The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 03/15/2018 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,MARCH 15,2018, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—February 15,2018 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the March 1,2018 CCPC meeting: A. 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; Page 1 of 3 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. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the March 1,2018 CCPC meeting: B. 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] C. PL20170000425: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), as amended, by adding outdoor recreation facilities as a general permitted use; by providing that wellness centers associated with employees and hotel guests shall not count towards square footage maximums in the business district and industrial commercial district; by allowing a 169 room hotel on Tract 6 west of Goodlette Frank Road; by decreasing the allowable square footage in the industrial commercial district by 6,900 square feet for a total of 709,100 square feet of floor area of industrial/commerce uses; by decreasing the allowable square footage in the business district by 23,000 square feet to 269,000 square feet including a reduction from 242,000 square feet to 219,000 square feet of office uses;by adding indoor and outdoor recreational facilities as a permitted accessory use in the business district and industrial commercial district;by adding deviations to allow any use on Tracts 3 and 6 on the master plan to be eligible for the county's architectural deviation process and a deviation to permit existing street trees to satisfy the buffer tree requirements for Tract 5. The subject property is located south of Immokalee Road and both east and west of Goodlette Frank Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida,consisting of 106 acres;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,Principal Planner] D. PUDA-PL20170001345: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended,the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow group housing for seniors on Residential Parcel Two A, and to add new development standards for Residential Parcel Two A; and providing for an effective date, for property located near the Marco Island Executive Airport in Section 26, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:Eric Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner] E. PL-20150000306: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property Page 2 of 3 from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Rushton Pointe RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 229 residential dwelling units on property located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, approximately two thirds of a mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 27, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, consisting of 38.1± acres. [Coordinator:Tim Finn,Principal Planner] F. PL20160002106: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2002-51, as amended,the Lawmetka Plaza PUD, to add a third access point on Wiggins Pass Road,to limit the eastern most access point on Wiggins Pass Road to right in/right out,to limit the western most access point on Wiggins Pass Road to service and delivery vehicles only, to add a developer commitment relating to transportation, and to amend the Master Plan. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass Road intersection, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of±34 acres. [Coordinator:Tim Finn,Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp Page 3 of 3 February 15, 2018 Page 1 of 67 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 15, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Fred Reischl, Principal Planner Eric John, Principal Planner Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative February 15, 2018 Page 2 of 67 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, February 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert's here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. I don't know of any changes to today's agenda. We have four cases. The last three all involve the same property, so actually we have two different property locations. Ray, do you have any changes needed to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is March 1st. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the March 1st meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. We're good. Approval of minutes. We have one set of minutes sent to us electronically. It was the January 18th, 2018, minutes. Are there any corrections, changes, or comments? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Whoa, whoa, whoa. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Cirrus Pointe is C-i-r-r-u-s, like the cloud formation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Subject to the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I will move approval of the minutes of the 18th of January. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Patrick. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. February 15, 2018 Page 3 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On February 13th, the Board of County Commissioners heard two items from the Planning Commission, the Antilles RPUD and the conditional use for the storage facility on Basic Drive. They were approved on the Board's summary agenda subject to CCPC conditions. The Board also heard the Foxfire PDI. That was -- received approval from -- or recommendation -- yeah, the affirmative from the Hearing Examiner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ray, would you also please report on the Land Development Code changes and the resolution that the Board reached. MR. BELLOWS: On which item? COMMISSIONER FRYER: On the off-site vegetation. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not as familiar with that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Mike was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was -- there was a Board discussion on that on Tuesday. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The Board took no action on the off-site native vegetation amendment. They discussed some of the options they'd like to see brought back within the form of an ordinance, but there was no consensus that was arrived upon in terms of the three options, whether it be CCLAC, DSAC, or the Planning Commission's recommendations whether -- on the limitations of the off-site preserve, Planning Commission had the limitation of the half acre. CCLAC and DSAC had suggested one acre with a deviation up to two acres, and then the monetary payment, there was still -- there wasn't consensus. So we're looking -- we're going to bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners within an ordinance, and they're going to make their final decision. So no final decision has been made on the off-site preservation amendments. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There seemed to be a consensus, though, that land donations should continue to be permitted. MR. BOSI: There was -- there was not a consensus on any one of the issues other than they had -- there was a 4-1 recommendation to move forward with the -- move forward with the half-acre limitation. But, once again, there was no decisions made. That was only a request to advertise. So there was no -- there was no capacity that they could make an official decision off of an ordinance. So there was just a preview of the discussion to come. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the advertising will contain the land donation option. MR. BOSI: Advertising will notify that there is going to be proposed amendments to the native preserve. MR. KLATZKOW: We're not advertising yet, okay. We need to bring the Board ordinance -- the Board is still discussing the various policy implications of everything, so nothing's been advertised yet. Nothing's finalized yet. We'll be bringing a draft ordinance to the Board with a number of different alternatives. And once the Board reaches some, at least, majority view as to what they'd like to see, then we'll advertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeff. Okay. That brings us -- is that the end of the BCC report, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brings us to chairman's report. The only thing I'd like to ask, we've got four cases today. The last three are all for the mini-triangle. There's a lot of information there, and it's probably going to take a while to get through it all. I'd like to ask before anybody speaks on this panel that you be recognized first so we don't have people talking over one another, and that when you do speak we make sure it's at a speed that our court reporter can handle, which is really very slow. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman. February 15, 2018 Page 4 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri hates it when I have coffee in the morning, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: This is a point of reference. Due to things beyond my control, I need to be somewhere by 1 o'clock. Probably need to leave here by 12:00 or 12:30. So I just wanted to give you a headsup. It was unexpected, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's hard to gauge how long the -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issues from B through D will take. I usually can determine a little bit by the amount of people showing up for the meeting. There's not many members of the public here today. I thought the room would be packed. This is a groundbreaking project for the community, and we certainly will listen to those that are here. But without a lot of public input, it may shorten the time frame in which we can finish it up. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll go on to consent agenda. ***We have nothing carried over from other meetings, and that will move us right into our first advertised public hearing. It's 9A. It's PUDA-PL20160000087, and that's for the Calusa Island Village Planned Unit Development. 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: Okay. Disclosures for 9A. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A brief conversation with Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have had quite a bit of conversations with not only Mr. Mulhere but I think at one point his client. This has been going on for a huge amount of time, probably longer than it really should have been. But at least we're here today. So I don't remember the gentleman's name, but I know I talked to him on the phone a couple times as well, and I think I talked to Commissioner Fiala about it as well. Karen? COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Spoke briefly with Mr. Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere, for the record, here this morning representing Scott Allen. That's the gentleman's name. The Calusa Island -- I'm just finding the technical name of it here. This PUD, Calusa Island Village PUD, I'm sorry, was approved in March of 2004. It was amended a couple different times. When it was approved, it allowed for a mixed residential and commercial tract. And the exhibit on the visualizer is from that PUD that shows that mixed residential -- multifamily residential and commercial tract. Parking here and commercial, presumably, on the ground floor. Retail, restaurant -- probably restaurant, and then four multifamily dwelling units. So the PUD is almost entirely built out with development that runs this way. This is the last remaining few parcels that have not been developed, and I'll show you another exhibit here. So the community clubhouse, swimming pool, and recreational facility are right here. This is the road that goes into Goodland; Goodland Drive. These three platted -- previously platted parcels prior to the PUD, which are part of the PUD, are undeveloped, and these would be the mixed-use multifamily tract February 15, 2018 Page 5 of 67 identified in the PUD. My client purchased these two parcels. The association owns this parcel which they wish to retain as a buffer and perhaps in the future for recreational uses. They have no intention of developing that. When I first prepared this submittal, and at the time of the neighborhood information meeting, I had proposed to downzone the property because my client's desire is to build a single-family home on one lot and potentially another one on the other lot, or somebody else may build that single-family home. But when I first submitted this, in respecting the other property owners' rights, meaning the association, my request was to provide an option for single-family, which is -- the PUD says in several locations that all residential types are permitted, but it doesn't expressly allow single-family within this tract. It only expressly allows multifamily, hence the need to do an amendment. My client really only wanted two units, but with respect to the association's property rights, we came in and requested downzone -- or provided an alternative, which would be, really, a downzone, if constructed. We asked for three single-family units as an alternative to the commercial and multifamily. At the NIM everyone was supportive, very supportive of providing for this option and, if exercised, that would eliminate the commercial and the multifamily, which they really don't want to see on these small lots here; however, there was concerns expressed about asking for three. There was a preference for only asking for two, one unit for each of Mr. Allen's lots. And I talked to my client, he did not object, so we amended the request from a request for three single-family to two. We had a letter from the association supporting the proposed changes when we were proposing to provide the alternative for three units, but the County Attorney's Office, after we changed that, wanted to be sure that the association understood when we went down to two, that they were now losing the ability, if that right was exercised, to build a unit on their lot. And so I sent an email to and received an email back from the association president. Let's see. How do I make that a little bigger? I want to make sure I get it right. Right here. And this email, I think, clearly indicates that they are aware of that. Their desire is not to build a unit on that. Their desire is to use it for buffering and/or recreational purposes in the future. Obviously, if they want to do something recreational, they may have to do a PDI or some other minor change, because right now the only uses permitted on that are commercial, multifamily, or single-family, if this gets approved. I think that concludes my presentation. I don't know if there's anybody here to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll find out in a minute. Is there any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with this at all, but nonetheless a couple of questions came to mind that I wanted to see what the answers were. First of all, would you mind explaining how exactly you would still put a dock on Lot 33. MR. MULHERE: Let me put the color exhibit -- oh, it's right here. So there are riparian rights. I do not know nor have I designed the -- thank you, Heidi -- you know, a dock facility here. Obviously, you know you have a dock facility here, and there are setbacks required fronm each property line. I imagine that for this property here there would need to be some sort of an agreement allowing a dock to come out here. If it violates the riparian rights on this property, then they would have to come in and ask for a variance or a special exception. I think that runs through the Hearing Examiner process. Yes, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those red lines on that drawing may not be right. If you look at them down that side, they go through the houses instead of between the houses. And you see that with a lot of the Appraiser's stuff. They're off as much as 10 feet. So if you're going off that to judge whether you can put a dock in, it may not be accurate. MR. MULHERE: And if you look at this, obviously, there's room here to do something, and it may be, you know, a minimal dock, a marginal dock. It will have to meet the setbacks. This property here does February 15, 2018 Page 6 of 67 present a problem, but they'll have to deal with that. We really didn't get into the issues there. Whether or not they can or can't, they may have to come in for special exception. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My second question is with respect to Lot 35. By changing from four multifamily down to two single-family, how does that affect, if at all, Lot 35? What could be done on Lot 35 after this PUDA? MR. MULHERE: So, again, as I originally submitted it, I had retained their rights for one single-family lot. You know, if my client builds a single-family lot here, then the right to do -- a single-family home here or here, then the right to exercise the commercial and multifamily goes away. The PUD is written that it's an option. But once you exercise one or the other option, the other one goes away. But after hearing from the association and other residents that they didn't want -- they weren't going to use it for residential and they wanted it to be limited to two units, we revised our application. So this lot here would -- could only be used for buffering, but I imagine if they wanted to expand their recreational facilities, they could go through a PDI, an insubstantial change to the PUD. It wouldn't be a use change, I don't think, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Technically, though, it's still going to be zoned multifamily commercial mixed use? MR. MULHERE: It will be zoned either multifamily commercial mixed use or single-family. It's a mixed-use tract. But, again, if my client does build a single-family home, then the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but in 4.2, Bob, in your application it's pretty clear that if the other -- if two multifamily units are built on those lots, then the multifamily and commercial element all goes away. MR. MULHERE: Goes away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that the intention is those two lots are going to have single-family. So, in essence, I think to answer Ned's questions, it wouldn't have any zoning left on it of any effect. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My last question: The NIM meeting which, again, I compliment you for, very audible and easy to follow, one of the -- at least one of the spokespeople for the neighbors asked if the developer or the owners would be willing to relinquish the option of mixed-use multifamily so that it would only be single-family going forward. MR. MULHERE: You know, his intent is to build that. I don't know if he's here. Well, there's some other folks back there. They can speak to the issue. But -- come on up. You can come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, no. MR. MULHERE: That's Scott Allen. He's the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're the applicant. Okay. If you want to -- MR. MULHERE: I didn't recognize him back there because, you know, he's hiding in the back. Well, I think I can answer the question. We just felt it was best from a property rights perspective to allow either option. His intent is to build a single-family home. I don't really know what else I can say in response to that. That's why we left both options in there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't feel strongly about it, but since it was raised at the NIM, I thought it ought to be raised here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I had, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, there's a couple small changes that I think would clean this up on -- let me get to the right page. Of the PUD, it's on Page 4 of 7. It says, single-family limited to two dwelling units, parenthetical, one per platted lot. Since the methodology in which those are applied to the property as spelled out in one of the other paragraphs, I think that adding that one per platted lot might just be confusing and not needed to be there. Do you have any problem striking that? MR. MULHERE: Nope. February 15, 2018 Page 7 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm moving through the rest. I don't think there's anything else, but let me double-check. Nope. That will do it. I have a cleanup from staff, but other than that we're good. Thank you. Anybody else have any? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to staff report. MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. After review -- I'm the third planner to review this -- we found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan and compatible with the surrounding uses and, therefore, in the succession of planners that reviewed this, all three of us recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I subscribe to a few technical publications, and while there may be a doubt in people's mind that the climate is changing or that it's manmade or whatever, I don't care, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that the sea level is rising. And a few months ago the Board of County Commissioners had a couple of scientists in here, and at that meeting, I think they adopted or maybe they were told that they should adopt a predicted sea level rise of about three feet by the year 2100. One of those scientists has since changed his mind to maybe five feet. Well, that appears to be like a foot a generation of rise, and that means that any coastal road you have, every generation is going to have to raise that road a foot to access anything that's out there. It seems like any project like this ought to have maybe staff include a segment in there, sea level rise and what will happen when the sea level rises, how fast we think it's going to rise, and, you know, the effect that it's going to have. I had everybody -- or saw the LiDAR for this project. They saw how low it is. You know, it's going to be a problem, and there's not a doubt in my mind it's happening. I'll be long dead before anybody -- you know, I may see the start of it, you know, the first 10 years or so, but I'll be long dead before they do that first foot of road rise. But there ought to be something in some of these coastal projects that says, you know, you're good for 50 years, then you may have to raise the road, raise your buildings, and all this other stuff. What do you think? MR. REISCHL: I believe on the LDC that it does require that we examine sea level rise during the PUD process, but I don't think it applies to a change in density like this. Just to bolster what you said, my association, the American Planning Association, does also encourage us to look at sea level rise and its effects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the forum for that is a policy discussion maybe under new business or something like that if it's agreed that it should be added to an agenda, especially more possibly from the BCC when the studies they've got going on get done. I know Stan firmly believes in sea level rise, and some of the people he's familiar with do, but until all the studies are done, I don't think we ought to be doing anything until we have more concrete evidence. It's still a controversial subject. Some people believe in it; some don't. I personally agree with you. I believe in it, but I don't think it's solid enough to enter into a land use issue yet at this time, so... MR. REISCHL: Well, as the designated land planning agency, you can recommend that to the Board, too. So that may be something for future discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I see no harm in putting -- we do an environmental review, we do a stormwater review, we do this review, that review. I have no problems with this, I have no problems with that. I don't see any harm in just putting a little thing in there, sea level, this project may be affected by sea level rise in as little as 20, 30, 40, 50 years. You know, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, I think it's too premature in the process to even get into that. If the LDC required that analysis after the studies that are being put forth by the Board and others get done, I'm in February 15, 2018 Page 8 of 67 full agreement with you. But at this point there's too much controversy on it to know exactly what's going to happen. Sure, I think rise of some kind may happen, but I'm not an authority on it. I'm certainly not scientifically involved in it. I would just rather we stick to the facts of the LDC as they are known today, and then those other issues we can address as they become more mature. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. Then I won't have to bring it up at the next project either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you can bring it up. You're a Planning Commission member. You can bring up anything you want, Stan. I just -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I defer to your judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, if you mind taking that off the screen -- MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's not the project we're talking about right now. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Just trying to save time and get it ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be here all day for you, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only point I have about staff is there's a sentence on Page 4 of 9 of the staff report that says, this is an insubstantial change. I only wish it was. We would have saved the gentleman a lot of time and heartache and money, but it's not. It's a PUDA. So that correction needs just to be on the record that this is a -- MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- considered a substantial change. MR. REISCHL: It started out, we called it a PDI and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm familiar with the history. I just wanted to make that clarification to you. MR. REISCHL: You are correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public registered to speak, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member here that would like to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, Bob, I'm sure you don't have a rebuttal. So with that, we'll close the public hearing. Entertain a motion. There has been one clarification removing some language referencing the one platted lot that we went over with Bob. Other than that, most everything else is as written. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the PUDA with those clarifications. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ned, seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. February 15, 2018 Page 9 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. Now, our next item up is actually three items. We have three advertised public hearings for one property. We're going to -- actually for -- it's a collection of properties. We're going to discuss all three items concurrently, and we'll vote on each one separately. ***I'll read them all off as we do our disclosures and other issues. First of all, 9 -- it's advertised public hearing 9B. It's PL20160003084/CPSS2016-3, and it's for the mini-triangle mixed-use subdistrict, and this is the Growth Management Plan request part of it. The second item up is the companion PUD for that same project; it's PL20160003054. And the third item that would be partly discussed with this is an LDC amendment that's needed for this project; it's LDCA-PL20160003642. All those wishing to testify on behalf of any of these three items, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the Planning Commission, and we'll start down at the end with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than those that are part of the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I had a meeting with Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Pezeshkan and Mr. Starkey, and I had some email correspondence with Ross McIntosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had telephone conversations and email exchanges with Mr. Mulhere, including his client, Mr. Starkey. I have -- had a conversation with Naples Vice Mayor Penniman, and I have met with representatives of the Old Naples Association regarding airport issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have had with Bob Mulhere, I have spoke with the CRA, and also with Mr. McIntosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine are lengthy. I'm going to save mine for last. Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just standard communication with Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? I'm working both sides to the middle. COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Oh. You're confusing me. I spoke to Mulhere and Mr. Starkey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this project, from its beginning, we started out with some -- an RFP and some contracts. I actually reviewed those with some of the county staff at that time way back when. I also met with the applicant and his team for a long period of time on Tuesday. I separately met with staff yesterday for another long period of time. When this project was first conceived and awarded, they produced some renderings that were rather dramatic and really portrayed what this project was going to be to the county. I have used those in various presentations that I've done around Collier County. In some of those presentations, I was approached by many people about further discussions. I cannot remember all the people that I talked to, but I did talk to Vice Mayor Linda Penniman at one point, and I also talked to several of our county commissioners on a one-to-one and others that may have seen some of the presentation. And then I did receive this morning an email that I've -- it's different than the other ones. I received it from one of our Planning Commission members, Mr. Fryer. And, Jeff, as far as how that kind of an email should be handled, do you have any input on that? MR. KLATZKOW: There are a couple things to consider. One, there's nothing wrong with sending a one-way communication between each other conveying whatever information you want. Having said that, if you do, you run the risk of somebody hitting a reply button, and once somebody hits a reply button, you're now in violation of the Sunshine, all right, so that although you can send a one-way communication, my advice is don't or, at the very least, be real, real careful if you do, and it really should be something that you feel is imperative because, again, you run the risk of somebody inadvertently hitting "reply" or even worse, "reply all," which happens all the time. February 15, 2018 Page 10 of 67 The other thing that I've seen over the course of the many years is that people blind copy other people on emails, and you may be replying to people you don't even know that you're replying to. That has happened on occasion. So, again, you're allowed to do it, but my recommendation is you don't. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I take the point. And at the time, it was 6 o'clock in the morning. I mainly sent it to staff people, but I wasn't entirely sure that it would get to where it needed to go, and it was just simply a document. I thought about the potential for the reply and the Sunshine Law issue, but I guess I felt that it was very unlikely you would reply to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you CC'ed me, and I did not reply to you, for the record, and I actually did not read the attachment. I wasn't -- I hadn't had that issue in the years I've been here occur before. I'm going to ask all the Planning Commission members, don't ever email me anything about a case coming before us, period. The only time I've received an email from a Planning Commission member is if they're going to be absent and they're just explaining they're going to be absent, and they've copied that to staff. So I think all of us ought to go by that. It's the safest way to go, and there's no mistakes. So with that, I conclude my comments on that issue. So, Bob, at this point the presentation's all yours. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. Good morning, again. It's my day before the Planning Commission today. With me this morning, Jerry Starkey, Real Estate Partners International; Fred Pezeshkan; Alex Pezeshkan; Dick Grant, who is the land-use attorney working with us on this. Barry Jones is our civil engineer. Normal Trebilcock has a conflict at the moment. We're hoping he'll arrive as soon as he's completed. He has a meeting actually at another county building, but that may be a while. I've had a lot of meetings with Norm over the last two days and a lot of discussion, so I'll attempt, not to delay you, to respond to some of the issues that are transportation related, but we also think he'll get here as soon as he can. I'm sure everybody's familiar with the location, but for the public and others who may be interested at home or wherever, the property is located just off of the intersection, the triangle created by Davis Boulevard and Tamiami Trail, and that area is known as the mini-triangle, and it is defined by Commercial Drive -- Commercial, Davis, and U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now you're getting pretty fancy electronically, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Now let's see if I can erase it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first time I've seen you do something like that. Good for you. MR. MULHERE: Look at that. Pretty good. Moving on. Just a little bit of history. The CRA was -- the Community Redevelopment Agency was established in March of 2000. That's nearly 18 years ago. It was established to use tax increment financing and other methods to encourage redevelopment, economic diversity, and improvement, and to improve the inadequate and aging infrastructure in the CRA. And the CRA is a lot larger than just the mini-triangle. As many of you know, it covers the Bayshore/Gateway area as well as the Davis Boulevard/U.S. 41 area. The mini-triangle is unique, however, in that within the CRA plan and within the Comprehensive Plan, it is identified as a catalyst site. So the mini-triangle that I just showed you surrounded by Commercial, Davis, and 41, is a catalyst site intended to be redeveloped and spur and drive additional economic -- private sector economic investment or public/private partnerships in the redevelopment area, particularly along the Davis Boulevard area. This exhibit here we shared with many neighbors both at the NIM and at other meetings. It just gives you a perspective of the larger area. I think it's a little bit helpful. And the mini-triangle is right here; right there. A couple of quick -- oh, I've got to erase that. A couple of quick photos of the existing conditions. I'm sure many of you drive past this property fairly regularly. I do. A lot of previously existing businesses are closed down now. There are some smaller February 15, 2018 Page 11 of 67 businesses that are still operating. There's been some improvement along Davis. As you know, there's a new Porsche dealership on the other side of Davis closer to Airport, and there's been some other improvements. But this particular area has really seen no investment and no improvement over the 20 years that the CRA has been in place. More pictures of the area. One of the requirements for establishing a CRA is a finding of blight, and I think this certainly constitutes that. This is just a little closer perspective. Subject parcel and the catalyst area, the full mini-triangle. Our site is 5.33 acres in size, and as Mr. Strain indicated, there are three companion petitions here. There's the small-scale Growth Management Plan. As you know, a small-scale plan is permitted for projects that are under 10 acres, and several years ago the State revised the limitations allowing also text to be added to small-scale. They were previously just map amendments. So this is a small-scale amendment. It's also a mixed-use planned development, and we have a Land Development Code amendment that is expressly limited to the exclusion from the airport height limitations in the LDC. There is already one such exclusion granted down closer to the Marco Island airport, or the Marco Shores towers, and obviously we went to both the Naples Airport Authority and the FAA, and the FAA, we'll see as we get a little bit later into the presentation, issued several letters, the finding of no hazard. Let me just point out that you'll see that the proposed zoning is MPUD-GTMUD-MXD. That is because we are retaining the gateway mixed-use district mixed development standards that are set forth in the overlay in the LDC for this area; otherwise, it would just be MPUD, but we're retaining those overlay rights. In having some meetings leading up to this meeting -- there's a lot of words on here. I underlined what I think are the important ones -- it was suggested that we consider adding a vision, purpose, and intent statement to the PUD. Everyone kind of understands what our objectives are. Everyone can see the graphics, and -- but it was suggested that maybe that needed to be clarified a little bit in text. And so I've prepared this language. I just want to go over it briefly with you. The mini-triangle is intended to be a catalyst project. It's going to spur further development. In order to facilitate a vibrant mixed-use development and a viable market demand, the PUD, the MPUD, provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility. For the purpose of this PUD-MPUD, mixed use shall include, at a minimum, residential development, multifamily, along with a mix of commercial uses, including retail, restaurant, and office uses, and may include other commercial uses such as a hotel with ancillary commercial uses, a multiplex movie theater, bowling center, physical fitness facilities, personal services, and other commercial uses. The development form shall be two or more multi-story structures with commercial uses generally on the ground floor, but some could be on subsequent floors. A multiplex could be on the third or fourth floor, for example. Office would certainly be on upper floors with supporting parking on the first four or five floors, depending on the ultimate development and the nature of the amount of parking that's required. The PUD does, as you know, establish minimums and maximums for residential density, commercial intensity to ensure a viable mixed-use development. I just want to share with you a little bit very quickly, the timeline. December 2015 the county sought proposals for this property. The CRA selected Real Estate Partners International. We held a pre-application meeting in November of 2016. We submitted December 21st, 2016. So we've been in the review process for well over a year now. We had many, many, many, many meetings with staff and with others. We met with the Naples Airport Authority, as I indicated. We've met with the CRA, both the CRA advisory board and CRA staff. We had our NIM on October 18th, 2017. We went before the CRA advisory board in an official capacity to present the project to them on November 7th; received unanimous recommendation. And here we are before you. Our BCC meeting is scheduled for March 27th. Let me go back. I want to point out a project right here called Trio. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but there is -- this site has been cleared and is prepped for development. Mr. Fortino is in the audience. Mr. Fortino and others are proposing to develop a mixed-use project on that. It's a little bigger than two acres. It is -- at this point there's an SDP approved for a mixture of residential and hotel uses. The zoning February 15, 2018 Page 12 of 67 on this district allows for a zoned height of 112 feet. This project takes advantage of that. And let me just move on. And this is from the approved Site Development Plan, and you can see the structure here and parking structure, access here, parking structure. So the site plan has been approved, as I said -- yikes. There must be an easier way to erase all this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good luck. You're dealing with Microsoft Windows, so... MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, we'll leave that one there. I put this up here because it shows some perspectives of the building, so that was my only reason. There's an east perspective and a west perspective. This is our neighbor immediately adjacent to us. And the building height -- I've got to erase that. You can't see. As I said, it's 112 zoned -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Troy's coming to give you a hand. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. How do I erase it all at once? Clear. Well, duh. Thanks for the technical support -- is 124 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Troy. MR. MULHERE: And as you know, our zoned height is 160 feet. So there is an appropriate transition; that was my point in showing you this. There's an appropriate transition from their height to our height. Though we are higher, it's an appropriate transition. Now we can get, I think, into some of the details. By right, the PUD provides for 210 multifamily units. We have met with staff along the way, and as is always the case with a mixed-use project, one of the issues that staff is concerned with and wants to make sure that they address is the assurance that the project will be mixed use. You know, if you were to go in and just build commercial and walk away, you don't have a mixed-use project. If you were to go in and build just residential and walk away, you don't have a mixed-use project. So we agreed to a minimum number of 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses. As we went through this process and most recently we heard that that minimum was not reassuring enough to ensure a really viable mixed use, so we've increased that number -- it's not reflected in your document, so I'm sharing it with you now -- to a minimum of 100 multifamily dwelling units. We have the right to build 152 hotel rooms. We have 74,000 square feet of any mixture of retail, restaurant. We have been talking to very high-end Cineplex operators. We've been talking to hotel -- I say "we" -- my clients have been talking to hotel operators. Flags that you would know, flags that you would immediately recognize. We've been talking to national restaurateurs. Again, high end and names that you would recognize, but we're not at liberty to disclose those. Also, the maximum height, as I think I mentioned, is 168 -- according to the Naples Airport Authority and the FAA letters of findings of no hazard, the maximum height that they can support and have approved is 168 feet above mean sea level. The Naples -- I guess the Naples runway, the Naples site is eight feet above mean sea level, so that allows for a height of 160 feet. As far as the way the county measures height, we would be a zoned height of 160 feet and an actual height of 168 feet, and that keeps us within the restrictions that the FAA included within their letters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mean to interrupt your presentation. I try never to do that. Could you back up on that. If you're already at eight feet NGVD at the airport and you are now going to build to zoned height of 160 feet NGVD, that gives you 152 feet more building height. Right or wrong? MR. MULHERE: Zoned is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, zoned, it's 160 NGVD. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So zoned is measured from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're already at eight. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So the actual should -- we just -- we don't reflect this NGVD in the document today. This came about as discussions. You're absolutely right. It should just be the actual NGVD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- I'm worried that you're going to be shorting yourself eight feet. February 15, 2018 Page 13 of 67 MR. MULHERE: You're right. It should be just the actual height. And we didn't -- that's not in the document. That would be a change that we would make here today. So I appreciate that. Thank you. We also have a conversion matrix. These have been used many times in Collier County. They are typically based on trip generation rates. Ours is based on trip generation rates. We have a maximum p.m. peak hour trip generation of 875 two-way p.m. peak hour unadjusted trips. That is the maximum threshold that cannot be exceeded. In discussing this with staff, they also wanted to ensure anything statutorily -- we may be even required -- to identify maximum levels of intensity and density. You're not required to typically establish minimum, though we have those, but you are, I think, required to establish maximums. So we've established a maximum of 400 multifamily units, 200 hotel units, 200,000 square feet of any combination of the commercial uses, and then these other uses can only come about if the conversion is utilized, and that's 150 ALF units subject to a 0.45 floor area ratio; 60,000 square feet of air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage; and 30,000 square feet of new car dealership. Now, those uses will all be indoor within those multi-story structures. There will be no outside storage, no outside activities. So it will look just like an office building or a residential building. And those would be included within the inside. And the reason for these is to ensure that we have enough market flexibility. And I want to give you an example. I mentioned the Trio site right next to us. By right, they have the ability to build residential or hotel or a combination of the two. They do not have to go through this process, this zoning process. It's allowed by right. They have an approved SDP, but they could amend that SDP and, for example, build a 150-room hotel. Well, if they build a 150-room hotel, there isn't going to be a market for us to build a 150-room hotel. So we need the market flexibility to be able to convert uses from one to the other. Our intention is to go forward with the development exactly as you see it, by right, but we need that flexibility. That's why we put in the conversion matrix. You know, there's been no investment in this area for more than 20 years. The first 20 was a decline, then it was status quo, and now you have people stepping up to the plate to invest hundreds of millions of dollars. The market can change at any time. We need the flexibility. So some other, I think, important issues: We have been working with Mr. Fortino. I don't know that we have a final agreement yet, but we'll get there. We've met with FDOT. FDOT -- we have to go through the permitting and design process with them, but they would prefer a shared access. I'm going to show some exhibits and give you a little more detail on this, but we have been meeting to develop a mutually agreeable shared access off of U.S. 41. We also put in a condition that staff worked with us on, County Attorney's Office worked with us on that requires -- the staff has a trigger to ensure that before this project is through we have actually met the minimums, and although this says 50, we have agreed to raise that to 100, the second bullet. This is the master plan. And I do want to go over the site access, but I have a better exhibit to do that with, and so I won't use this exhibit to show you that. But this is the master plan. As you can see, we have C4 GTMUD-MXD adjacent to us on the east. I think the U-Haul operation is immediately adjacent to us to the east, and then, as I said, Trio to the west right at the tip of the triangle. You can see that we have two major state roads really as -- on our boundaries there. And this is the exhibit that I would prefer to use to go over the site access. This was prepared by Norm Trebilcock. I want to be able to -- I'm so old school I'm used to using that. Let's try this. Right here. Right about here is the existing left turn into the property that is the subject of the Trio SDP. We propose, at least preliminarily -- and we don't have final agreement, but the idea is to move that down here creating more stacking capacity for left turning movements and then to share an entrance with ourselves and with Trio. We don't have final design yet. We don't have a final agreement, but we are working on that. It may end up being on the Trio property. It may end up being on the mini-triangle property. It may end up being on both properties, but we will have, because FDOT is the permitting agency and prefers it, shared access. That should be good for everybody, because two access points create more conflict. As far as some of the other entryways, as you can see -- so this would be a left-in, a right-in and a February 15, 2018 Page 14 of 67 right-out. There's a right-in/right-out here. There is a left-in, right-in/right-out here, and there is a right-in/right-out here. So you have four means of ingress and egress on this master plan and an interconnected internal roadway system with very adequate stacking for vehicles once they leave the roadway. Site signs will be important, and we will address that; direct people which way they're going to go and what they're looking for. There is another potential interconnection to Commercial Drive. And to the degree that we can make that happen at some point, it's certainly exciting to us because we would be able to access Commercial Drive. I think -- actually, I think, the actual point is right here. So let me erase that. Yeah, right here. That's the U-Haul. And so, you know, right now there's only one way in and out of that operation. So there's a lot of benefits to this, but I don't think there are any legal ways to get there today. It's something we'll have to work on as we move forward. I point it out because I think it's a good option moving forward. Let me hit that clear button. Hey. Okay. This is a colorized rendering of our master plan. This depicts three buildings. As you know, retail and restaurant would likely be on the first floor. Behind that would be your parking -- structured parking access, and then moving up levels of parking, and then above that residential, hotel, office, those types of uses. The next few slides are the renderings that are in your packet. I think just maybe showing them. This has ghosted in the proposed Trio project. It has our project and the surrounding area. I think you can see from this that it is not out of context with the area; that, you know, you could build a 112-story (sic) building by right throughout this mini-triangle catalyst area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So 112 feet, not story. MR. MULHERE: What'd I say, story? Yeah, feet, thank you. Sorry. Thank you. This is another rendering of the project as we -- as we see it moving forward. These are conceptual. Obviously, we're still talking to potential tenants and things like that. But the idea is to make this very, very vibrant, have a lot of activity there, have recreational types or entertainment types of activity, such as a movie theater, to attract people and restaurants, and then some ancillary retail. The retail would only survive if there was people there for another reason; living there or coming there, if you think about Mercato, for example. This is much smaller. We're talking 5.3 acres here. Another rendering by Zyscovich Architects. And then Venice Landscape Architects prepared some renderings. I think these are really nice, but they may have also confused some folks on a few things that I want to clarify right now. FDOT requires a 5- or 6-foot sidewalk. I think it's a 6-foot sidewalk on their -- you know, within their right-of-way. We have no intention of encroaching into that in any way with dining or anything but, moreover, our site is going to be elevated, so there will need to be a small retaining wall. So you would have the right-of-way, the sidewalk, the retaining wall, then landscaping, then potentially some outdoor dining. So it will be our responsibility within our own project to ensure that people can move whether they go through a restaurant, as you're familiar with, to an outdoor dining area, or it's more of a promenade-type situation. Most likely, if that occurs, that's going to occur in the center of the project and not on the outskirts. But there could be some outdoor dining there, but it will not infringe upon those sidewalks. If we're going to do any kind of landscaping in the right-of-way -- I know staff put a condition on the PUD that that -- that that be permitted through FDOT. And, yes, we would do that. You know, whether it's trees in the swale portion. We don't really have any intent in doing that at this point. The landscaping would be on our side, but it may be a good option, and it may make things look nicer, so we appreciate that staff does not object to that as long as we get it permitted. These are just some other perspectives of the project; conceptual. So this would be -- and I think this is where the confusion came in, because you can see that there's a 5-foot strip there that's landscaped and then a sidewalk. That is within the right-of-way. If we were to landscape that as a protection between the pedestrians and the travel lane, we would get the permit from FDOT, and then you can see the dining area there. But actually that will be elevated, so... February 15, 2018 Page 15 of 67 Another perspective. Parking structure perspective; typical; the typical perspective. And so there are a few other things I want to go over before I conclude my portion of the presentation and open it up to questions. Mr. Chairman, I do have -- which we can put on the visualizer -- all of the specific SIC code uses. I know that that was discussed in several of my meetings. I have that here. I don't want to do that right now. I imagine that will come up during the questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it will. MR. MULHERE: I wanted to point out -- I hate to do this, but can I go to the visualizer for a minute. I just wanted to point out the overlay allows a couple of buffer options, and it requires -- all other developments -- this is not in an activity center. So all other developments must provide one of the following: A 10-foot-wide Type D buffer meeting the design standards in the LDC or a hardscape area extending from the back of the street zone to the primary front facade expanding the public realm. And it gives you a little bit of a drawing here as to what that might look like. I mean, think on a lower volume street, you might be able to bring the public realm right out to the right-of-way. In this case, obviously, we have higher volumes. They're major arterial roadways. So we don't want to -- we don't think there would be a lot of attraction for being right on top of the street, so we would have to put some landscaping in and those types of things; however, I just did want to point out that there's a lot of flexibility in the code, and we meet or exceed these requirements. In fact, we exceed them, really, in all cases. There were some -- there were some questions regarding the sidewalk issue, which I think I have addressed, and regarding some other traffic issues, which I want to address. Norm -- just in case he doesn't get here, I want to get this on the record. He did provide me with some information that I want to share with you. Two things: There were -- there were some errors in the -- they're not substantive, but there were some errors in the TIS. He's provided me with a corrected TIS. I have copies for you. The corrections are highlighted in red. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would hand that out to everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can definitely hand them out. I'll need it electronically. I don't use paper, so... MR. MULHERE: Yep. Well, we assume we're going to be back, so between now and the next time, we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to suggest, you may have -- this may cause you to have to come back. We'll need time to digest it. I'm assuming some of that's in response to our meeting? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob, I'll want it electronically, too. MR. MULHERE: No problem. There were -- so you can see there's a new date on the front page in red. That's when this was updated. It was pointed out that on Page 4, the next page, the statement read, "The gateway mini-triangle development is an approved..." Well, that's not the case. It is proposed. So that's corrected. A minor correction on Page 5, very minor. And then a change on Page 13 to clarify the statement that was confusing, a parenthetical statement there about proposed dual left directional median. It's proposed dual opposing single left directional median. So these were either confusion or corrections that were pointed out, and Norm did update the TIS. I mean, we can get into the specifics either shortly or hopefully when he arrives or, if it's not today, then when we come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time do you expect him to arrive? I mean, I'd rather not waste time asking you things that you're not the expert on. MR. MULHERE: I don't -- thank you. I don't expect him to arrive until -- his meeting is at 11. It should last a half an hour so, you know, then he's got to get over here. He's at the county, but I'm not sure if it's on this campus or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob? February 15, 2018 Page 16 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could somebody from staff explain to me what an -- what a proposed dual single -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can that wait till we get to the finish of the presentation? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's left-turn lanes going in both directions; opposed dual left turn lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a -- when we get -- are you done with your presentation? MR. MULHERE: No, I have just a couple -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish up. And when we get to that, it would be nice if you had a graphic to show us what that means, because I can't understand what you just said, and that's probably why Stan -- MR. MULHERE: I'll give it a shot. I do have a graphic. I think it's shown on Norm's aerial. So there were some questions raised by the city. I'm not sure what Greg's title is there. If he's the civil -- city engineer. He basically runs the Public Works Department there. I wanted to just discuss a few of those. Item 1 was that there were -- and this project was distributed to the city for their review at the same time as it was distributed 15 months ago to -- or 14 months ago to the county staff. There are concerns as to -- and these comments are dated 2/5/18. There were concerns as to the density of the project and traffic impacts particularly upon U.S. 41. I think you-all have this, so I'm not going to read it. It basically says, the city urges the county to apply a conservative approach to traffic analysis, and we believe we have done exactly that. We use a capture ratio that's very conservative. It's dictated by the county, internal capture. I'm going to read Norm's response. He says, these concerns are understandable. We certainly aren't going to introduce a different method of analyzing traffic that is inconsistent with the current county adopted methodologies, just as the city wouldn't expect somebody to use a different methodology than they have adopted. The transportation analysis performed for the project is consistent with those county standards. I point out to you, by the way, this is in a TCEA, transportation concurrency exception area, so it's exempt from consistency. But that doesn't matter. We still don't trigger any LOS issues. The other item was related to the sidewalks. I think that concern was a very -- you know, a good question, and we have no intent of, in any way, interfering with or reducing the width that's required for the FDOT sidewalk with any of our activities. It will be separated. One question was regarding right turn lanes and a bus pull-off, and we analyzed -- we will go through the FDOT permitting process. We haven't gone through that. We haven't met with them. Initial traffic analysis shows that turn lanes are not warranted, and we've met with the Collier County transit staff, and we are providing a bus stop, and then there was the relocation of another bus stop, but those do not include pull-offs. It's a 5.3-acre site, and we can't give up that. They haven't been requested either, and they're not even warranted by the numbers. And, you know, I know, myself, I travel down U.S. 41, and I am stopped behind CAT buses because I'm driving nice and slow in the right lane, and I wait for CAT buses all the time, and so does everyone else. It's part of having a transit system. So I think -- Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your patience with that presentation. It's a really significant project, and I wanted to take the time to try to go over everything, and now I would open it up to questions. And I do have experts here, plus my client is here to speak to you, anything, you know, that you might raise that you feel like you maybe want to hear from him on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just so the public knows, we will be taking a break at 10:30 for 15 minutes for the court reporter. We generally break at noon for one hour. Public speakers will be after the staff report and after the presentation. During the meantime, the Planning Commission will be asking questions of the applicant and staff as needed. And then for the Planning Commission, we have three items we're reviewing today. First one is GMP, second is PUD, and the third is an LDC. February 15, 2018 Page 17 of 67 We can just randomly ask questions about all of them, or we can go through those documents in that order and ask our questions from each document first. Does anybody on this board have a preference? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Each document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I agree with you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I haven't segregated my questions by subject matter. I've got them generally together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've mixed up the questions from the first document with the second and the third? You don't have them -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've sorted them by topic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's see if -- okay. Well, we'll just ask questions then. Does -- who would like to start? Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bob, could you please tell me, this site will have no outdoor parking; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: No. There will be very minimal, but within the right-of-way, we've sized those internal drives. We've sized those wide enough to have some parallel parking similar to Bayside, if you've been there. I'm not sure if that's the name of it. There's a development in downtown Naples. It's right on the water as you head into the Naples on the right-hand side. It has a hotel and some restaurants and a couple of -- that has -- it's the same thing, parallel parking along the right-of-way. We've sized those wide enough -- it will be minimal amount of the parking. Almost all of the parking will be in-structure parking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, you mentioned a car dealership or something, and that was going to be inside. MR. MULHERE: That will be, yes. No storage, no display outside. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So no parking outside with that? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have several. I'll finish up with the most significant ones. First of all, with regard to peak p.m. trips, I understand that the area is exempt from the usual considerations and limitations. Also, I see that even if it were not exempt, you are within allowed capacity. I am concerned, though -- and I'm not really sure anything can be done about it, but I want to express my concern anyway, that another 875 peak p.m. trips is going to really add traffic to the two streets in question. And what opportunities does that leave for subsequent developments given that the mini-triangle is to be the primary catalyst, if you will, for much more to come? And I note that there are no plans in place for widening either of those streets, which I think is a shame. I'm not sure if this is a question or a comment, but -- MR. MULHERE: No, it's -- I mean, I'll respond in a couple of ways. The -- because this is in a TCEA beyond just our property, quite a bit of the property here within the larger triangle, that's -- those have been deemed to be constrained, that improvements such as widening the roadway are cost prohibitive. They're not going to happen. So some level of congestion is going to be acceptable. The subsequent developments that come in here, you know, they all have right now a number of trips that they either are generating or could be generating under the existing zoning by right never coming before any public hearing body, and that's pretty substantial. And so that's evaluated and measured. You know, it's interesting because there are locations where there are considerations right now being studied potentially for reducing arterial roadway, U.S. 41 in the City of Naples just east of, you know, Fifth Avenue where you turn sharp right to head north. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but that's one of the considerations is to take that down to four lanes and put some parking there and slow the traffic down. That February 15, 2018 Page 18 of 67 will reduce capacity. It will slow traffic. We're not proposing that. Obviously, I don't think the State would like that in this location. These both have pretty high -- pretty easy flow right now. There used to be a fast-food restaurant and a bunch of other things on some of these properties, so... So I guess my response is that there's competing interests here, and on the one hand you have a CRA that's invested ad valorem tax dollars, a tax increment, into improving this area by creating a stormwater pond, by making roadway improvements, and you know they've done the same thing along Bayshore, with the intent being to see this area improved and to see this area generate new development, new economic investment. And so that interest competes with the interest of, hey, that's going to require some additional trips on the roadway. We're going to create some traffic. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't expect that you would have a solution to the problem -- MR. MULHERE: I don't. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- but I wanted to express a concern because the objective here on the part of the county, I believe, is to, in effect, make this part of East Naples, the premiere -- the premiere city, if you will, or focal point for activities in the unincorporated county. Well, my next question had to do with the minimum, and I appreciate you having raised the proposed number from 50 dwelling units to 100. I would like to see even more than that because some of my concerns when I get to the subject of allowable commercial uses, as a practical matter, I think go away or at least are less to be feared if there is more residential occupancy in that area. And I, for one, would like to see 150 dwelling units as a minimum. My next -- my next concern, I had communications with representatives of Olde Naples Association, which is the large neighborhood association representing the residential part of the Olde Naples area, the downtown area included. And their concern -- and, again, Bob, this may not be anything that you can do. Well, it isn't anything you can do about it, but it needs to be expressed because these concerns were expressed to me, and I know there are people watching TV now from Naples who would like to see how my question is answered, and that has to do with this: Granted, the actual height of the buildings will be lower than the communications tower that's there. That's a good thing. But the potential exposure for disaster is much larger. A plane hits the tower; obviously, there could be terrible, terrible mass casualty things happening. But if a plane hits an occupied building, it could be in an order of magnitude of huge multiples of casualties. And my fear is is that the Naples Airport Authority, in order to, perhaps, address that concern, might be seeking to route landings and takeoffs more over the area of Olde Naples on the west, and that's a very real concern that's been expressed to me by the residents of Olde Naples. So my question to you really is, in your discussions -- and I've seen the FAA letter, and I've seen the Naples Airport Authority letter, and there are no hazards that are going to cause them to take action against this development. I understand and appreciate that. But I want to ask you if in the course of your discussions with those authorities any statements were made that could reasonably be interpreted as a sign or signal on their part that they're going to move airport, the landing and takeoff traffic, over toward the west. MR. MULHERE: So I wasn't privilege to -- I think Mr. Starkey would come up and speak to that issue relative to the FAA. Some folks on my staff who are airport experts helped to initiate the application and foster the application through the process. I was at several meetings with the Naples Airport Authority, and in those meetings I never heard any discussion about this project, which is not within the flight patterns, changing in any way the nature of how the airport operates and how planes will land there. As another observation, you know, it is a larger structure than the towers, but it's also much more visible than the towers, which has all of the requirements for lighting and FAA protection and safety mechanisms associated with it. So just as a separate issue, not directly related to what you asked. I never heard anything. I don't know if you want to say anything. No? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, that answers my question. Now, to the one that gives me greatest amount of heartburn, if you will, and that has to do with the February 15, 2018 Page 19 of 67 other allowable commercial uses. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And in our discussions yesterday on the phone, Bob, you used the expression "high-end first class," which, I think, certainly captures your client's intentions, which I take as being expressed in good faith and sincere. We share those intentions, I believe, on the county side of the table wanting this area to be the very best it can be and to achieve the goal of being a catalyst and of being a point of attraction for other developments and something that will really improve that very important part of unincorporated Collier County and also significant importance to the residents of the City of Naples, because we're very close neighbors, and it will almost have a feel like the same downtown area of flow, which can be a very good thing, but it also brings more people into the mix who are concerned about taking steps to assure that we achieve high-end first-class. And how is that to be accomplished? That's the challenge. One thing we can do -- and we talked about this -- is go through each and every proposed use and see if we can't narrow or impose qualitative limits of some kind on those uses. And at the end of the day, that may be the only way we can get to where we want to get. I had hoped -- because I understand the importance on your part and on the part of your clients of having flexibility, but I don't want to offload all of the risk of, let's say, a downturn on the economy and then what might happen or have to happen with respect to who the tenants or the occupants are of your area as a result of an unforeseen downturn. I think the risks should be shared, and one way of sharing it is, frankly, to narrow the scope of allowable commercial uses to something that even in the worst-case scenario we can expect, shall we say, high-quality type of commercial uses as opposed to -- and I'm not going to mention any names, for example, but I think we all know the kinds of things I'm talking about that we would hate to see come in. So I struggled for language. You know, you had used the expression high-end first-class, which I liked, but we both agreed in our telephone conversation that that's not necessarily capable of precise definition or what exactly -- that's in the eyes of the beholder. So I'm willing to either talk about limiting language that expresses the imagination of your client and the imagination of the people planning and managing and governing the County of Collier as to what they're trying to do here and to protect the county from absorbing all the risk of a downturn in the market. MR. MULHERE: So, a couple of, I think, thoughts in response. And, you know, yeah, about 3 o'clock last night I was thinking about this, your question on this, and there's a difference between regulatory -- and I know you appreciate this. I mean, I'm just -- there's a difference between how you structure something from a regulatory perspective and then what is the intent. You know, some -- like, for example, all the zoning districts have -- in the LDC have a purpose and intent section. And it's probably more difficult to use a purpose and intent section to -- you know, to drive some sort of regulatory restrictions. You really want to go sort of beyond that, I think. And so the next step is you list uses or you have, you know, hours of operation or you have other specific restrictions that drive that purpose and intent. I think we did prepare what I call the vision, purpose, and intent. I think that can be used as a means of moving down the life of this project measuring, is this project consistent with the vision, purpose, and intent. I think that can be done, but it's not specific. And, again, it is in the eyes of the beholder. COMMISSIONER FRYER: True. And I'm not sure -- MR. MULHERE: I prepared -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that as precatory language it would really have the effect of limiting -- MR. MULHERE: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- expression of the uses. Now, you provided me with a copy of the desired uses, which I think is a step in the right direction, and I believe that can be circulated to the Planning Commission. MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe it would be easier for us if we were to say that rather than all February 15, 2018 Page 20 of 67 the uses in C1 through C4 and having to go through -- I know there's 96 in C3 because we had that recently. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rather than going through that, perhaps we would go through the tailored-down list that you've provided -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and go at each one of those items. I will say, though, that I'm going to -- I'm going to have the same kinds of objections to the catch-all language -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- the so-called 99 codes -- MR. MULHERE: I got it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and would like to see those things taken out. MR. MULHERE: I have them all. Let me just respond in one other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, one question. Are you asking for all the uses of C3 and C4? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're only looking at the uses that you have in your document that you're requesting under principal uses, which is IB 1 and 2 and 3. MR. MULHERE: What I was going to say was we've already pared this down quite a bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I'm not suggesting there aren't some uses here that we don't anticipate a market for or that in someone's perspective -- from someone's perspective there may not be a use here that's objectionable. And I brought a list. It's not that long. I mean, it's certainly up to the Planning Commission. I'm very happy to look at those uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My hope would be that rather than start with the uses that are permitted under current zoning, current commercial zoning, we agree that the uses will include -- well, will be limited to the ones on the list you've provided as we continue to negotiate to pare that down even further -- MR. MULHERE: And they are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- so that things that are not specified are not permissible. MR. MULHERE: And that's the way it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Except for the 99s where it "or anything that's sort of like this." MR. MULHERE: Yes. But even any one of these codes -- so let me just give you an example, if I could, for just one minute. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why don't we hand it out to the Planning Commission. MR. MULHERE: I didn't bring enough copies to hand it out, so I was going to put it on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I provided some. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's fine. I'm just a little confused, though. We are not -- they are not asking for the C3 and C4 uses. They're asking for a very specific list of uses. And is that the list we're dealing with? Because there's no sense of going into all the C3 and C4 when you're not even asking for those. So is this list pared down to just what's in the document in front of us today, which is all you're asking for, and then going to pare that down further? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think they want the continued overlay uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, show me where that says that. MR. MULHERE: No, no, not the uses. No, we're limited to these uses. The overlay is for development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're -- MR. MULHERE: We are limited to the uses here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that clarified in the ordinance? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. Heidi, do you want to opine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Exhibit A first page. There's -- all the uses that they're specifically February 15, 2018 Page 21 of 67 asking for are listed there, but there are ranges. So I thought you were getting at uses that are within the ranges that you're objecting to -- MR. MULHERE: He is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but it sounds like we're looking at a much broader picture they're not asking for. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I want to -- I want to shift the presumption from -- and I'm thinking of the 99 uses in the SIC code, the ones that end in -- the four digits that end in 99, and you'll see this when it's handed out. These are the uses that they're asking for that they're proposing already some to be tailored back, and in many cases I think that's very much a step in the right direction. But I think if we can look at this and remove the catch-all provision so that we know exactly what the uses are that are going to be permitted, I think we're in better shape than where we are now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was -- from what you were saying, though, it sounded like you were going to start with the C3 and C4 uses. That's not what they're asking for. So as long as we're paring down what you've already requested and we're looking at those, I think that's a good starting point. There's no sense of going into something you're not even asking for. MR. MULHERE: No. We are limited to the -- very limited to expressly those uses and those limitations in the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I misunderstood somewhat because of your wanting to retain all the uses under the mixed use. And I looked pretty carefully at this language, and I didn't find -- maybe it was there, but I didn't see a clear statement that that's not being asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way the code's written, if it's not allowed, it's prohibited. What this zoning would do is allow specifically the uses they're asking for in this document, and the other use is not prohibited once this is done. And -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Except for the catch-alls that we're going to talk about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The catch-alls are listed. So if we change the catch-alls, then the changes would not be allowed anymore. But right now those 799s -- like 7999, 5999, there are a few of them that are catch-alls. And I agree with you, those are the ones that have got all kinds of uses to them. I've pulled the code out and looked at every single one of them. Some of them, they are pretty dramatic. And it's a good thing we're going through this exercise. But we're not starting, though, at C3 and C4. They've already dismissed that as the overall picture. They're going down just what's in this document. Is that right or wrong, Bob? MR. MULHERE: So just clearly -- I want to put on the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. MULHERE: -- the only uses that we're asking for are those uses expressly identified in this document. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- then the only thing I'm going to say is -- and I read this stuff pretty clearly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there -- is it clear in the proposed ordinance and the exhibits that the overlay uses that are -- that any overlay uses that are permitted in the overlay but not expressed here are not permitted? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. The uses that are allowed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not picking up. There. Now it is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Too much high tech for me. The uses that are permitted are the uses that are listed with the SIC code reference after it; however, you do need to look at the SIC codes because sometimes it can pull in uses that you might not have realized. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, and that's the 99s, okay. So you're satisfied -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Like, this is the SIC codes for this case. I mean, it's a lot of pages. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was going to ask that you disconnect yourself from all the mixed uses in the overlay. February 15, 2018 Page 22 of 67 MR. MULHERE: We are only asking for these uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So I have the list. It's not -- I mean, I see that Heidi has about 50 pages there. I printed every single use. I didn't print every single sub-use, but I did print all of the 99 uses. So I think we could -- if we spend a few minutes, we could probably go through this pretty quickly. My list is very similar to your list, if not the same. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I don't know how you want to do that, Mr. Chairman. I mean, if you want to do it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys -- just start from the beginning of the list. Let's see if we can get through this part of it. Well, we're going to take a break in -- you know what, let's take a break now before we start on this list so we're not interrupting the middle of it, and we'll come back at 20 minutes to 11; 10:40. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, it's 10:40. We'll resume the meeting. And, Ray, thank you for turning the microphone on. And we left off with a discussion by Mr. Mulhere and Mr. Fryer concerning the SIC codes and the list that was passed out earlier. And, Bob -- by the way, when this is all finished, again, could you provide electronic copies of this list? Because it's not something I will keep. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I'll let you two guys go to wherever you were going to go. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So I've got the PUD document in my hands here, and then I've got a list that I've prepared, which I'm sure is similar to the list that Mr. Fryer prepared. But if there's any discrepancies we can certainly talk about those. And I think -- but you can correct me. I think the easiest way is to go down this list of uses. If there's something that's objectionable and it's allowed by the PUD, we can have that discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Let's just start working our way down. Ned, is that okay with you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, absolutely. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So the first list of SIC codes that's allowed in the PUD is 5311 through 5399. Those uses are right here: Department stores, variety stores, miscellaneous, general merchandise stores. You know, if I can use an example, Nordstrom's Rack, Neiman Marcus. I think that was on your list. It would not be -- and the way things are going, as far as I can tell, we're not going to see a whole lot of very large brick and mortar retail. You are going to see, potentially, some of these smaller specialty type stores that still seem to be surviving sufficiently. So I wouldn't think those would be objectionable, but I'll defer to your comments. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, one concern I would have is the breadth of 5399. MR. MULHERE: Let me take a look. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Bob, would you like me to give you the SIC code page so you can put it up? MR. MULHERE: I think we might have them here. I'm looking, because I -- I do not have all the -- yeah, I guess so. Yes, thank you. I must have not thought it was very broad. Okay. Oh, yeah. That's why. I didn't put it up because -- I'm sorry. This is the extent of 5399, which is catalog showrooms; country general stores retail. Don't think we'll have one of those there; general merchandise stores retail; and general stores retail. So I didn't really see that those were objectionable. That's not one of the larger catch-alls. It's pretty limited. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So if we -- moving along, and the next is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a long list. So to expedite it, why don't we just move by group. And if someone has a concern, we'll just speak out, and then we'll go from there. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather get -- otherwise, we're going to be here for hours going over this. February 15, 2018 Page 23 of 67 MR. MULHERE: No, I got it. So 5411 through 5499 is this group right here. We do see and have had conversations with several entities that would potentially bring in a, you know, 15- to 25,000-square-foot specialty kind of retailer. There are examples out there; Wholefoods, Amazon is doing this kind of stuff. There are -- so there are examples of that. Whether it happens or not, I don't know, but we don't want to preclude it from happening. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have a problem with that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The next one is 5611 through 6599. I mean, you know, these SIC codes are a little bit antiquated in the way that they read men's and boys' clothing. I don't think you're going to see anything that only specializes in men's and boys' clothing. You might have a clothing store that has men's and boys' clothing and ladies clothing and men's, you know, so I think -- a shoe store, you could have an upscale, you know, shoe store. Again, I don't think there's anything objectionable there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess it's clear that accessory stores -- it's implied that those are clothing accessories. MR. MULHERE: Yes, because it falls under that SIC code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And then the next grouping is 5712, and we allow -- we allow in our PUD 5712 through 5736, so you have musical instrument stores. I don't think you're going to see too many recorded and prerecorded tape stores coming in -- but computer and computer software, consumer electronics, you could see, you know, a high-end -- I mean, it's possible to have one of those high-end kind of electronics stores. The name of it is escaping me now, but there are several. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob, may I ask a question that's related to this and would help allay my concerns to a degree? You mentioned that there aren't going to be any outdoor uses. MR. MULHERE: Other than dining. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, so restaurant might have -- will. We will have some outdoor seating. It's Florida. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But other than dining uses -- MR. MULHERE: You're talking about storage? No. No outdoor storage. We didn't ask for that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No retail outdoor? MR. MULHERE: I mean, they may put a rack out for a special sidewalk sale or something, but that's typical. You know, you get a special permit for that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We will need to clean the PUD up, because there is outdoor storage ability without the prohibition, and there is language in there for temporary storage of merchandise. MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm talking about; sidewalk sales and things like that, yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I think they can, under the way the language is written, and I think maybe this is what they're intending, is, like, they could put an automobile out like they do at Mercato. MR. MULHERE: Special event. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But there also is an ability -- because in C4 automobile sales does allow for outdoor storage, so we want to seal that so that they don't do outdoor storage. So we can address that in the PUD. MR. MULHERE: Right. I don't have a problem with that. I thought we already addressed it, but I don't have a problem if it needs to be clarified. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The more -- I can achieve comfort that when we drive by this development it's going to look, you know, essentially or close to some of the drawings of the images that you've offered, the glass stuff, so that you really don't know what's going on inside. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I got it. And we don't think that the residents or guests would want to see, you know, a lot of that kind of stuff either. So, for example, we have -- on the new car dealership we have limited to an interior showroom display and so -- but we could clarify that. I don't have a problem with that. I mean, we can make sure that it's understood what our intent is, which that is our intent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, yeah. So a broad -- a broader prohibitions against outdoor February 15, 2018 Page 24 of 67 activities other than as specified? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm making a note right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. I'm sorry I interrupted you. MR. MULHERE: No, that's okay. I've got to make a note or I -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. MULHERE: So moving along. The question was that we're not talking about special events, and I just assured, no, we're talking about sort of a permanent outdoor storage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Occasional events. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, they're regulated. It's regulated. There's a whole section of the code that regulates it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Okay. The next grouping is 5912 through 5999, and that includes -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's a proprietary store? MR. MULHERE: I don't know, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Neither do I. MR. MULHERE: So we only asked for 5912, 5921. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But you'll put language in there limiting it to -- as associated with grocery stores? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The liquor store? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We don't need a free-standing liquor store. If we need to clarify that to make sure that we say liquor store associated with a, you know, grocery store, we can do that. It would be an accessory use. I don't know if we even have to say that. Ray, Publix comes in for an accessory liquor store, that's permitted kind of by right, isn't it? It's not a free-standing liquor store. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. Any primary use that has accessory package store, that would have to be qualified. The zoning district allows for the package store. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So we'll do that. We'll make that change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the 59s? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you may have to help me where you got this from. Under the 5912, 5921, where does 5932 come up in your list? MR. MULHERE: It's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're not asking for that? MR. MULHERE: Which is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Third one down. MR. MULHERE: That's used merchandise stores? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, what list -- keep going to the top; 5932. I can't see the top. Could you pull it down. There you go. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5932 doesn't seem to be -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not on the exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why are we -- why is it -- MR. MULHERE: I'm not talking about that. No, we were talking about liquor stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. Isn't this -- the SIC codes we're going over now, isn't this supposed to be the list that you're asking for or not? MR. MULHERE: No. What I'm doing -- let me clarify. What I'm doing is I am limiting my discussion only to those uses we're asking for, but this is the full list here. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did we have -- why'd you give us the full list? MR. MULHERE: Okay. We can -- February 15, 2018 Page 25 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just focus on what you're asking for and save some time? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm not going over every list. I'm only going over the ones we asked for. I'm only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are we supposed to know by this list which ones you're asking for? MR. MULHERE: I'm going to tell you. I've got the numbers right here in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I know that, but -- MR. MULHERE: I don't have any other way to do it unless you want to use Mr. Fryer's list, which is fine by me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm suggesting is if you're only asking for 5912, 5921, 5941 through 48, and 5992-99, those should be the only ones on this list, because when this list gets done, isn't this the list that you're adopting for the PUD? I mean, based on the ranges, but I mean, this is a list -- MR. MULHERE: We're only going to include those uses that you agree we should include. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: But, look, I wasn't as efficient as you would have been. I simply downloaded the entire list, and I didn't, then, go in and delete the uses we're not asking for -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But as the Chairman said -- MR. MULHERE: -- at 6:45 last night. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- you've got 5949, and then you're saying, tailor okay, but 5949 is not on your -- in the exhibit. MR. MULHERE: Correct. I can just let you know -- I got it right here. So, in the 59s, we've asked for 5912; that's drugstore. We've asked for 5921; that is the liquor store. We've agreed to limit that to only accessory. And we're asking for 5941 through 5948, so let's go to that; 5941 through 5948. Those are sporting goods stores, bookstores, stationery stores, jewelry stores. None of those should be objectionable, I wouldn't think, correct? So moving on. We've also asked for 5992 through 5999. So 5992 is florist, tobacco stores, news, optical stores, and then you've got your miscellaneous. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ninety-three's out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're asking for them. It's 5992 range to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It says no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on here, yeah, but, I mean, in the PUD they're asking for it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We just asked for the range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're out of the range. You're going to except out 5993? I think that's what Ned's -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, you could have a cigar store. Is there -- you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the "no" mean? Who put that there? MR. MULHERE: I don't see -- I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On yours -- okay. Maybe if we all would use the page that you passed out. The one that you passed out has the word "no." MR. MULHERE: Oh, that would have been Mr. Fryer probably put that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no, no, I didn't. I absolutely did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The author -- who's the author of this document? Ned. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, someone put "no" on here. I didn't. It just came typed. MR. MULHERE: It's not my document. MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner Fryer, I believe that was yours. I believe that was the one I distributed, which was given -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I forwarded it to you from Bob or, actually, it was from Mr. Starkey. MR. MULHERE: This is my list right here. February 15, 2018 Page 26 of 67 COMMISSIONER FRYER: This was from Mr. Starkey. MR. STARKEY: I sent it to you. MR. MULHERE: Oh, you had those on there. Okay. I didn't know that that was distributed. That answers that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is now, so... MR. MULHERE: Okay. Let's just -- if you don't care, we'll take it out. I had no idea that that was -- so we're saying that the tobacco can come out, right? Okay. Shall we move on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm anxious to. MR. MULHERE: SIC Code 7933, we only ask for those uses, and you can see on this one I did only add the uses that we asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the one you passed out said, okay, new boutique bowling dash F and B centric. What does that mean? MR. MULHERE: Does anyone mind if we retain -- does anyone mind if -- I'm a little confused and frustrated because I didn't know that you-all had something that has nos and yeses on it. I'm, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just was passed out while you were standing there, Bob. That's the problem. MR. MULHERE: I'm using my list I was prepared to go over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have nine copies of your list or six or -- MR. MULHERE: No. I thought we'd put it on the visualizer. So anyway tobacco -- excuse me, 59 -- I'm looking for it. Oh, yeah, 5993, tobacco stores. We may want to have, for example, an upscale cigar shop like Burn or something like that that's up in the Mercato. We don't want to eliminate that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why you would. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Moving on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to clarify who wrote the word "no." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Jerry did when he -- Jerry Starkey. MR. STARKEY: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the -- if you're going to speak, Jerry, unfortunately you've got to come up to the mike. So, Bob, can you answer that question. MR. MULHERE: I'll do it. Yeah. These notes were added to the list by Mr. Starkey, which he sent to me, maybe copied you. I didn't even look at this because I was busy working on my own list until into the evening last night. So -- because I intended to go over this list just like this. I thought it was the most efficient way to do it. Go over the list, only discuss the ones that are in the PUD, and move through it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we're to ignore the word "no," for instance, in the 5980. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, those were -- I guess those were just his own notes. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not asking for the 5980s at all, so they don't get any of those anyway. They're not in the PUD. MR. MULHERE: Correct. I'm only focusing on the ones we're asking for. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think you might want to disregard the handout and just go from what he's presenting on the visualizer. MR. MULHERE: It would be easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. We just don't have a copy of it; that's all. MR. MULHERE: We can make copies, or we can come back prepared with copies. I'd just as soon we use the visualizer. Everyone can see that. Everyone in the public can see that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I still want to know what a proprietary store is, but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's a store that someone owns. MR. MULHERE: I don't know. I'm going to have to look that up and report back to you. So as I was saying, our PUD in the 7900 SIC code is limited to bowling centers, physical fitness facilities, and 7999 is a catchall. There are many uses listed under that. We are only asking for -- and there may be some discussion on this. We are only asking for yoga instruction or some similar kind of exercise facility that would fall under that. February 15, 2018 Page 27 of 67 COMMISSIONER FRYER: That bullet is meant to be a subset or a modifier -- MR. MULHERE: It is a modifier. It's in the PUD that way, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And so -- and bicycle rental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I take exception to the indoor shooting range. All that's going to do is encourage people to travel on our streets with guns to get to and from this place. And, honestly, I'm not against the Second Amendment at all, but I don't think we need people running up and down six-lane arterials with guns, so... MR. MULHERE: Okay. Done. And we're all extremely sensitive to that, too, on a day like this, so, yeah. Moving on. 6111, the 6000 range. I'm looking for what's permitted. Okay. Here we go. Those are personal and financial services. So you can see what those are: Credit agencies, credit, banks, those kinds of things. Again, I wouldn't think that any of that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: What about payday loans? MR. MULHERE: Which item is that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be under the 99. MR. MULHERE: We -- let me just look for a minute. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One that had the banks on it. It's not on the screen. MR. MULHERE: 6399? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I can't see it because it's off the screen. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Hold on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 6159. MR. MULHERE: 6159, miscellaneous business credit institutions. I mean, we don't -- we're not going to have payday loans, like a check cashing place? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: We don't need that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just limit it to banks and investment managers like Jerry's document said, that we shouldn't have gotten. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I got it. Okay. So the next one is the 6200s. Those are security brokers and dealers, commodity contract brokers. These are really all professional office, these uses. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 6200's not on the screen. There we go. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I'm looking down here. I can see it and you can't. I apologize. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Again, those are all professional office uses. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's a flotation company? MR. MULHERE: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I got a personal flotation device, but I doubt if I'd buy it there. MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. I don't think. I guess it probably has something to do with loans. 6300 is insurance-related activities, title insurance, pension, health, insurance carriers, accidental health insurance. I mean, they're all kind of carried by different providers. It's office use. 6400 is insurance agents and brokers. Why that's different from above, I don't know. Garment press -- oh, 6411. So I wouldn't think there would be any problem. That's all professional office type uses and then, I'm sorry, going to the 7200s, the PUD allows three uses, 7212 -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: 7212, garment pressing? MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm getting at. I'm on that. The PUD allows three uses: 7212, 7231, and 7241. Those are listed right here. This is a dry cleaner. That is what that is. It is not -- it is limited -- you're an agent of a laundry or dry cleaner. In other words, you've got -- you know that little dry cleaners that we see all over town? That's what that is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it that, or is it the place where those little dry cleaners send the February 15, 2018 Page 28 of 67 clothes on a larger scale? MR. MULHERE: Well, my intent was for this to allow a dry cleaner. I'll check that one. I'll make a note and make sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yep. I think that's accurate, that it is a dry cleaner, but I will check and make sure when we come back. The other two are, you know, beauty salon and barbershop. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How are we creating a list for ourselves when this comes back on consent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, it may not be just consent it will need to come back for. And I'm probably going to suggest that the applicant, if they would so agree -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by the time we get done today, if more clarity is needed than we normally see on consent, why don't we wrap both the consent and a final reading of this up in the next meeting, if you-all see that as a way to maybe solve some of the issues that are coming up. So that would solve it. By then we'd have a list that Bob would refine based on the info we're giving him today. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have anything to check it against. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I'm going to refine -- I'll refine the PUD, and I'll provide a refined list of SIC code numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we have them in time to review them against the next meeting. Even if we don't discuss them today, I think we'll see the hot buttons that might have concerned us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So the next group is 7300. Those are all typical office uses. In today's day and age, I couldn't imagine there would be any issue with those. Moving on -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Retrieval, is that like computer servers, databases? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's using computers to retrieve information. Yeah. It should all be out of an office with a bank of computers. Moving on, 8011 is doctors and offices and clinics. And let me move that down. Sorry. Dentists, various chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists. I mean, we have 60,000 square feet of office. If we're going to fill any of that, we certainly need to have doctors' offices. Typically those laboratories are -- these days many of times they are accessory to the doctor's office. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, Bob. Just curiosity, why are they so specific on things like chiropractors and optometrists, and they don't mention ophthalmologists and urologists and whatever? MR. MULHERE: That's a good question. I don't know why. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why don't they just say doctors? MR. MULHERE: Well, I agree, or medical doctors or specialty doctors. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, medical, yeah. MR. MULHERE: I mean, just as an observation, we have adopted -- I don't know how long, Mark, this SIC code. A long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an '87 version, and if you look at NAICS, you'll see it's broken down completely differently. And we have not yet adopted the new system. MR. MULHERE: And that's what I was -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does this mean you can't put a urologist office in there? MR. MULHERE: No, you can, because Ray will let you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh. I'll tell Dr. Guttman. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Here's one that may be objectionable. I don't know. 8111; 8111, legal services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depends on what attorneys you're putting in there, Bob. I think -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. 8600 series is business associations, professional membership organizations, labor union. We don't have to worry about that, I don't think, down here. February 15, 2018 Page 29 of 67 Civic, social, and fraternal associations, political organizations, religious organizations, membership organizations. Again, you know, whatever of those uses comes forward, it's going to be fully within an enclosed multi-story building. It's going to look like an office; it's going to act like an office. So, I don't even -- let me tell you what we asked for and make sure, because I don't know that we asked for all of those. Let's see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you did. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So if there's something objectionable, just -- we can talk about it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there an overriding ordinance that deals with sexual activities? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because sometimes I see that it's actually called out. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: SOB ordinance. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Ray Bellows. Collier County has, as part of adopted regulations, an ordinance dealing with sexually oriented businesses, and it has locational standards. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. It has locational standards. Would this location fall within those standards? MR. MULHERE: We'd have to check. But if the PUD doesn't allow for the use, then it doesn't allow for the use either. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, but, I mean, you've got some -- you've got some fairly broad uses that are not so qualified. Maybe we should put in that the prohibition about sexually, whatever the expression is. MR. MULHERE: Well, there's a definition in the sexually oriented. The SOB ordinance, as it's affectionately referred to as, there is a definition. I would defer to the County Attorney, but we certainly could -- we don't mind putting in a prohibition or limitation. You know, there are constitutional issues here, so I don't want to get into that. I've got to defer to the lawyers on that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd just like to know what the language is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We have prohibited it in the past. We can add a prohibition for -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can't hear you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We can add a prohibition for sexually oriented businesses as defined in our ordinances. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was broader than that, as I recall. It was a two-pronged test that we've actually put in other developments. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just for no sexually oriented sales and -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. We just did a reference to sexually oriented business ordinance. That's how we handled the U.S. 41 that just went through. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. MR. MULHERE: I got it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that will modify and limit everything. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Yes, I think that's a broad limitation. I'll figure out where to put it, but it's a broad limitation. It covers everything. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: 8699, this is the list of the kinds of uses: Art councils, athletic associations, but they're all office uses. And there's a few more here: Humane society, poetry associations. That must be a big one. They're all -- they're all office uses. And then you get into 87,000 (sic) series, which are also predominantly offices, but I'll just go over those real quick. We asked for 8711 through 8748 and, for some reason, I don't have 8748. But engineering services, architectural services, surveying services, accounting. All offices. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's after 8742, second line down, halfway across. MR. MULHERE: Oh, that didn't get -- there we go: Public relations services and facilities support management, and then there's building consulting services not elsewhere classified. Everywhere else there's a 9 in the numbering system for these not elsewhere classified. For some reason this one has an 8 in it. February 15, 2018 Page 30 of 67 But you can see what it is: Counseling -- city planners. You know, you've got to have room for them; traffic consultants. So that is the list. And I've made notes for what I believe is objectionable, and we'll deal with those and bring back, and I'll get that to you in advance of the next meeting, whenever that's scheduled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that gets us through the use list that, Ned, you had brought up as part of your questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to continue on with whatever else you have? