORANDUM November 29, 2017 TO. Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner FROM: Jessica Harrelson, Senior Project Coordinator www,davidsonengineering.com RE. Citygate Commerce Park PUDA- PL20170002330 and DOA- PL20170002634 NIM Meeting Notes A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. at the Fairfield Inn & Suites Hotel, located at 3808 White Lake Blvd, Naples, FL 34117. The following individuals, associated with the review and presentation of the project, were present. m Frederick Hood, Davidson Engineering • Jessica Harrelson, Davidson Engineering a Josh Fruth, Davidson Engineering ® Roger Rice, Applicant's Attorney Nancy Gundlach, Collier County Frederick Hood started the meeting by marking a presentation, reading the following: Introduction & Project Details: o Good evening. My name is Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering and I am the land development consultant representing the applicants, City Gate Development LLC, CG II, LLC and 850 NWN, LLC. o Here with me tonight are Roger Rice, the applicant's representing Attorney, Josh Fruth & Jenna Woodward, the Project Engineers with Davidson Engineering and Jessica Harrelson, the Project Coordinator with Davidson Engineering. o Nancy Gundlach, with Collier County, is also in attendance tonight. She is the reviewing Planner for Collier County's Growth Management Division. o The applicants are seeking a Planned Unit Development Amendment (also known as a PUDA) to the existing Citygate Commerce Park PUD. Additionally, a request to amend the Development Order (referred to as a DOA) to the existing companion Development of Regional Impact (DRI) has been submitted and is being reviewed by County Staff simultaneously. 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 • Naples, FL 34104 • P: (239) 434.6060 - F: (239) 434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 • Sarasota, FL 34236 • P: (941) 309-5180 Attachment D DAVIDSON G N G I N L ERI NC: o The purpose of this meeting is to inform you, the surrounding residents and interested parties in proximity of the City Gate PUD, the intent of both the PUDA and DOA applications. Please note, as required by the Collier County Land Development Code, this meeting is being recorded. o I will give a brief description of the project and the intent of both of the applications, currently in review, and then answer any questions that you may have at the end of my presentation. o The Citygate Commerce Park PUD is located Northeast of the Collier Boulevard and 1-75 interchange and is 291.60 acres in size. Purpose of the PUDA Application: o As I mentioned, two separate applications have been filed with Collier County and are being reviewed by several County departments at the same time. o First, is the application to amend the Citygate Commerce Park PUD. The existing PUD, originally adopted in 1988 under Ordinance 88-93, was established to provide development standards and regulations, while permitting for a variety of commercial, industrial and office land uses within the PUD property boundary. o As many of you may be aware, it is the intent of Collier County to purchase land within City Gate for the purpose of constructing a Sports Complex o This PUD Amendment request seeks to provide development standards for the proposed Collier County Sports Complex, while also modernizing the original PUD document to remove redundancies and offer clarification of previously ambiguous language and standards. o The following changes have been formally presented to the County for review: 1. To adjust the property acreage and correct the legal description, as both have slightly changed over the years since the original 1988 approval. 2. Update the Master Development Plan by designating a Lake/Recreational Area and Sports Complex Lot, adding external access points along the eastern PUD boundary, updating the Land Use Table, and adding building heights and deviations. 3. Due to the permitted land uses within the original PUD being very broad & vague, we are requesting to clarify specific permitted land uses for lots East and West of the existing FP&L easement that runs through the property. 4. Specify the County's proposed Sports Complex as a permitted use and provide development standards for such; 5. Provide a conversion for Hotel/Motel rooms and the Sports Complex land uses in relation to the permitted office and light industrial land uses; DAV DSON 6. The request of Deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code related to signage, caretakers' residences and outdoor merchandise storage and display related both to City Gate and the Sports Complex Lot 7. The request of Deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code specific to on and off- site parking design requirements, landscape buffers, and off-site retained native vegetation related to the Sports Complex Lot only; 8. Clarify the maximum building height limitations within the PUD boundary; 9. Memorialize development standards for the required landscape buffer along the northern PUD boundary (along the Golden Gate Canal); 10. Allow outdoor merchandise storage and display, east of FPL Easement; and 11. Add a reference in the PUD text language to the Required Yard Plan, which specifically provides the native vegetation retention requirements within the PUD boundary. Purpose of the DOA Application: o The second application I mentioned earlier is the Development Order Amendment (again, referred to as a DOA). The DOA request will update the originally approved and recorded document (Resolution 88-309/DO 88-02, as amended). The requested updates to the approved DO include the following: 1. Update the existing master development plan (per the changes discussed with the PUD Amendment); 2. Removing Section 4.b. of the original DO Document in its entirety. This section originally called out 2.47 acres of wetlands to be preserved. This is section is being removed because: 3. Removing Section 9.c. of the original DOA Document, in its entirety. This section included phasing of the site, which is no longer needed; 4. Extending the termination date of the Development Order an additional five (5) years (new year - 2030); 5. Request that the annual reporting of development within the City Gate property boundary, be updated to biennial reporting, which will be in-line with current Florida Statutes. Details of the MCP o The proposed Master Development Plan, as mentioned throughout this presentation, are now designating a Lake/Recreational Area and Sports Complex Lot, adding external access points along the eastern PUD boundary, updating the Land Use Table, and adding building heights and deviations. o Although this layout looks official, this is not an approved plan yet. We still must finish our review with Collier County before moving forward. DE DAVIDSON F N C, I N F F H I N C". The following concerns were stated, and questions were asked: 1. There was a discussion brought up and had between several attendees, living on 311t Ave SW, about their existing, backyard gun ranges (existing seven ranges). They voiced concerns that they are worried the County may change regulations on back yard ranges due to the proximity to the proposed Sports Complex. One attendee stated that he is training for a shooting competition and shoots up to 200,000 rounds per year in his back yard. Attendees stated that their backyard ranges are up to code standards. 2. Who will be using the Sports Complex who came up with the configuration of the lot? Fred replied that the location and concept plan was determined by Collier County and the developers of Citygate. Fred used the rendering/aerial to show the layout and location. Fred also stated the Sports Complex would be a County park and open to the public. 3. Will minor league teams be using the park? Fred and Applicant's Attorney replied that it would be amateur teams entirely and no professional teams would be using the sports complex, except for possibly the Adrenaline soccer team(s) using it for practice. 4. Will there be lights? Fred replied that there would be lights. 5. Another discussion was had about adding a gun range to the City Gate site and attendees expressing the need for an outdoor gun club within the County. 6. Will the park be open all night? What are the hours it will be open? Fred replied that the County will decide the hours once the development is complete. 7. Questions about the aerial/site plan were asked regarding to the Resource Recovery Business Park. What is it? What does it mean? Fred stated that the Resource Recovery Business Park is being used for the FEMA debris area, and will later be developed in conjunction with the landfill (recycling, offices, deep injection well) 8. What is their budget to do this? Fred replied that he could not answer that question. 9. There were more conversations about wanting a gun range. 10. An attendee wanted to know about the phases shown on the aerial. Fred explained the that a portion of the Sports Complex Lot was within the Citygate PUDA, and the remainder is within the County's adjacent property (305 parcel). DAVIDSON t NOINl I KING 11. Will the Sports Complex be developed all at once, or will it be phased? Fred replied that it would be a phased development. 12. Are there any current plans for the remainder of Citygate (other than the Sports Complex)? Fred stated that the properties were all for sale. 13. An attendee wanted to know the intentions for the lots along the canal (due to proximity of home). Fred used the site plan to show the developable lots for sale and explained the buffer along the northern PUD boundary (along the Golden Gate canal). He also pointed out there was a list handed out to attendees with the proposed permitted land uses. 14. Will the dirt road get paved? Fred stated that he was unaware of any plans to pave at this time. 15. Does this have to go to the County Commission? Fred replied yes, to the CCPC and the BCC and attendees would be notified. 16. Access to the sports complex? Fred used the site plan to show City Gate Blvd N. and S. to show access points to the park. 17. Will City Gate Drive be closed? There was a discussion about the lighted intersection that is proposed to be relocated, at a later date. 18. Any connections to 1-75 proposed? It was stated that no stated that no additional 1-75 connections are proposed. 19. Client's Attorney/Applicant spoke about the proposed project, intent, details, etc. 20. Does the Sports Complex lot abut the canal? Josh Fruth/Applicant replied that it will not abut the canal and the closest home is about 660' from the proposed Sports Complex. The aerial was used to show proximities of homes to the sports complex lot. 21. Attendee brought up vegetation that has been removed along canal, and the use of the road that the County/ vendors are using for hauling FEMA debris. Conservations were held regarding the debris laydown area and road and development along the canal. 22. What is the highest height proposed? DE DAVIDSON C N k: I N F E R I N c, Fred/Applicant replied that the highest building proposed at the County's Sports Complex (Field House) is at 75' to house a soccer field. Fred explained a lot fit study was prepared. The site plan was used to show proposed locations, soccer fields, etc. 23. Attendees expressed concerns of location of the field house in proximity to their homes, proposed bldg. heights, traffic. Conversations were held about the proposed site layout, proposed grass parking lots vs. asphalt, traffic, hearing dates, timelines, etc. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:18p.m. End of memo. GundlalchNancy From: Steve <scarmichael@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 11:46 AM To: SmithCamden; GundlachNancy Cc: Florida South; Sandy Thalheimer, President USPSA SW Florida ; Ulli Unkel; BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject: Re: Collier County commissioners buying land for the new stadium and sports complex Camden, Thanks for sending me this information. I thought after the holidays, I'd review it and send a well reasoned opposition to the proposed Sports Complex being planned behind our home. I thought that maybe, just maybe, it would have some influence on the proposed construction. I thought my first email to Nancy was "well reasoned" but, given your counsel, I thought I'd try again. Imagine my surprise when, this morning, a man from Vibration Energy Services, came to the house to let me know that he wanted to document the condition of our floors and walls "before they blast the area behind your house to install the road and utilities for the new Sports Complex." I'll just let that sink in for a minute, so you can fully grasp the shock I felt upon hearing this. Oh, I'm sorry, you can't possibly grasp the shock because both you and Nancy have known all along that this complex is going to be built.. NO MATTER WHAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE TO SAY. Other than for positive PR, of which you have none with me at this point, why would you continue to call and email me when you know that no matter what I say, do or write, the county commissioners are going ahead with this project. They've bought the land, they've put in for zoning changes (which they will approve if they haven't done so already. This is, after all, their project for which they will hold nothing back until it's totally finished) and now are scheduling blasting to add utilities and a road. You think they are going to stop now and "re -think" this stupid, unneeded, unwanted and invasive project? Of course they're not! !! All this is is a huge "smoke and mirrors" show to keep us pesky, short sighted homeowners fooled into thinking our opinions really matter, no what the superiorly intelligent commissioners know and plan on doing for us stupid mortals... in spite of ourselves. Seems like the motto for these commissioners is "We the government know better than They the people." Like I said in my last email to Nancy, the fix is in and there is nothing we, the lowly homeowner... who just happens to vote for the county commissioners, can do to stop this. The fix is in: you know it, Nancy knows it, the people selling the land knows it, Francis Rooney knows it and the county commissioners know it. All this "public hearing and comments" phase is just to be able to say that "we dottcd all the I's and crossed all the T's to show that we are concerned, and have followed the letter of the law, about the decisions this committee makes on behalf of our constituents." What a crock. This is just politics as usual. Please be sure to put this into the "opposition file" to the commissioners so they can feign concern, understanding and empathy as they vote the way they want to anyway. I'm truly sickened by your show of false empathy, shallow sympathy and hollow hope, Steve Carmichael 239-919-6687 Attachment E From: SmithCamden <Camden.Smith@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:05 AM To: GundlachNancy; Steve Cc: Florida South; Sandy Thalheimer, President USPSA SW Florida ; Ulli Unkel; BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject: RE: Collier County commissioners buying land for the new stadium and sports complex Steve, Attached are the third re -submittal documents for City Gate PUD currently under review. I will call to discuss around 3 p.m. today. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst - Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-1042 Note: Email Address Has Changed Camden.smith@colliercountyfl.gov Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at htt.l1s_//eoo.gl/eXivq Online Survey Software I Qualtrics Survey Solutions Qualtrics sophisticated online surrey software solutions make creating online surveys easy. Learn more about Research Suite and get a free account today. Exceeding Expectations -----Original Message ----- From: SmithCamden Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:06 AM To: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov>; Steve <scarmichael@hotmail.com> Cc: Florida South <jwhite@floridasouth.us>; Sandy Thalheimer, President USPSA SW Florida <scthal@aol.com>; Ulli Unkel <ulrike.unkel@gmail.com>; BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@,colliercountvfl.gov>; BosiMichael <M ichael.Bosi@colliercountyf i.gov> Subject: RE: Collier County commissioners buying land for the new stadium and sports complex Steve, It was nice to speak with you Friday afternoon. This is Camden Smith with Zoning Operations. I was able, after our conversation, to reach out to the agent to find out why there were any sign posted as protected preserves on the property tree areas near your home on the City Gate PUD property. Apparently until 2005, there were protected woodpeckers on the properly. They were relocated in 2005. The bu l'fer is not a protected preserve, it was only a protected area until the birds were relocated, but some of the signs seem to have remained. The 70 to 75 foot building that is of concern is the field house. It is the height of seven stories but it's actually a field house. I am going to, on Monday, as promised, send you the updated Master Plan and new submittal materials which the agent filed apparently with our office yesterday late afternoon. Once I send you those files and you have had a chance to review them, let's touch base on Monday. My direct line is 239 - 252 - 1042. I will call you around 3 again if I miss your call earlier on Monday. Sincerely, Camden Smith, MPA Zoning Operations From: GundlacliNancy Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:23 PM To: Steve Cc: Florida South; Sandy Thalheimer, President USPSA SW Florida; Ulli Unkel; SmithCamden; BellowsRay; BosiMichael Subject: RE: Collier County commissioners buying land for the new stadium and sports complex Hi Steve, I am so sorry for the confusion. The meetings that I refer to in the email below are the public hearings related to the land use petitions (the rezoning of the City Gate lands) related to the Sports Park. Like you, I read about the pending purchase of the land in the Naples Daily News. I am not involved in the purchasing of land or the design of projects. I have copied our Operations Manager, Camden Smith. She will reach out to you. Sincerely, Nancy Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Principal Planner Zoning Division Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239-252-2484 Note: new email address: Nancy.Gundlach@colliercountyfl.gov. "Tell us how we are doing by taking ❑ui• Zoning Division Survey at https:ll&go.lg_/eXjyt�T." Online Survey Software I Qualtrics Survey Solutions Qualtrics sophisticated online survey software solutions make creating online surveys easy. Learn more about Research Suite and get a free account today. From: Steve 'inailtc):scti-iiiiehael hotmail.cont] Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:13 PM To: GundlachNancy <Nancy.Gundladh@colliercountyfl.gov>; Steve tscarmichael@hotmail.com>; Florida South <jwhite@floridasouth.us>; Ulli UnkeI <ulrike.unkel@grnail.com>; Sandy Thalheimer, President USPSA SW Florida <scthal@aol.com> Subject: Re: Collier County commissioners buying land for the new stadium and sports complex Nancy, I can't begin to tell you how frustrated, mad, angry and truly pissed I am at you, the planning commission and Collier county commissioners. I have a Naples Daily News internet story from 12/12 the headline of which is "Collier County buys land for new stadium and sports complex." So tell me what was the "public hearing" for? Just so you and the planning commission could "check off the we -did -right -by -the -people box?" Or was it just to "do things legally?" Not that ANYTHING we said made a bit of difference. You say in your email below that you will inform us of "those meeting" where this is discussed. We clearly were not! Hence my frustration at you! According to this new report, all of this action (to buy the land and build this complex) is from a study that "projects that 265,000 people a year would travel to Collier County to use the sports fields, which would host regional and national youth and amateur tournaments." I wonder who commissioned this study and who researched and wrote it. This is not Field Of Dreams, where if you build it they will come. This is based on traveling teams coming to this facility. This is being patterned after similar sports complexes throughout the mid west and east. When do you think they will do this? When do you think these youth and amateur teams will do this? If it's school aged youth they could only come during the summer. Have you ever tried to do any physical activity in June and July in Collier county? It's abysmally hot and humid here then. So hot in fact that the local teams don't even practice then. If you think they will come during the winter to enjoy our temperatures, they won't because they won't be allowed to miss school to travel the hundreds and thousands of miles to get here. This is a project fraught with failure, but I guess it doesn't matter because the "fix is in." How do I know the fix is in? Because the country is doing whatever they want without a care for the hardworking constituents that live here, who do not want this complex built, and will be the most negatively impacted. They are going ahead without proper studies on the effects on traffic in this neighborhood and the other studies I've outlined in my first email. Finally the fix is in because our congressman Francis Rooney's construction firm has been slated to build the complex. Talk about one politician lining the pocket of another one. Again, the fix is in. So now, despite anything negative the public has to say, and we said a lot during that meeting, this is going ahead. I bet that if there was going to be a 70 foot tall structure in your backyard, the commissioner's backyard or Francis Rooneys' back yard, this wouldn't be seeing the light of day. This is not the way to demonstrate having the best interest of the constituents who live here. Despite the fix being in, I still want to know when the "public hearings" into this matter by the commissioners will be held. Not that it will do any good, I still want my voice heard. Thank you for your time, Steve Carmichael 239-919-6687 From: GundlachNancy <NancyGundlach@colliergov.net<mailto:NancyGundlach@colliergov.net>> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 2:05 PM To: Steve Subject: RE: Proposed zoning change for City Gate Hi Steve, Thank you for your email. I will include it in the Commissioners packets when City Gate goes to the Collier County Planning Commission and then the Board of Collier County Commissioners meeting. We will notify you of those meeting dates. Sincerely, Nancy Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Principal Planner Zoning Services (239)252-2484 From: Steve I'mailto:scarmichael _iiotmail.coni] Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 10:38 AM To: GundlachNancy<NancyGundlach@colliergov.net<mailto:NancyGundlach@colliergov.net>> Subject: Proposed zoning change for City Gate Nancy, Attached is the letter explaining my opposition, and the opposition of all the residence of our street, to the proposed zoning change and building on the land at City Gate. Thank you for your time in reading this and for meeting with us at the presentation. Sincerely, Steve Carmichael 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. GundlachNanc From: Steve <scarmichael@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:13 PM To: GundlachNancy; Steve; Florida South; Ulli Unkel; Sandy Thalheimer, President USPSA SW Florida Subject: Re: Collier County commissioners buying land for the new stadium and sports complex Nancy, I can't begin to tell you how frustrated, mad, angry and truly pissed I am at you, the planning commission and Collier county commissioners. I have a Naples Daily News internet story from 12/12 the headline of which is "Collier County buys land for new stadium and sports complex." So tell me what was the "public hearing" for? Just so you and the planning commission could "check off the we -did -right -by -the -people box?" Or was it just to "do things legally?" Not that ANYTHING we said made a bit of difference. You say in your email below that you will inform us of "those meeting" where this is discussed. We clearly were not! Hence my frustration at you! , According to this new report, all of this action (to buy the land and build this complex) is from a study that "projects that 265,000 people a year would travel to Collier County to use the sports fields, which would host regional and national youth and amateur tournaments." I wonder who commissioned this study and who researched and wrote it? This is not Field Of Dreams, where if you build it they will come. This is based on traveling teams coming to this facility. This is being patterned after similar sports complexes throughout the mid west and east. When do you think they will do this? When do you think these youth and amateur teams will do this? If it's school aged youth they could only come during the summer. Have you ever tried to do any physical activity in June and July in Collier county? It's abysmally hot and humid here then. So hot in fact that the local teams don't even practice then. If you think they will come during the winter to enjoy our temperatures, they won't because they won't be allowed to miss school to travel the hundreds and thousands of miles to get here. This is a project fraught with failure, but I gucss it doesn't matter because the "fix is in." How do I know the fix is in? Because the country is doing whatever they want without a care for the hardworking constituents that live here, who do not want this complex built, and will be the most negatively impacted. They are going ahead without proper studies on the effects on traffic in this neighborhood and the other studies I've outlined in my first email. Finally the fix is in because our congressman Francis Rooney's construction firm has been slated to build the complex. Talk about one politician lining the pocket of another one. Again, the fix is in. So now, despite anything negative the public has to say, and we said a lot during that meeting, this is going ahead. I bet that if there was going to be a 70 foot tall structure in your backyard, the commissioner's backyard or Francis Rooneys' back yard, this wouldn't be seeing the light of day. This is not the way to demonstrate having the best interest of the constituents who live here. Despite the fix being in, I still want to know when the "public hearings" into this matter by the commissioners will be held. Not that it will do any good, I still want my voice heard. Thank you for your time, Steve Carmichael 239-919-6687 From: GundlachNancy <NancyGundlach@colliergov.net> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 2:05 PM To: Steve Subject: RE: Proposed zoning change for City Gate Hi Steve, Thank you for your email. I will include it in the Commissioners packets when City Gate goes to the Collier County Planning Commission and then the Board of Collier County Commissioners meeting. We will notify you of those meeting dates. Sincerely, 1&of Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Principal Planner Zoning Services (239)252-2484 From: Steve [mailto:scarmichael@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 10:38 AM To: GundlachNancy <NancyGundlach@colliergov.net> Subject: Proposed zoning change for City Gate Nancy, Attached is the letter explaining my opposition, and the opposition of all the residence of our street, to the proposed zoning change and building on the land at City Gate. Thank you for your time in reading this and for meeting with us at the presentation. Sincerely, Steve Carmichael 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, Nancy Gundlach Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 nancygundlach@colliergov.net Dear Ms Gundlach, I want to begin this letter by stating, so there is no miss -understanding, that I am 100% OPPOSED to the re -zoning of the parcel of land at City Gate and am 100% OPPOSED to the building of a sports complex on the same land. As you could tell from the public meeting held for the homeowners that would be impacted by these changes and buildings, (for which you took notes and there was a recording made) EATERY HOMEOWNER was opposed to this idea as well. The only people that were at the meeting who were in favor of the proposed changes were those that stand to make a monetary profit from the changes; the owner of the land, his attorney which happens to be his son, the engineering company giving the presentation and the builder, who was not there. The question I, and the other homeowners who will be negatively impacted by these changes have is: Why is this being proposed? To go along with that question we could add a similar one: What is the justification for these changes/additions, or stated another way, where is the need? Here is why I ask. There are other areas surrounding this proposed facility that are being used for the same purpose: 1) Golden Gate High School, located less than 2 miles west of the proposed facility 2) Golden Gate Middle School, located less than 21/2 miles NW of the proposed facility 3) Lely High School, located less than 7 miles SW of the proposed facility. If those weren't enough, we have the following: 4) Golden Gate Community Center, located approx. 2 miles NW of the proposed facility: This facility offers; Nine meeting rooms Game room • Lit playground • Rest rooms ® Band shell Picnic Pavilions Gymnasium ® Kitchen ® Auditorium Wheels; which is a National Bicycle League (USA) sanctioned BMX track. Some of the activities offered at this facility are: ➢ Judo ➢ Wheels BMX clinics ➢ CPR/AED training ➢ First Aid Training ➢ After school daycare ➢ Basketball ➢ Volleyball ➢ Senior Expo ➢ Karate ➢ Dance classes Y JuJitsu ➢ Soccer ➢ Zumba ➢ BMX Spring/Summer camps ➢ Camp Collier summer camps ➢ Spanish theatre ➢ Studio Players Theatre Group 5) Golden Gate Community Park, located less than 3 miles west of the proposed facility: This facility offers: s 2 lit Softball fields ® 1 lit Little League field M 1 lit Baseball field ® 1 lit Soccer/Football field a 4 lit Tennis and Racquetball courts o Lit Basketball courts H Shuffleboard courts M Bocce court M Playground M Paved fitness trail Boat ramp M Fitness center ® Aquatics facility So here we have 5 facilities that offer the same, if not more, amenities than the proposed complex, the farthest being 7 miles away and most being under 3 miles. So again I ask, why is this being proposed? Governments are big on studies. Where is the study to show the need for this facility? With the facilities listed above offering the same or more amenities, I have to wonder what is the justification for this new facility? One additional question about a study is; Where is the traffic impact study for this facility? This facility would empty onto Collier Blvd., 951, where that road condenses down to two lanes going north. The additional traffic load this facility would bring would greatly encumber and negatively impact the already heavy traffic flow, especially at peak usage which I can only assume would be after work. This would not just impact the residents in our community, but ALL the commuters trying to travel through the area. Three other items that should be noted: As was stated at the meeting, there are a number of residents that have shooting berms in their back yards that are directed toward the proposed new facility. I'm sure visitors and users of this proposed facility would not like to hear gunshots so close to their location. As I stated to you at the meeting, my understanding, from posted placards on the trees where this proposed facility will sit, is that this area is a protected "bird and animal sanctuary" that was not supposed to be disturbed or built upon. Again, as I told you, I actually saw the posted signs on the trees in that area. Where is the study for that? Finally, how is this going to be paid? Where is the money coming from? I assume it is going to come out of an increase in our property taxes. Since that would be a county wide increase, that means that those who live in the farthest reaches of Collier County and those that live next to the facilities listed above, are going to be paying for something they either don't need, don't know about or can find right next door or within a block or two. That is unfair to the overall constituents of Collier County. So the bottom line to me is I see NO JUSTIFICATION or NEED for this proposed facility, no study to show same or to warrant it, no study to examine the negative impact of the additional traffic, no study to examine the violation of the "sanctuary provisions" of the land in question and no fair and equitable means of paying for this. Therefore there is no need to change the zoning or build this new facility. There is no new evident that would justify all the negative features when all the stated "benefits" are able to be found restively close to the subject area. There is just no way there is any rationally, objective reason for either this zoning change or the proposed sports complex, other that the monetary increase to a select few, while negatively impacting the local homeowners, trapped commuters and the county property tax payer. Again, to be very clear, I, and all the homeowners on this street, are 100% OPPOSED to the PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES and the PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX. Thank you so much for your time not only at the meeting but also to read this letter and to consider our negative reaction to the proposal. I would like to be kept aware of any county commissioner meetings where this will be on the agenda and where public comments can be made and heard. I'm sure all the other attendees/residents would want that same information and notice. If you need to get in contact with me you can do so on my cell, writing me or emailing me at the locations below. Sincerely, Steve Carmichael 3270 31St Ave SW Naples, FL 34117 239-919-6687 s carmi chael (ahotmail. com Outdoor Lighting Basics MENU Home » Lighting » Outdoor Lighting Basics Pagel of 5 Home Renew Join Donate Search Outdoor Lighting Basics Modern society requires outdoor lighting for a variety of needs, including safety and commerce. IDA recognizes this but advocates that any required lighting be used wisely. To minimize the harmful effects of light pollution, lighting should • Only be on when needed • Only light the area that needs it • Be no brighter than necessary • Minimize blue light emissions • Be fully shielded (pointing downward) The illustration below provides an easy visual guide to understand the differences between unacceptable, unshielded light fixtures and those fully shielded fixtures that minimize skyglow, glare and light trespass. Glossary of Lighting Terms Examples of Acceptable / Unacceptable Lighting Fixtures Unacceptable / Discouraged Acceptable Fixtures that produce glare and light trespass Fixtures that shield the light source to minimize glare and light trespass and to facilitate better vision at night ,+nk,a Full Cutoff Fixtures •"�'+` � invnvr.+ivu Ilei lens http://www.darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/ Attachment F 2/8/2018 Outdoor Lighting Basics Unshielded Floodlights or Poorly -shielded Floodlights Unshielded Wallpacks & Unshielded or Poorly -shielded Wall erred polhhoeodi ✓. Mount Fixtures Drop -Lens & Sag -Lens Fixtures w/ exposed bulb / refractor lens Unshielded 'Period' Style - Fixtures Louvered 'Marine'style 21 Fixtures Drop -Lens Canopy -- - Fixtures Unshielded PAR Floodlights Page 2 of 5 • to�� • Form Fully Shielded Wallpack & Wall Mount Fixtures - F�;L L '3.- Fully Shielded Fixtures4 Full Cutoff Streetlight Z1 Fully Shielded Fully Shielded Walkway Barn Light Bollards Fully Shielded Decorative Fully Shielded Fixtures Period' Style Fixtures bulb Melded In opaque top - bulb aq e,'o In opaque lop o Flush Mounted or Side Shielded Under Canopy Fixtures Shielded / Properly -aimed PAR Floodlights Illustralionsby Bob Crelin© 2005. Rendered for the Town of Southampton, NY. Used with permission. Are ou looking for dark sky friendly lighting fixtures? Search our Fixture Seal of Approval database. Types of Light Most people are familiar with incandescent or compact fluorescent blubs for indoor lighting, but outdoor lighting usually makes use of different, more industrial, sources of light. Common light sources include low-pressure sodium ("LPS"), high-pressure sodium ("HPSrr), metal halide and light emitting diodes ("LEDs"). http://www.darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/ 2/8/2018 Unshielded Streetlight Unshielded Bollards Unshielded Barn lul Light Unshielded 'Period' Style - Fixtures Louvered 'Marine'style 21 Fixtures Drop -Lens Canopy -- - Fixtures Unshielded PAR Floodlights Page 2 of 5 • to�� • Form Fully Shielded Wallpack & Wall Mount Fixtures - F�;L L '3.- Fully Shielded Fixtures4 Full Cutoff Streetlight Z1 Fully Shielded Fully Shielded Walkway Barn Light Bollards Fully Shielded Decorative Fully Shielded Fixtures Period' Style Fixtures bulb Melded In opaque top - bulb aq e,'o In opaque lop o Flush Mounted or Side Shielded Under Canopy Fixtures Shielded / Properly -aimed PAR Floodlights Illustralionsby Bob Crelin© 2005. Rendered for the Town of Southampton, NY. Used with permission. Are ou looking for dark sky friendly lighting fixtures? Search our Fixture Seal of Approval database. Types of Light Most people are familiar with incandescent or compact fluorescent blubs for indoor lighting, but outdoor lighting usually makes use of different, more industrial, sources of light. Common light sources include low-pressure sodium ("LPS"), high-pressure sodium ("HPSrr), metal halide and light emitting diodes ("LEDs"). http://www.darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/ 2/8/2018 Outdoor Lighting Basics Page 3 of 5 LPS is very energy efficient but emits only a narroft*WctrUMr4\pumpkJro4colorecbWfMie that some find to be undesirable. Yet, LPS is an excellent choice for lighting near astronomical observatories and in some environmentally sensitive areas. HPS is commonly used for street lighting in many cities. Although it still emits an orange - colored light, its coloring is more "true to life" than that of LPS. In areas where it's necessary to use white light, two common choices are metal halide and LEDs. One of the advantages of LED lighting is that it can be dimmed. Thus, instead of always lighting an empty street or parking lot at full brightness, LEDs can be turned down, or even off, when they aren't needed and then brought back to full brightness as necessary. This feature both saves on energy and reduces light pollution during the night. Because of their reported long life and energy efficiency, LEDs are rapidly coming into widespread use, replacing the existing lighting in many cities. However, there are important issues to consider when making such a conversion. See our LED Practical Guide for more information. Color Matters As the illustration above, it is crucial to have fully shielded lighting, but we now know that the color of light is also very important. Both LED and metal halide fixtures contain large amounts of blue light in their spectrum. Because blue light brightens the night sky more than any other color of light, it's important to minimize the amount emitted. Exposure to blue light at night has also been shown to harm f-irTiiaii 1-,eallii and endanger wildlife. IDA recommends using lighting that has a color temperature of no more than 3000 Kelvins. Lighting with lower color temperatures has less blue in its spectrum and is referred to as being "warm." Higher color temperature sources of light are rich in blue light. IDA recommends that only warm light sources be used for outdoor lighting. This includes LPS, HPS and low -color -temperature LEDs. In some areas, the white light of even a low - color -temperature LED can be a threat to the local nighttime environment. In those cases, LPS or narrow -spectrum LEDs are preferred choices. Finding What You Need http://www.darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/ 2/8/2018 Outdoor Lighting Basics Page 4 of 5 IDA doesn't sell dark sky friendly lighting, but ourftytwe S roJ;5l 7; ogfaDo nate makes it easy for you to find the right products. The FSA program certifies dark sky friendly outdoor lighting — these are fixtures that are fully shielded and have low color temperature. Search our database and then check with your local retailer. IN THIS SECTION Lighting Outdoor Lighting Basics Find Dark Sky Friendly Lighting Lighting Ordinances Lighting For Policy Makers Residential/Business Lighting My Neighbor's Lighting Bad Streetlights Model Lighting Laws & Policy LED Practical Guide http://www.darksky.org/lighting/lighting-basics/ 2/8/2018 AGENDA ITEM 9-F DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 2018 - RESOLUTION NO. 2018- A RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT ORDER 88-02, AS AMENDED, THE CITYGATE COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS RESTORING LANGUAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER 88-02 AND PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONVERSIONS, WITHOUT INCREASING THE OVERALL BUILDOUT TRAFFIC; AMENDMENT TO REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE/WETLANDS TO REMOVE THE 2.47 ACRE WETLAND "PRESERVE" REQUIREMENT; AMENDMENT TO REMOVE PHASING SCHEDULE AND OBSOLETE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS; AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN; EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE; AND AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR BIENNIAL REPORTING; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT INCLUDING REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND CORRECTION OF ACREAGE; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 291.55 ACRES IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF I-75 AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL201700026341 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, approved Development Order 88-02 (the "Development Order") on December 13, 1988, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Citygate Commerce Park Development Order; and WHEREAS, as a result of an appeal, a Settlement Agreement between Collier County and the Department of Community Affairs resulted in Development Order 90-4, Resolution No. 90-431 dated August 28, 1990 ("1990 DOA"), which amended Section One: Conclusion of Law, Section 4, Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands, including paragraphs c and d (which were entitled "Off -Site Mitigation" and "Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan", respectively) of the Development Order; and [17 -CPS -01718/1393997/1] 178 Underlined text is added; text is deleted. Citygate DRVPL20170002634 2/8/18 Page 1 of 8 Attachment A WHEREAS, the phasing schedule and termination dates were changed by Development Order 95- 2, Resolution No. 95-143 and Development Order 2000-2, Resolution No. 151; and WHEREAS, on November 9, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment to Development Order 88-02, as amended to revise the provisions relating to the Red -Cockaded Woodpecker mitigation; and WHEREAS, 850 NWN, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and CG 11, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Citygate Development LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and South Florida Water Management District, own the DRI property east of the Florida Power & Light Easement; and WHEREAS, Roger B. Rice, of Roger B. Rice, P.A. and Frederick E. Hood, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing 850 NWN LLC, CG H, LLC, and Citygate Development LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend the Development Order; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on March 1, 2018; and WHEREAS, on , the Board of County Commissioners, having considered application of proposed changes to the Development Order, and the record made at said hearing, and having considered the record of the documentary and oral evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission; and report and recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission; the report and recommendation of the Collier County Planning Staff and Advisory Boards, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County hereby approves the following Citygate Commerce Park Development Order amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER 88-02, AS AMENDED A. "Findings of Fact," Paragraph 4 of Development Order 88-02, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 4. The applicant proposes the development of Gitygate Cily Gate Commerce Park Planned Unit Development for 287.187 291.55 acres of t"^`t f r a eemmefeial devet.,...,. I [17 -CPS -01718/1393997/11 178 Underlined text is added; 9wa&k4hF@Hgh text is deleted. Citygate DRI/PL20170002634 2/8/18 Page 2 of 8 deseribed in Development Or-deF 88-02, as amended which includes: 90 000 s uare feet of commercial. 836,000 square feet of office, _1,9 00,000 square feet of Industrial, gas stations 250 hotel/motel rooms and 80,000 square feet of public, utilitarian., recreational and educational s ace. B. Conclusions of Law, Section 3 of Development Order 88-02, as amended, "TRANSPORTATION", is hereby amended as follows: h. The Ci Gate Commerce Park allows a maximum development intensity, which is the aggregate buildin development of: 90 000 square feet of commercial 836,000 square feet of office 1,920,000 s uare feet of industrial as stations 250 hotel/motel rooms and 80,000 square feet of public, utilitarian recreational and educational mace, There are no building restrictions to each particular listed land uses but the aggregate amount of building development may not be exceeded. Further, the final mix of uses developed may not -generate more trams than generated by the Table 1„2.B.3. mix. A traffic conversion has been established to allow for the development of the Collier County Sorts Complex and/or more than the originally estimated 250 hotel units without increasing the overall traffic. The developable building square footage of land uses (industrial and office] will be exchanged for the Sports Complex and/or hotel units. This exchange will not increase the total buildout traffic that was originally approved for the City Gate Commerce Park. C. Conclusions of Law, Section 4 of Development Order 88-2, as amended, "Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands", is hereby to read as follows: 4. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE/WETLANDS: a. Golden Polypody Ferns and Butterfly Orchids shall be relocated to appropriate protected areas on-site. shall be preserved. e -.b. The Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan shall be the Red Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan provisions in the City Gate Habitat Conservation Plan for the Red -Cockaded Woodpecker and Florida Panther (City Gate HCP), document #2005050-10.1 dated March 15, 2006 as revised through May 2008 and approved on March 30, 2009 by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Mitigation for Red Cockaded Woodpecker shall be the mitigation provisions in the Federal Fish & Wildlife Permit TE145823-0, issued July 1, 2009 (City Gate Federal Permit), pursuant to Section 10 of the United States Endangered Species [17 -CPS -01718/1393997/11 178 Underlined text is added;uo text is deleted. Citygate DRUPL20170002634 2/8/18 Page 3 of 8 Act of 1973, as amended (7 U.S.0 § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). 1. A Copy of this RCW Management Plan shall be filed with the original of this Resolution in the Records of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Copies of all Monitoring Reports and correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, regarding the City Gate HCP and City Gate Federal Permit, shall be provided to Collier County and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) as part of the Annual Monitoring Report for the City Gate Commerce Park DRI. 3. The City Gate project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the RCW Management Plan if the City Gate project is in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service under the City Gate HCP and the City Gate Federal Permit. No violation of the RCW Management Plan under this Resolution may be charged unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall have initiated an action to suspend or revoke the City Gate Federal Permit for failure to comply with the RCW Management provisions thereof. D. Conclusions of Law, Section 9 of Development Order 88-02, as amended (2000-02), "General Considerations", is hereby amended by deleting subparagraph c. in its entirety. 9. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: [17 -CPS -01718/1393997/11 178 Underlined text is added; SVudr44ough text is deleted. Citygate DRI/PL20170002634 2/8118 Page 4 of 8 E. Conclusions of Law, Section 10 of Development Order 88-02, "PUD DOCUMENT", is hereby amended as follows: 10. PUD DOCUMENT: The approved Citygate PUD document and Master Development Plan, as those documents may be officially modified from time to time, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Development Order and are entitled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. The updated Master Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby inco1porated in and made part of the Development Order. F. Paragraph 3 of an untitled Section (Page 12) of Development Order 88-02, as amended (2000-02), for the Citygate Commerce Park is hereby amended to read as follows: This Development Order shall remain in effect for the duration of the project. l ewevel-, in the eeevent-41,­ -1.9:,nifieaw physieal devela ptnent has aet­e��d within twelve (12) shall teFminate, and this develepment er-der- shall no longer- be effeetive. For- ptWposes--ef s laiit ,do elude eeiisifue f4eilities stieh as Sewer- and Auter- lines. This tifne period Fnay be extended by the Board ef County Commissioners upon r-eques4 by the —Deve-le-per in the event that uneentfellab! ekeumstanees delay the eommeneement of development. This Development Order shall terminate on October 24 26, -2030. G. Paragraph 5 of an untitled Section (Page 12) of Development Order 88-02, as amended (2000-02), for the Citygate Commerce Park is hereby amended to read as follows: The applicant or its successor(s) in title to the subject property shall submit a report telly biennially, commencing one year from the effective date of this development order amendment, to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier county; and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning council, and the Depa—.,ment of commuffib, Af€aiErs. This report shall contain the information required in Section 9J-2.025(6), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to submit the annual biennial report shall be governed by Subsection 380.06 (18), Florida Statutes. [17 -CPS -01718/1393997/11 178 Underlined text is added; &wucc ret g r text is deleted. Citygate DRIIPL20170002634 2/8/18 Page 5 of 8 SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT A. That the real property which is the subject of the proposed amendment, consists of 291.60 acres is legally described as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. This legal description has been corrected and revised to reflect actual acreage. B. The application is in accordance with Section 380.06(19)(e)1., Florida Statutes. The applicant submitted a Notice of Proposed Change, attached hereto as Exhibit C and by reference made a part hereof, to the Regional Planning Council, the State Land Planning Agency and Collier County. This Section also provides "A Notice of Proposed Change ... that involves an extension of the buildout date of development, or any phase thereof, of less than five years is not subject to the public hearing requirements of f(3) and is not subject to a determination pursuant to subparagraph f(5)." C. A review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the County's departments. D. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State concern pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, as amended. E. A summary of the expiration dates is as follows: Expiratiot Original Date — DO 88-2 DO 90-4 12/31/2007 DO 95-2 12/28/2012 DO 2000-2 10/27/2014 2007 Extension — 3 years 10/27/2017 380.06(19)(c), F.S. 2009 Extension — 2 years 10/27/2019 Senate Bill 360 [17 -CPS -01718/1393997/11 178 Underlined text is added; text is deleted. Citygate DRUPL20170002634 2/8/18 Page 6 of 8 2010 Extension — 2 years 10/27/2021 Ch 2010-147, Laws of Florida 2011 Extension — 4 years 10/27/2025 380.06(19)(c), F.S. Proposed 4 years 364 days 10/26/2030 SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do not require further development of regional impact review. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted pursuant thereto. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. E. The proposed changes do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(e)1. and Section 380.06(19)(e)2.m., Florida Statutes, and therefore it is not subject to the public hearing requirements of 380.06(19)(f)3. and it is not subject to a determination pursuant to Section 380.06(19)(f)5. SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE A. Except as amended hereby, Development Order 88-02, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with the terms on all parties thereto. B. Copies of this Development Order shall be transmitted immediately upon [l7 -CPS -01718/1393997/1] 178 Underlined text is added; S�ruok thfsto text is deleted. Citygate DRl/PL20170002634 2/8/18 Page 7 of 8 execution to the Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Land and Water Management, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. Board. C. This Development Order shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second and favorable vote. Done this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: VA( t3 . Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — Updated Master Development Plan Exhibit B — Legal Description Exhibit C — Notice of Proposed Change [17 -CPS -01718/1393997/11 178 Underlined text is added;:i} text is deleted. Citygate DRI/PL20170002634 2/8/18 Page 8 of 8 0 �U �] l EAST OF FPL WEST OF FPL. EASBAENT EASEMENT GOLDEN GATE CANAL ili, � ••� 1 I � � ; 1 i'r •; ;1\. CITY CAI E BOULEVARD NORTH CITY GATE HOIiLEYARDNORTH %� \�` r7) ' �) � ♦', ,• SGITHCOON'TY REGIONAL I WATER TREATMErtT PLANT [NOT WIT"NCITY GATE Ty GATE DRIVE colueERcr PARK MpLo]) w z ON I Ifi l o - �Iml ----•-- E - , %-------- L__________________ f ; 7 WEST OF FPL EAST OF FPL ' •�``1 EASEMENT EASEMENT a zz -\ti \ - � i t I TOTAL WEST 3645 AC � y LAKE RECREATIONAL TRACT 159SAC 16428AC (3250 AC) 6100 AC (1250AC) 1184AC TOTAL EAST 255-10AC FOR DRIVEWAYS/ 291-SSAC — PEDESTRIAN ACCESS r = ONLY: INTERNAL ACCESS ) ROADWAYS ONLY I -SPORTS COMPLEX LCT - MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 26 E --_ `' _ COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SME N FEET - - FOR DRIVEWAYS/ PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONLY: INTERNAL ACCESS ROADWAYS ONLY i LAND USE TABLE WEST OF THE FPL EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY 718AC LOTS 2927 AC I TOTAL WEST 3645 AC EAST OF THE FPL EASEMENTnI j RIGHT -0F -WAY LOTSIA SPORTS COMPLEX LAKEAND RECREATIONAL TRACT 159SAC 16428AC (3250 AC) 6100 AC (1250AC) 1184AC TOTAL EAST 255-10AC TOTAL CfTY GATE COMMERCE PARK FIA 291-SSAC III IU— K QUKtU Ml1Yt VEGETATION TO 6E RETAINED WITHIN LOTS = 30 57 ACRES [2) INCLUDES 110.00 ACRES OF FPL EASEMENT MAP H A-1 ®E Exhibit B RAVIDSON ATTACHMENT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE NORTH 89000'01" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SAID SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 306.27 FEET TO A POINT ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 35, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 43047'54" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 94.86 FEETTO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 336.0 FEET, DELTA OF 41°0176", AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 23°14'57" WEST, 235.47 FEET, RESPECTIVELY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 240.58 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 02°46'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 750.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04°21'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 294.22 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD NO. 1 AS SHOWN ON THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR STATE ROAD NO. 93 (1-75) SHEET 8 OF 10; THENCE NORTH 89031'01" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 454.07 FEETTO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF COLLIER COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT AS RECORDED IN OR 1022, PG 1257; THENCE SOUTH 00°47'14" WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF TREATMENT PLANT AND THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 653.80 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89°04'40" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 690.82 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF A 170.00 FEET WIDE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT, AS RECORDED IN OR 681, PG 1210; THENCE NORTH 00°47'14" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EASEMENT AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT, A DISTANCE OF 332.74 FEET TO A POINT ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID EASEMENT; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00°47'14" EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1,066.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58°30'03" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID EASEMENT, A DISTANCE OF 596.93 FEETTO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL "A" PROPOSED CONVEYANCE TO CITY GATE AS RECORDED IN OR 3695, PG 2872; THENCE SOUTH 61°10'06" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL "A" AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT, A DISTANCE OF 203.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°47'14" WEST ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID TREATMENT PLANT, A DISTANCE OF 870.28 TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 89031'01" WEST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD AND THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 456.52 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 951; THENCE NORTH 00029'22" WEST ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 951 AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID CITY GATE, PHASE ONE, A DISTANCE OF 1260.46 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE NORTH 89°13'02" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 5,182.54 FEETTO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH 00°30'14" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 2,669.36 TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH 86°27'31" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 66.98 FEET TO THE City Gate Commerce Park PUDA — PL20170002330 Attachment B — Legal Description January 22, 2018 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAVIDSON m; NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 18, WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK, PHASE THREE; THENCE SOUTH 89°00'01" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SECTION 35, A DISTANCE OF 4,910.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PROPERTY CONTAINS 12,699,815 SQUARE FEET OR 291.55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. City Gate Commerce Park PUDA — PL20170002330 Attachment B — Legal Description January 22, 2018 www.davidsonengineering.com Exhibit C FORM DEO-BCP-PROPCHANGE-1 Rule 73C-40.010, FAC. Effective 11-20-90 (Renumbered 10-01-11) STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY DIVISION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT The Caldwell Building, MSC 160 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) SUBSECTION 380.06(19), FLORIDA STATUTES Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires that submittal of a proposed change to a previously approved DRI be made to the local government, the regional planning agency, and the state land planning agency according to this form. 1. I, Frederick E. Hood AICP, the undersigned owner/authorized representative of CG il, LLC and 850 NWN, LLC, hereby give notice of a proposed change to a previously approved Development of Regional Impact in accordance with Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. In support thereof, I submit the following information concerning the City Gate Commerce Park development, which information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have submitted today, under separate cover, copies of this completed notification to Collier County, to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and to the Bureau of Community Planning, Department of Economic Opportunity. 8.30.2017 Date Signature 1 Page I of 1 -4 1 2. Applicant (name, address, phone). CG II, LLC, 850 NWN, LLC and Citygate Development, LLC 121 S Main Street, Suite 500 Akron, OH 44308 3. Authorized Agent (name, address, phone). Davidson Engineering, Inc. Frederick E. Hood, AICP Senior Planner 4365 Radio Rd, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 4. Location (City, County, Township/Range/Section) of approved DRI and proposed change. City: Naples County: Collier Section 35/ Township 49/ Range 26 5. Provide a complete description of the proposed change. Include any proposed changes to the plan of development, phasing, additional lands, commencement date, build -out date, development order conditions and requirements, or to the representations contained in either the development order or the Application for Development Approval. The purposes of this application are for the following: Request a 5 -year extension on the build -out date, Update the Master Concept Plan, R Remove Section 4.b from the existing DRI relating to wetlands, Formal name change request from the CityGate Commerce Park to the City Gate Commerce Center, Provide additional external access points along the eastern property line of the City Gate Commerce Park PUD/DRI. One of the three additional access points being requested (located in the northeast corner) will allow for the connection of the proposed City Gate Boulevard North Extension, to the proposed interconnect to Collier County's Resource Recovery Business Park, and eventually will connect to the proposed Wilson Boulevard -Benfield Road Extension. The remaining two (2) access points being requested will provide pedestrian and vehicular connections, within the proposed Collier County Sports Complex Lot. Indicate such changes on the project master site plan, supplementing with other detailed maps, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested by the Department or any reviewing agency to clarify the nature of the change or the resulting impacts. The existing master site plan has been updated and a copy has been included for your review. 2 page, of I 6. Complete the attached Substantial Deviation Determination Chart for all land use types approved in the development. If no change is proposed or has occurred, indicate no change. The Substantial Deviation Determination Chart has been completed and is attached for review staff's review. 7. List all the dates and resolution numbers (or other appropriate identification numbers) of all modifications or amendments to the originally approved DRI development order that have been adopted by the local government, and provide a brief description of the previous changes (i.e., any information not already addressed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart). Has there been a change in local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the last approval or development order was issued? If so, has the annexing local government adopted a new DRI development order for the project? m Development Order 88-02/ Resolution No. 88-309 — Original DRI e Development Order 90-04/ Resolution No. 90-431 — Amendment to resolve issues raised with the DCA Appeal e Development Order 95-02/ Resolution No. 95-143 — Amendment to phasing schedule, construction commencement date and termination date for project 0 Development Order 00-02/ Resolution No. 00-151 — Amendment to phasing schedule, construction commencement date and termination date for project a Development Order 10-01/ Resolution No. 10-223 — Amendment to regulations pertaining to Red Cockaded Woodpeckers 8. Describe any lands purchased or optioned within 1/4 mile of the original DRI site subsequent to the original approval or issuance of the DRI development order. Identify such land, its size, intended use, and adjacent non -project land uses within %: mile on a project master site plan or other map. N/A. This does not apply to our request. 9. Indicate if the proposed change is less than 40% (cumulatively with other previous changes) of any of the criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes. Do you believe this notification of change proposes a change which meets the criteria of Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)2., F.S. YES X NO 3 Page 3 of 10. Does the proposed change result in a change to the buildout date or any phasing date of the project? If so, indicate the proposed new buildout or phasing dates. A five — year extension of the existing build -out date is being requested with this application. 11. Will the proposed change require an amendment to the local government comprehensive plan? Provide the following for incorporation into such an amended development order, pursuant to Subsections 380.06 (15), F.S., and 73-40.025, Florida Administrative Code: A Planned Unit Development Rezone (PDDR) and a DOA- Notice of Proposed change have been submitted concurrently with this application, to Collier County Growth Management. 12. An updated master site plan or other map of the development portraying and distinguishing the proposed changes to the previously approved DRI or development order conditions. Copies of the original and updated Master Concept Plans have been included for your review. Additionally, copies of these have been provided to Collier County Growth Management within the PUDR and DOA submittals. 13. Pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19)(f), F.S., include the precise language that is being proposed to be deleted or added as an amendment to the development order. This language should address and quantify: a. All proposed specific changes to the nature, phasing, and build -out date of the development; to development order conditions and requirements; to commitments and representations in the Application for Development Approval; to the acreage attributable to each described proposed change of land use, open space, areas for preservation, green belts; to structures or to other improvements including locations, square footage, number of units; and other major characteristics or components of the proposed change; The purposes of this application are for the following: ■ Request a 5 -year extension on the build -out date, m Update the Master Concept Plan, ■ Remove Section 4.b from the existing DRI relating to wetlands, ■ Formal name change request from the CityGate Commerce Park to the City Gate Commerce Center, • Provide additional external access points along the eastern property line of the City Gate Commerce Park PUD/DRI. One of the three additional access points being requested (located in the northeast corner) will allow for the connection of the proposed City Gate Boulevard North Extension, to the proposed interconnect to Collier County's Resource Recovery Business Park, and eventually will connect to the proposed Wilson Boulevard -Benfield Road Extension. The remaining two (2) access points being requested will provide 4 rage 4 of _a pedestrian and vehicular connections, within the proposed Collier County Sports Complex Lot. b. An updated legal description of the property, if any project acreage is/has been added or deleted to the previously approved plan of development; The legal description and boundary of the existing DRI has not changed, therefore an updated legal description is not being provided. C. A proposed and amended development order deadline for commencing physical development of the proposed changes, if applicable; N/A d. A proposed amended development order termination date that reasonably reflects the time required to complete the development; N/A e. A proposed amended development order date until which the local government agrees that the changes to the DRI shall not be subject to down -zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity reduction, if applicable; and Acknowledged. f. Proposed amended development order specifications for the annual report, including the date of submission, contents, and parties to whom the report is submitted as specified in Subsection 73C-40.025 (7), F.A.C. N/A 5 Ilege 5 of SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART TYPE OF LAND USE Attraction/Recreation CHANGE CATEGORY # Parking Spaces PROPOSED PLAN ORIGINAL PLAN PREVIOUS D.O. CHANGE & DATE OF CHANGE NO CHANGE # Spectators N/A # Seats N/A Site locational changes NO CHANGE Acreage, including drainage, ROW, easements, etc. NO CHANGE External Vehicle Trips NO CHANGE D.O. Conditions NO CHANGE ADA Representations NO CHANGE Airports Runway (length) N/A Runway (strength) N/A Terminal (gross square feet) N/A # Parking Spaces N/A # Gates N/A Apron Area (gross square feet) N/A Site locational changes N/A Airport Acreage, including drainage, ROW, easements, etc. N/A Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of the proposed modified site plan drawings. The Bureau may request additional information from the developer or his agent. Page 60 of il SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Airports (cont,) It External Vehicle Trips N/A N/A D.O, Conditions _........ ._ ADA representations N/A Hospitals # Beds N/A # Parking Spaces Building (gross square feet) N/A N/A N/A Site locational changes Acreage, including drainage, ROW, N/A easements, etc. External Vehicle Trips N/A D.O. conditions N/A ADA representations N/A Industrial Acreage, including drainage, ROW, easements, etc. NO CHANGE # Parking spaces NO CHANGE Building (gross square feet) NO CHANGE # Employees NO CHANGE chemical storage (barrels and pounds) NO CHANGE Site locational changes NO CHANGE Note; if a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of the proposed modified site plan drawings, The Bureau may request additional infonnation from the developer or his agent. Page a of I I SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Industrial (cont.) # External vehicle trips NO CHANGE D.O. Conditions NO CHANGE ADA representations NO CHANGE Mining Operations Acreage mined (year) N/A Water withdrawal (gal/day) N/A Size of mine (acres), including drainage, ROW, easements, etc. N/A Site locational changes N/A # External vehicle trips N/A D.O. Conditions N/A ADA representations N/A Office Acreage, including drainage, ROW, easements, etc. NO CHANGE Building (gross square feet) NO CHANGE I # Parking Spaces # Employees NO CHANGE NO CHANGE Site locational changes NO CHANGE # External vehicle trips i i' NO CHANGE D.O. Conditions NO CHANGE Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of the proposed modified site plan drawings. The Bureau may request additional infonnation from the developer or his agent. Page —�L of I -` SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Office (cont.) ADA representations NO CHANGE T Petroleum/Chemical Storage Capacity (barrels and/or pounds) N/A Storage Distance to Navigable Waters (feet) N/A Site locations changes N/A Facility Acreage, including drainage, ROW, N/A easements, ect. # External vehicle trips N/A D.O. Conditions N/A ADA representations N/A Ports (Marinas) # Boats, wet storage N/A # Boats, dry storage N/A Dredge and fill (cu. yds.) N/A Petroleum storage (gals.) N/A Site locational changes N/A Port Acreage, including drainage, ROW, N/A easements, etc. # External vehicle trips N/A D.O. Conditions N/A ADA representations N/A Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of the proposed modified site plan drawings. The Bureau may request additional information from the developer or his agent. Page 3— ofI �' SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Residential # Dwelling units N/A Type of dwelling units N/A # of lots N/A Acreage, including drainage, ROW, N/A easements, etc. Site locational changes Site # External vehicle trips N/A D.O. Conditions N/A Wholesale, Retail, Service Acreage, including drainage, ROW, NO CHANGE easements, etc. Floor Space (gross square feet) NO CHANGE # Parking Spaces NO CHANGE # Employees NO CHANGE Site locational changes NO CHANGE # External vehicle trips NO CHANGE D.O. Conditions NO CHANGE ADA representations NO CHANGE Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of the proposed modified site plan drawings. The Bureau may request additional information from the developer or his agent. Page 0 of i i SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Hotel/Motel # Rental Units NO CHANGE Floor space (gross square feet) NO CHANGE # Parking Places NO CHANGE # Employees NO CHANGE Site locational changes NO CHANGE NO CHANGE Acreage, including drainage, ROW, easements, etc. # External vehicle trips NO CHANGE D.0. Conditions NO CHANGE ADA representations NO CHANGE R.V. Park Acreage, including drainage, ROW, NO CHANGE easements, etc. # Parking Spaces NO CHANGE Buildings (gross square feet) NO CHANGE # Employees NO CHANGE Site locational changes NO CHANGE # External vehicle trips NO CHANGE D.O. conditions NO CHANGE ADA representations NO CHANGE Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of the proposed modified site plan drawings. The Bureau may request additional information from the developer or his agent. SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Open Space (All natural and Acreage NO CHANGE vegetated non -impervious NO CHANGE surfaces) Site locational changes NO CHANGE Type of open space D.O. Conditions NO CHANGE ADA representations NO CHANGE Preservation, Buffer or Acreage 2.47 acres to 0 acres Special Protection Areas NOCH . ANGE Preservation (cont.) Site locational changes Development of site proposed NO CHANGE D.O. Conditions NO CHANGE ADA representations NO CHANGE Note: If a response is to be more than one sentence, attach a detailed description of each proposed change and copies of the proposed modified site plan drawings. The Bureau may request additional information from the developer or his agent. Page I -L a 1- SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL RECEIPT AND REVIEW FEE AGREEMENT FOR REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT APPLICANT REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL USE ONLY Name Joseph R. Weber PROJECT IDENTIFICATION 121 S, Main Street, Suite 500 Address NAME: Akron, OH 44308 Telephone 239 } 593-1002 E-mail Roger@attyrogerrice.com AUTHORIZED AGENT Name Frederick E. Hood, AICP, Davidson Engineering, Inc. Address 4365 Radio Rd, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Telephone l 239 434.6060 1._ _ E-mail fred@davidsonengineering.com NUMBER: COORDINATOR: DATE RECEIVED: Location of Project Section 35 _ _Township 49—Range.26 County_.GENERAL LOCATION Collier Collier and City Gate Boulevards _ Name of Project City Gate Commerce Park Former Project Name(s) for this site (if applicable) _ SWFRPC Review Fee Agreement ver072006 Page 13 Of I I Whereas the Department of Community Affairs adopted Rule 9J-2.0252, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), governing the policies and procedures for the assessment and collection of fees by regional planning agencies for the review of Application for Development Approval (ADA) of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), a Substantial Deviation ADA, a Development Designation of Florida Quality Development (FQD), an application for Abandonment of a DRI, a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) and plans and reviews identified in development orders requiring regional review; and Whereas the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and the below named applicant desire to act in conformity with Rule 9J-2.0252, FAC, which requires a contract for the payment of fees between the regional planning agency and the applicant; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, Joseph R. Weber, Vice President herein after referred to as APPLICANT, and the SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, herein after referred to as SWFRPC, on this _ _ _day of _ _ _ , 20_ _, agree as follows: I. The APPLICANT is submitting an Application for Development Approval (ADA) of a DRI, a Substantial Deviation ADA, a Development Designation for Florida Quality Development (FQD), an application for Abandonment of a DRI, a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to a previously approved DRI, or a supplemental review required by the development order (Circle appropriate type of submittal) 2. For an application for an ADA, a Substantial Deviation ADA or a FQD, the APPLICANT is required (in accordance with FAC 9J -2.0252(2)(a) and FAC 9J -2.0252(2)(b)) to submit a deposit in the amount of 315,000.00 prior any related issue methodology meeting (including the review of Preliminary Development Agreements), prior to the submission of the pre -application information form (FORM-RPM-BSP-PREAPP INFO -1) or prior to conducting a preapplication conference in accordance with Section 380.06(7), Florida Statutes, whichever 2 �] S WFRPC Review Fee Agreement ver072006 'age j of 1 occurs first for an ADA, Substantial Deviation ADA, or an FQD. $5,000.00 of the fee deposit is non-refundable. An additional deposit of $20,000.00 is to be submitted with the ADA, Substantial Deviation ADA or FQD (9J2-0252(2)(6). The APPLICANT shall be liable to the SWFRPC for 100% of the actual costs, both direct and indirect, of coordinating or reviewing an ADA, a Substantial Deviation ADA or FQD (9J -2.0252(3)(a)). The APPLICANT shall be notified by the SWFRPC when the funds in the project's account or cost center are less than or equal to $5,000.00. The notice shall indicate whether the SWFRPC estimates the costs of coordinating or reviewing the application will exceed the existing deposit and, if so, will request an additional deposit sufficient to cover the CeSnIn ted remaining costs. APPLICANT agrees to waive the $75,000 total deposit limit of FAC 9J -2.0252(3)(c), however, by agreeing to the waiver of the total deposit the APPLICANT does not waive FAC 9-J-2.0252(4). 3. For an application for a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to a previously approved DRI, an application for Abandonment of a DRI, or a supplemental review required by the development order, in accordance with FAC 9J-2.0252(6) the APPLICANT is required to submit a deposit in the amount of $2,500.00 prior to any related methodology meeting or at the time of application submittal, whichever occurs first. The $2,500.00 initial deposit shall be non- refundable. Charges related to these reviews will be handled in the same manner as for an ADA, a Substantial Deviation ADA or FQD. The APPLICANT shall be notified by the SWFRPC when the funds in the project's account or cost center fall below 51,500.00. The APPLICANT shall make an additional deposit with the SWFRPC in the amount of $1,500.00 within 15 days of receipt of notification. The APPLICANT shall be liable to the SWFRPC for 100% of the actual costs, both direct and indirect, for coordination and review of the APPLICANT's submittal (FAC 9J -2.0252(3)(a). Failure to make an additional deposit with the SWFRPC in the amount requested within 15 days may result in a work stoppage on subject application until such time as requested funds are deposited with the SWFRPC (FAC 9J-2.0252(2) and FAC 9J -2.0252(2)(a)). If the application is withdrawn, the APPLICANT is liable to the SWFRPC for 100% of the actual costs, both direct and indirect of the coordination and review of the application up to the time of request for withdrawal. 3 SWFRPC Review Fee Agreement ver072006 i 4. Upon completion of the review process, if the actual costs exceed the total amount deposited in the project's account or cost center, but are less than $75,000.00, the SWFRPC shall bill the APPLICANT within ninety (90) days thereafter. The APPLICANT shall pay the amount due to the SWFRPC within 30 days following receipt of the bill. Any dispute regarding expenses included in a final bill which is less than $75,000.00 shall be submitted directly to the SWFRPC and shall be handled by the SWFRPC in the same manner as other types of expense disputes. 5. Upon completion of the review process, if the actual costs exceed the total amount deposited in the project's account or cost center, and are greater than $75,000.00, the SWFRPC shall bill the APPLICANT within 90 days. The APPLICANT shall pay the amount due, less any disputed expenses, to the SWFRPC within 30 days following receipt of the bill. If any specific expenses exceed $75,000.00 and these expenses are disputed by the APPLICANT, the APPLICANT must notify the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the SWFRPC in writing listing specific expenses in dispute and the reasons why these expenses should not be considered reasonable and necessary for the regional review of the project. This notice shall be rendered within 15 days of the final bill; failure to do so shall be considered as a waiver of the APPLICANT's right to dispute any expenses (FAC 9J -2.0252(4)(a)). Within 15 days of any notice of dispute, the SWFRPC shall inform the DCA how and why the disputed expenses are reasonable and necessary. The DCA shall determine the expenses that are reasonable and necessary within 30 days. 6. Fees not remitted by APPLICANT to SWFRPC within 30 days of receipt of the final bill from the SWFRPC, or within 15 days of receipt of the Department of Community Affairs' determination regarding any disputed expenses, shall require APPLICANT to pay to SWFRPC interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of one percent (l%) per month. In the event the SWFRPC is required to file suit to collect unpaid fees, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to be paid by the non -prevailing party all reasonable costs incurred by the prevailing party, including expert witness fees and reasonable attorney fees. Failure of the SWFRPC to make applicable refunds to the APPLICANT within 60 days, as provided herein, shall require 4 SWFRPC Review Fee Agreement ver072006 Page] � _ of SWFRPC to pay to APPLICANT interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of one percent (l%) per month. 7. The SWFRPC shall within 90 days, refund deposited funds (excluding the non- refundable $5,000.00 deposit for an ADA, a Substantial Deviation ADA or a FQD) which exceed its direct and indirect costs or that remain at the time the APPLICANT withdraws an application. 8. All fees paid by APPLICANT to SWFRPC shall be by certified check or bank draft, in U.S. funds, made payable to SWFRPC. Upon receipt of the initial fee deposit as required herein, the SWFRPC shall establish an account or cost center for the project to be reviewed. 9. The SWFRPC shall maintain records of all direct and indirect costs associated with the coordination of the preapplication conference, related issue methodology meetings, Preliminary Development Agreement, and other activities through the review of the ADA, Substantial Deviation ADA, application for abandonment, NOPC to a previously approved DRI and of the final or amended development order, its presentation to the Council and comments issued to the local government preparation for and attendance of hearings that are reasonable and necessary in respect to the regional review of the impacts of the development. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M 'Title: Dated the day of _ _ _ 20- - E APPLICANT 1t[ By:: Josept, R. Weber, Vice President Dated the ? of I�Vj 20_�7 SWFRPC Review Fee Agreement ver072006Wage Of J2 .� CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK DRI NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE IN COLLIER COUNTY BACKGROIIND The City Cate Commerce Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is located on 291.55 acres at the northeast corner ofI-75 and County Road 951 in Collier County (see Attachment I, Location Map). The Board of Collier County Commissioners approved the project on December 13, 1988 in Development Order (D.O.) (88-93). This order was amended to settle an appeal taken by the Department of Community Affairs on August 28, 1990 in D.O. (90-4). The project is approved for a total of 90,000 square feet of commercial, 836,000 square feet of office, 1,920,000 square feet of industrial, 250 hotel/motel rooms, and 80,000 square feet of public, utilitarian, recreational and educational space. To date 212 hotel rooms, 3,643 square feet of retail (gas station and car wash), 18,083 square feet of office for the South Flonda Water Management District (SFWMD) Big Cypress Field Office and a recently permitted self-storage facility. The current DRI Termination Date is October 27, 2025 (Collier County 11312012 4-year extension letter). PREVIOUS CHANGES Development Order 90-04/ Resolution No. 90-431 Amendment to resolve issues raised with the DCA Appeal. Development Order 95-021 Resolution No. 95-143 - Amendment to phasing schedule, construction commencement date and termination date for project. Development Order 00-02/ Resolution No. 00-151 - Amendment to phasing schedule, construction commencement date and termination date for project. Development Order 10-01/ Resolution No. l0-223 Amendment to regulations pertaining to Red Cockaded Woodpeckers. o A Development Agreement between City Gate applicant and the county was adopted on 121112009 and amended ot 612312015 to "recognize that the developer had paid the road impact fees then due, and directed that a permanent Certificate ofPublic Facility Adequacy be issued for the Phase Two Plat". This Agreement also "found and determined that there is no PUD transportation condition or Transportation Conditions for the buildout that has not been satisfied, or would not be satisfied by Developer's compliance with its obligations under this Amendment". PROPOSED CHANGES Collier County plans to construct a 61-acre sports complex within the City Gate Commerce Park which will utilize roadways that are a part of City Gate. The proposed project will consist of 8 general purpose sports fields, a 3,000-seat stadium and a 125,000-sf field house. As a sports complex was not part ofthe original concept for the commerce park and, so as not to increase the total buildout traffic compared to existing uses, this project proposes a traffic conversion of existing uses to those associated with the Attachment B proposed sports complex. In addition to the sports complex, development of additional hotel rooms is also being considered within the City Gate Commerce Park property. Other changes are list below. . Update the Master Concept Plan (see Attachment II) ,o Provide additional extemal access points along the eastem property line of the City Gate Commerce Park PUD/DRI. One of the three additional access points being requested (located in the northeast comer) will allow for the connection of the proposed City Gate Boulevard North Extension, to the proposed interconnect to Collier County's Resource Recovery Business Park, and eventually will connect to the proposed Wilson Boulevard-Benfield Road Extension. The remaining two (2) access points being requested will provide pedestrian and vehicular connections, within the proposed Collier County Sports Complex Lot.o Remove Section 4.b from the existing DRI relating to wetlands,. Formal name change request from the City Gate Commerce Park to the City Gate Commerce Center, o Addition of details on the development program in Section 2.d,o Removal of Section 9.c relating to buildout dates for individual phases, in its entirety,. Amendment to Paragraph l0 under Conclusions of Law, Section 10 (Page 1 1) of the DO to include a reference to the updated Master Plan,o Addition of details on the development program and establishing traffic conversion in Section 3.h,o Amendment to Paragraph 3 of an untitled Section (Page 12) to include the termination date of October 26, 2030, and o Amendment to Paragraph 5 ofan untitled Section (Page 12) to include submission ofa biennial report instead of an annual report. CHARACTER. MAGNITUDE. LOCATION There are no changes in character, magnitude or location ofthe DRI associated with the changes. REGIONAL GOALS. RESOURCES OR FACILITIES The primary regional issues of concern for this NOPC is related to wetland and transportation impacts. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed the NOPC and in coordination with Collier County has no objections and determined the following. . The DRI is vested. ' Any exchange in the land uses between industrial and office for the Sports Complex and./or hotel units will be within the approved trips, therefore the exchange will not increase the total buildout traffic that was originally approved for the DRI.. The traffic conversion details will be attached to the Planned Unit Development (pUD). ' All transportation related conditions have been mitigated except for the installation of a traffic signal at one intersection. The SFWMD reviewed the change and stated that "there appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District forwards no comments and does not require additional information to evaluate the local and regional impacts necessary for the Notice of Proposed Change". The applicant indicated that "a total of 23.'77 acres of wetlands were present on the property at the time of ERP permitting with the SFWMD. The SFWMD environmental resource permit for City Gate was issued in October of 2O09. As part of that permit, the SFWMD authorized direct impacts to all but 2.01 acres ofjurisdictional wetlands that were present on the property. The 2.01 acres of wetlands, located in City Gate Phase 3, are isolated and made up ofa 0.69-acre area in the central portion ofthe phase and a 1.32-acre area adjacent to the southem property line. The SFWMD considered these remaining wetlands to be secondanly impacted due to isolation by the proposed sunounding development. City Gate has already mitigated for these secondary impacts as part of their approved permit". "Due to the small, isolated nature of these wetlands and the fact that they have already been secondarily impacted, the SFWMD would allow these wetlands to be directly impacted. A permit modification would be required along with a small amount of offsite mitigation at an approved wetland mitigation bank - City Gate or Collier County may pursue this modification in the future. No permits from Federal agencies (ACOE or USFWS) would have to be modified or acquired for this change." MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES No new multi-jurisdictional issues will occur from these changes. NEED FOR REASSESSMENT OF THE DRI Because no additional regional impacts are anticipated, the need for reassessment of the DRI ts unnecessary. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSED D.O. LANGUAGE The applicant has provided acceptable draft development order amendment language necessary to rebut the presumption that no additional regional impacts will occur from the changes. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: l.NotiSz Collier County, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and the applicant that the proposed changes do not create additional regional lmpacts. Request that Collier County provide SWFRPC staff with copies of any development order amendments related to the proposed changes. 2. 2fi512018 R \ ATTACHMENT I CITYGATE GENERAL COLLIER COUNTY r-7s(u.c.) sR a4 E\ R TOLL GAIE COMM. CENTER COMMERCE PARK LOCATION MAP BREI-ONNE PARK LELY RESORT �o er �o-rl�ty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: January 18, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: DOA - PL20170002634 - REV: 4 PETITION NAME: City Gate Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to amend the City Gate Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order (DO) #88-02, as amended, to: a Update the Master Concept Plan ® Amend Section Two to update acreage and project development. • Remove Section 4.b. "Vegetation and Wildlife/Wetlands" from existing DRI (relating to wetlands). a Remove Section 9.c. General Considerations, as amended, in its entirety. Update the Master Development Plan, attached as Exhibit `A', to be included in DO. o As shown on the Master Development Plan, provide additional access points along the eastern property boundary of the City Gate Commerce Park PUD/DRI for internal access roadways/pedestrian only access. • Amend Paragraph 3 of an untitled Section (page 12 of DO #88-02, as amended), and propose change of DO termination date to extend to October 26, 2030. o Amend text of Paragraph 5 of an untitled Section (page 12 of DO #88-02, as amended) to read a report shall be submitted biennially instead of annually. e Amend Paragraph 10 under the Conclusion of Law Section (page 11) to make reference to the updated Master Development Plan. m Amended Section 3, Conclusions of Law, to add language regarding the Sports Complex Project and note the traffic conversion of industrial and office land uses in exchange for the Sports Complex and/or hotel units. LOCATION: The X291.6 acre subject site is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 75 (I-75) and Collier Blvd. (CR 951), lying south of the Golden Gate Canal, east if Collier Blvd. (CR 951), and north of Shaw Blvd., in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. Zoning Division a 2800 North Horseshoe Drive a Naples, FL 34104 a 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Attachment C COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The western portion of the subject site lies west of the Florida Power and Light (FPL) Easement (29.27 acres + 7.18 ROW acres = 36.45 acres) and is depicted as Urban Designation, Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #9. The eastern portion lies east of the FPL Easement (161.83 acres + 15.98 ROW acres + 63.50 Sports complex acres +13.84 Lakes and Recreation acres = 255.15 acres) and is depicted as Urban Designation, Industrial District on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The South County Regional Water Treatment Plant is not part of the City Gate Commerce Park PUD. Consistency with FLUE designations (uses, intensities, etc.) and FLUE Policies 5.4 and 7.1 — 7.4 are addressed by staff in the companion PUDZ consistency review. CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with the FLUE. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section DOA-PL2017-2634 City Gate R4.docx Zoning Division ■ 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ■ Naples, FL 34104 a 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 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