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have exhausted my questions. I've exhausted myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I might as well start off then. When we met the other day, I told you what my overriding concern was, and that's when this project started -- and I know we're not judging this based on the RFP or the agreement, but back then I saw the renderings that you have attached to your documents here. And the attitude I saw from people that saw that thought, wow, what a great way to -- what an entry component to the City of Naples and a way to get a gateway into a more higher end product and style. And I still believe this product will do that, and I have the utmost faith in your client that they can get that done. But as they fear changes in the economy and other things that could happen, they want flexibility in case what they intend to do can't work. God forbid, say they have to sell it off; then we're stuck with whatever's left in this document and who interprets it. And right now the document says -- or you're suggesting changes to go to 100 units that could be as small as 500 square feet and a 30,000 piece of commercial. That really means an apartment complex with a bowling alley, and that is not what was provided originally or in this packet today as what you're trying to build there. I certainly would suggest, that's not entry to the City of Naples. I also would suggest it's not enough of a catalyst to really get much out of the gateway triangle different than what we have today, just newer stuff but of the same composition. So I am not convinced, even after our discussion on Tuesday, with the one thing you came back and changed, and we're not there. MR. MULHERE: Well, I changed a few other things. I have this handout with the changes highlighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we ought to walk through those to see if it helps, because I'm troubled by what I've seen, and I don't know if it's really consistent with what we had intended, and it seems to be a substantial change from that. MR. MULHERE: I don't think I have enough. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's a good thing Mr. Schmitt's not here. MR. MULHERE: And I don't have one to put on the visualizer, so I'm just waiting on a copy. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If you can start, they can bring me one in a minute. MR. MULHERE: So that -- that document has a number of changes. I read the vision, purpose, and intent, and we prepared that based on the meetings that we had in order to establish a -- you know, a vision for this that is consistent with the graphic exhibits that you see and what our intent is. A couple of other things that were noted. We use the term in -- at the bottom of that first page -- we use the term "transient lodging" because we allow hotels -- or hotel and other transient lodging uses. And it was pointed out that there really was no definition of what exactly is meant by transient lodging. And I prepared this language here that says, the term "transient lodging" includes hotels and interval ownership or vacation rental suites. Any such transient lodging shall include the following operational characteristics or limitations: Lodging accommodations normally on a daily or weekly rate to the general public. He's making copies -- he's trying to get copies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I know there's not enough copies. MR. MULHERE: We can wait. February 15, 2018 Page 31 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think your using the overhead is fine, and we'll start with that. But this will be something that will probably have to be finished up when we come back on this, so... MR. MULHERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were on the second. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It said general public or integral (sic) owners and provision for -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You pulled some of that out of statute, didn't you? That's what it looks like. MR. MULHERE: It came out of the definition in the LDC. There's actually some language in the LDC. That's why I took it. And check-in and housekeeping services as well as other amenities such as dining facilities, meeting rooms, or recreational facilities. So I mean, the idea is that it's not -- transient lodging is not permanent lodging. And, unfortunately, the way that the county code deals with it -- I shouldn't say unfortunately. The way the county code deals with it is, you kind of have to back into what that definition is. If you look at the definition of a dwelling unit, that's identified -- in that definition it says, units that are rented for periods of less than one week or deemed to be transient lodging. It doesn't have a definition of transient lodging, but when you go there, you see that language. That's why I used the rental -- daily or weekly rental periods. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There's where we added the 100 multifamily residential units. And I want -- I did want to go over this a little bit. Several people raised concern about the unrestricted allowance -- and it was unrestricted when we submitted in the way that we provided the language -- relative to dwelling units that would be less than 700 square feet. And so I've inserted some language here that says, the minimum unit size is 700 square feet for residential dwelling units except that up to 20 percent may be between 699 and 500 square feet. So there is now a limit on the number that could be less than 700 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While you're on that page, I want to talk about this height. I'm not against it or anything. I'm trying to make sure it's accurate. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 160 feet NGVD, but the airport said you could be 160 above their base; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And their base is eight. MR. MULHERE: They said mean sea level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could be 160 feet above mean sea level. MR. MULHERE: One hundred sixty-eight feet above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was lowest -- the facilities at the airport. There was some language in the Naples Airport Authority. MR. MULHERE: No. What they said was 168 feet above mean sea level, and at that location mean sea level is eight feet. The airport is eight feet. Do you want to talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if the airport's eight feet, and you want to -- and that's eight feet NGVD, and you want to go to 160 feet NGVD, what's your building height going to end up at? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what we discussed before. Perhaps the NGVD needs to be limited to the actual height. What we want to be able to do is build a 160-foot-tall building basically from existing grade, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That's what we want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The documents that were included, you've -- there's all kinds of variables in there from what the federal government wanted versus the local airport -- MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and everything else, and they use different acronyms. February 15, 2018 Page 32 of 67 MR. MULHERE: We've talked about this for, I don't know, hours and hours and hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I thought what we were ending up is your base starting point for measurement would be equivalent to the Naples Airport. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Naples Airport's base starting point for measurement is a plus eight NGVD and you want a 160-foot-tall building -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, 168. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you'd have to be 160 on top of the eight. So your zoned height, then, would be 168, and you're -- then you would have a different height for your actual. I have no way of knowing if that is consistent with what the airports intended, but there's too many different ways to figure out where to start and stop on this thing. MR. MULHERE: The maximum height that we can achieve, nothing -- no structure, nothing can be higher than 168 feet above mean sea level. Nothing can be higher than that. No elevator shaft, nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't use mean sea level. We use -- MR. MULHERE: I know, but that's why I tried to translate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I asked you to provide an engineering computation telling us how we can convert that to a standard we understand so we know how your height factored in. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I say something here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's a bad thing to put in there, because what you're doing -- that's not the building height. That's the elevation of the top of the building is 168 NGVD. Nobody uses NGVD anymore. They've gone to NAVD. National Geodetic Vertical Datum has gone to North American Vertical Datum as of about 30 years. All your LiDAR is NAVD. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mean sea level, that is just a bad -- if you're going to put building height, don't put building height. Put elevation of top of building is 168 NGVD, and then convert it to NAVD, which you're supposed to be doing anyway. MR. MULHERE: Well, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you, by the time you come back, get somebody to explain where your measurement point starts and where it ends? I would hate to see you design this project, your architect thinking one thing, your engineer's thinking another, and the county staff interpreting it a different way because of this document. So let's just all get on the same page. MR. MULHERE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm -- I'll move on. You've already corrected the 500 per unit. I understand what you're doing there. I do have staff questions, but I'm going to get those afterwards. I'm just going to keep moving through my -- some of these were cleaned up by Ned's questions. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Quick question. It's a point of clarification. They had mentioned relocating that -- that big tower that's 180, that's the cell phone tower? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's there, yes. There's a cell phone tower there now. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just out of curiosity, where do you relocate a cell phone? I mean, who dictates that, and how does that get done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have an answer. I mean, they've got to be zoned for a cell phone tower, and there's other locations in the county. I don't know where there's one in this area. I haven't looked at it. MR. MULHERE: That tower is, actually, I think, 190, maybe 196 feet. That is the obligation -- we're not the property owner. The county's the property owner. That is the obligation of the county to work with the cell tower owner/operator to relocate that. And, you know, we're not even -- I'm not even involved in those discussions, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're here today, and I believe there's some kind of discussion February 15, 2018 Page 33 of 67 involving how to mutually agree on to move forward with them, at some point today. I think we talked about that in the beginning of the meeting today. So we'll get to that eventually. MR. MULHERE: I've got to defer to my client when we get to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, there was material that indicated it was going to be southeast of the present location on Kirkwood Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's wherever it can be zoned for, yeah. I mean, they could -- any of the zoning districts, if there's property there that they can put a tower up, that would be a location. I don't know. I mean... In your principal uses on Page 1 at the bottom, you talk about the indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage limited to 60,000 square feet. So whatever that square footage is, none of -- it's all indoor storage, even the mini -- you could have mini-self-storage but it's all indoor storage; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is it only going to be "and" or is it going to be "or"? Always are you going to have a combination of passenger vehicle and self-storage, or are you going to have one or the other exclusively? MR. MULHERE: I think it's a combination. It's intended to allow for both because somebody that's storing a vehicle may want to have -- you know, if they have a condo, they may want to store some other stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to understand. Number 3, your new car dealerships on the next page, you're talking about 30,000 square feet. One of the questions was, and I think it's been answered, all that's enclosed -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- within the -- with the exception of any temporary storage outside -- MR. MULHERE: Special events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- use you've got listed here in one of your paragraphs. Okay. I'm looking at the rest of my -- well, these -- I've got some questions for staff. I guess the County Attorney's Office, I'd just like to confirm something. And, Heidi, I mentioned it to you before. All the advertising both for the NIM and everything else that's been used for this project advertises 210 units, 152 hotel, 74 and 60 for the mix of commercial. But through the conversion, they're now saying they have a cap of 400 multifamily units, 200 hotel rooms, and 200,000 in combination retail and general office, and then some of the other uses, which is assisted living, self-storage, and new car dealership. Does the advertising that's been used to date provide for the flexibility to allow those conversions that happen without having the advertising changed? You've got to turn it on. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In my opinion, it's sufficient because it did indicate that there would be conversions. So they don't get all those maximums you're mentioning. They can only do that through a conversion, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- I was satisfied with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the previous -- well, in the Paragraph X, it's on Page 4 of the PUD and the top of the page, it says, no building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last un-development MXU tract depicted on Exhibit C master plan unless the certificate of occupancy has been issued for the minimum 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development. Now, I know we're going to be changing some of those numbers or potentially. But then it says "or." Or the minimum 50 multifamily dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development is included in the requested building permit. Now, the way I'm reading that is, the minimum -- no building permit for vertical construction can happen without a CO on some of that, on the last development tract, or you've simply got to request a building permit for it, and it can happen. So why would you worry about doing a CO if you only need to apply for a building permit? You don't need to have it received. I'm just wondering, after the word "or," what is all that there for? Why don't we just scratch that? February 15, 2018 Page 34 of 67 MR. MULHERE: Because the way it read, if you don't include that last phrase, if you read just "no building permit will be issued for vertical construction on the last un-development tract unless a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the minimum of 50 dwelling units" and so on and so forth, then you stop right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: If you do that, that doesn't consider the possibility that that last tract will, in fact, include those 50 and 30-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're just including it by a reference to just requesting a building permit, we all have been in this business long enough. You can request a building permit, but that's it. It gets kicked out, and you never have to request it again and you're done. I don't think that ties it to what we're trying to get to. MR. MULHERE: What I was just discussing with my client is that that's in there because we don't want to be held up starting the next building waiting if it was under construction but no CO had been issued. So waiting, while one building's under construction or two buildings are under construction, and now we're coming in for the last phase, no CO has been issued there, but we want to start the third phase. We want to get a permit and we want to start construction, if I explained that correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what this would mean is on that last phase, you wouldn't have to have -- if you previously, through the other phases, have not accomplished the minimums -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you still wouldn't have to complete them in the last phase because it's -- only -- you only have to do (sic) is request a building permit, right? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry's shaking his head no, so obviously I'm not catching on what you're trying to do here. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, are you suggesting that in the event that it hasn't already occurred, we come in for the last tract, we get a building permit, we commence construction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It doesn't say get a building permit and -- MR. MULHERE: It says a building permit has been issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It says included in a -- included in a requested building permit. MR. MULHERE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word "requested" means you simply ask for it and it gets kicked back out again. You'd walk away. I requested it. It got turned down. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and -- issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- yes. Whatever word you want to come up with, it needs to be stronger than "requested." MR. MULHERE: I gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Item C, which is Tract GO, the green open space -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I had suggested we look and make sure that's consistent with the LDC or it's mirrored in one of the deviations that you've asked for, so... MR. MULHERE: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I hadn't got time -- I didn't get time to match those up, but that was something that needed to be done. On the developments -- Exhibit B, the Development Standards Table, the fifth box or sixth box down on the left side, it says, "all other perimeter buffers." I suggested "all other PUD perimeter buffers" so there's no confusion over tracts in the perimeter. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we have the actual height issue here which is part of that discussion we just had. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let me see. February 15, 2018 Page 35 of 67 On the -- Page 26 of 28, it's 2, transportation, B, transit stops and shelters. Last sentence, I just wanted to have possibly a clarification. At the developer/owner's option, a unique design consistent with the project architecture may be utilized. I just want to make sure that the CAT folks have an opportunity to weigh in and agree that whatever you're designing is acceptable to them. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise, it could read that you're just going to do it, and this is what you're going to do, and everybody walks away from it. MR. MULHERE: That was the intention. And I thought -- let me just see something. I'm looking for it right now. A unique design consistent with the project architecture may be utilized. Yeah, we'll add something that -- you know, with approval of Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Collier County CAT. They're all -- yeah, that will work. Just something so we make sure we have that approval. MR. MULHERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the backup to the staff report, there's only 303 pages of it. It was Eric's, obviously. Page -- one of the pages had a letter from you-all, your HMA, on December 21st, 2016, and in that letter it said, both the CRA advisory board and the CRA board, parenthetical, County Commission sitting as the CRA board, end parenthetical, approved the conceptual development plan. Can you show me what plan they approved? MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm not sure if that -- in hindsight, I'm not sure if that's 100 percent accurate. They approved a contract which has no bearing on this discussion which had conceptual plans attached to it, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you proffered it as part of the discussion for support of your document -- MR. MULHERE: It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I think we get to see that plan. MR. MULHERE: It's the same plan that you're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which plan is it; those colored renderings with all the high-rise buildings? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it's the renderings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only plan that you presented to these boards was that plan? MR. MULHERE: Exactly right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they think they're getting that plan? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's our job to make sure they do. MR. MULHERE: Yes. No question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've now -- I'm going into your traffic stuff, and -- MR. MULHERE: Early lunch? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, we're going to end up -- Norm's going to be here before we finish this, so I'm not going to waste time trying to get answers out of you that you're not as versed on as he is. MR. MULHERE: No, I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll go that route. And so that brings me to the end of, I think -- well, I've got Comprehensive Planning questions, but that's for staff. I'm just checking the rest real quick. The City of Naples issues, I've got several letters from Greg over at the city, or you have some -- Eric did, and they're included in there, and I'll -- some of those that are involving transportation, I'll hold off until Norm gets here. The sidewalk issue they brought up, you basically explained you're always going to maintain the clear sidewalk that's required. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They're looking at bus load-out areas. I don't even know if a bus issue is needed there, but if there is -- I guess Michelle got bored and left. So if she was still here, I'd February 15, 2018 Page 36 of 67 probably ask her that question. MR. MULHERE: Again, that language was developed 100 percent in consultation with them and actually came from them, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the city's position or suggestion on the site water management system? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I'm familiar with it. And we have to go through the permitting process. To the degree that we have to add attenuation for water quality, it's going to be part of the permitting process. We haven't even designed the site for stormwater yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're suggesting -- they want to make sure you get through the -- you utilize the South Florida standards. MR. MULHERE: Yes. And, you know, there is a pond site, as I mentioned to you, that we will utilize for all or a portion of our stormwater. That's what the county bought it for, paid a lot of money to acquire the land and create the pond. And we're entitled to use that, so we will use that, but we'll go through the permitting process. And whatever's required, we'll adhere to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pieces of the questions that pertain to transportation from the city, I'll wait till Norm gets here. MR. BELLOWS: We do have someone here from the CAT other than Michelle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's another person in CAT besides Michelle? Oh. Well, by all means, come on up. Well, I guess he can answer the question in regards to -- yeah, please come on up for just a minute. It will only take a second to ask you what I need to. I didn't know Michelle had anybody else working with her. She's been carrying the load for so many years, I didn't know anybody else was there. MR. DE LEON: Yes. Just for the record, Omar De Leon with CAT with Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pleasure to meet you. The only question -- you heard the comment about the reference to the architecture for the bus transition. Is there any problems with having a developer do that separately, or do you have standards that they cannot change? MR. DE LEON: No. And I think we've had discussions regarding some of the requirements FDOT will have as well as with regards to shelters and things like that. But we will be agreeable to any structure that -- we'll have to have that discussion about the structure and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're -- the City of Naples provided the following question: Turn lanes or bus pullouts, loading areas created outside of vehicle through lanes are frequently used by transit buses for dropoff and pickup. The existing bus stop is located within the 45-mile-per-hour travel lane on U.S. 41, a less than desirable location. A bus pullout or turn lane is recommended. Have you guys looked at this site for a possible bus location, or did you not see it needed on this particular site? MR. DE LEON: We didn't see a need just yet. I think what was discussed, that it would be evaluated after to see what the usage may be. But at this point we don't see a need for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the usage is based on what they're supposed to provide or what their agreements were providing, which is 210, 152 plus commercial, would that provide you with enough information to know if you need a bus stop? And if so, if you wait too long to enter into the picture, how would you get the bus stop? Because the building's going to be locked in. MR. DE LEON: No. Well, the bus stop is coming in. I think what's -- the discussion is, I guess, the pullout or pull-in is what -- MR. MULHERE: They're doing a bus stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DE LEON: Yeah. So the sheltered stop, that would be -- is what's agreed on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is the bus stop that's provided for causing the travel lane on U.S. 41 or Davis Boulevard to be blocked while the bus loads and unloads? MR. DE LEON: Yeah. Temporarily, when they -- boarding and the lighting at, like, typical bus stops along those roadways. February 15, 2018 Page 37 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I need. COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: They don't now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying they don't. I just wanted to understand, because that was a question from the city. I'm trying to get a direct answer. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and I just want to add, as I said, there are lots of examples of arterial roadways, and the CAT bus, because it's -- because the majority of the routes utilize the arterial roadways, they do stop everywhere along the arterial roadways without pullout. You know, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: FDOT is involved in this? MR. MULHERE: We are required -- all access has to be reviewed and approved by FDOT. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they are involved with this bus stop and the whole thing, too? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just -- MR. MULHERE: And, you know, I'm glad you asked that question, because you just reminded me quickly, I wanted to say, the existing conditions right now have far more ill-designed, wide points of ingress and egress running both along Davis and along 41. We are actually reducing the conflict points and, of course, designing them under the current standards for the safest and most appropriate access, so thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- thank you, sir. MR. DE LEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, this is kind of an overall idea or thought. The first renderings that I saw on this project included the property at the very point which I think at one time you-all may have considered purchasing to include in your property. I know that didn't happen. It got purchased by somebody else. I did see the renderings, though, that had different structures than are there today. If you had gotten that property, would you have included it in this process? MR. MULHERE: Yes. We had at one point discussed whether we could make some provisions to do that even though we don't have it now. But it was just impossible. We don't own the property. We don't have the right. And we just couldn't do it. We tried to sort of say, in the event we get it, it's part of this, but you can't do that with zoning. We'd have to come back and amend the zoning and do that. We never actually really had any legal rights to that property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I understand. MR. MULHERE: And those renderings that you saw, they actually showed other proposed improvements could go on the property. But then after we got the actual graphics, we ghosted those in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what happened, those original renderings were a much lower structure. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I notice that you more or less complemented your site's ability because of the transition between the higher structure that is proposed there now versus what you have. Well, if that structure wasn't built, would that still matter? MR. MULHERE: I think if that structure wasn't built and somebody else -- us or somebody else came in and constructed something, there still has to be an appropriate transition there, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I got to thinking about it is what you're asking for today and what you've shown, you know, in the program that you've laid out basically is a first-time idea for Collier County. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm wondering if the front property would ever -- is ever going to possibly change. And you mentioned your concern over their operation being a hotel and how that would deplete your ability maybe to have a hotel as well. But if they were to come in and try to do a PUD and ask for the same densities and issues you're asking for, then you'd end up with competition in all facets. So what would February 15, 2018 Page 38 of 67 happen then? MR. MULHERE: Oh, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm wondering from the overall grand plan that you're looking at -- MR. MULHERE: They're less than half the size of our project. So, think, that would be less than half of the intensity or density. They would be eliminated -- if they did that, they would be limited the same way we are by traffic trips and other limitations that you put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just thought it was -- MR. MULHERE: I don't know who owning that parcel -- other than market forces affecting your ability to go forward with the development, I don't know who wouldn't take advantage of the incentives that have been provided in the CRA, which include density. You can double use. You can -- unlike other areas, you can calculate residential density and hotel density and use them both on the site. You can do 120 feet zoned on that site. So I don't know who wouldn't want to maximum the utilization of those incentives. You know, who's going to build a one-story building? I mean, you don't take advantage of those incentives. So do I think there still should be an appropriate transition? Yes. What that is, it's -- you know, it's -- I can only comment on what I know is approved on the site today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Bob, I understand. It was more of a -- just trying to understand how this thing could flow different ways. Because you guys are looking for maximum flexibility, and I understood your concern over, if they do a hotel, how can you have a hotel, too? You may need some transition. So that's kind of where I was coming from, trying to understand how far that transition would have to go. So -- but with that in mind, that's the last questions I have right now. I've got a lot of questions of staff. That will have to come probably after lunch. But what I'd like to do right now, in order to help with those in the audience who are here to discuss this project, if anybody would want to speak now in lieu of later today so they can move forward, if they have other things to do, before lunch, we can certainly accommodate public speakers right now if you-all would like. And so, Ray, do you have any registered public speakers first? MR. MULHERE: One speaker. Katie Cole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all I ask is, Ms. Cole, if you'd like to speak now or later this afternoon, it's up to you. If you want to speak now, you can come up to the microphone. If you don't come up, I know you don't want to. MS. COLE: I'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else in the public who would like to speak now in lieu of later today? Ms. Penniman, did you want to speak now? MS. PENNIMAN: If at all possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. We'd love to accommodate you. MS. PENNIMAN: I appreciate your allowing me to speak today. I'm not here representing the City Council. I'm here as an individual living in the City of Naples. And the amount of impact on the city regarding this particular project was daunting to begin with. Now we're dealing with numbers that far exceed the original numbers. And that, you know, only increases the impact on the city. So, you know, go carefully. Go -- you know, go slowly with this, because this isn't going to be the only project that's going to be on East 41. If this does what it's supposed to do, it's going to have a catalytic influence on what is done further east. So now you're increasing not only roads -- or traffic, but, you know, I have every question as to whether or not the infrastructure is there to even handle, necessarily, what's going to possibly be on the triangle. I just think the impact of this is so huge that we need to look at it not necessarily as one area of the county but a catalyst as to what could be going forward. That's what the CRA basically was saying to these people. If it works, there's going to be greater impact on the city. So I'm more than concerned about that. I was concerned about, frankly, the original iteration. The February 15, 2018 Page 39 of 67 thing that made it somewhat attractive was that it was a very attractive project. The 500 units, you know, that is of some concern to me that, frankly, I'm not even sure a five-foot sidewalk is adequate. We hope that there would be more pedestrian connectivity between the city and this project as opposed to auto. So all I'm asking is, you know, to look at this in isolation from anything else is just, I don't think -- you know, from my standpoint, would not be a well-planned community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. PENNIMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the public who would like to speak now in lieu of later? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Eric, it's going to fall to you for a beginning of the staff report, and then I know Comprehensive Planning has got a part of it, and I know Jeremy's here waiting for the LDC piece, so... MR. BELLOWS: Did you want to start with Growth Management Plan amendment first, as you mentioned earlier? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that would be a good idea because then we can focus on the questions while David's up here, and then we get into the traffic stuff and others that will come with Eric hopefully by the time -- after lunch. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. I will be brief. I first just want to put on the record that the petition complies with the statutory standards for a small-scale amendment. Bob went over the portion of that. The project being 10 acres or less in size, it's not within an area of critical state concern, et cetera, et cetera. Secondly, it's staff's opinion that the project complies with the broader statutory requirements for any type of Comprehensive Plan amendment, and that includes that the amendment does specify the density and intensity parameters, that there is either a need demonstrated for what is proposed here and/or that the project reflects or fulfills a community vision, and in particular staff would say it falls on that latter side, that it fulfills the vision of the community as expressed and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay which itself was created as a mechanism for implementing the community redevelopment plan, which dates back to the year 2000. We do think this is an appropriate location for the site. After all, it is within the site identified within the Comprehensive Plan overlay for a catalyst project. From a general compatibility perspective, staff does find that the project is compatible with the surrounding area. We don't look at the detailed compatibility for a given project. We defer that to the zoning services staff. The infrastructure impacts, as well as the impacts upon the environment and the cultural resources on the property, are all acceptable as well. Finally, staff does recommend approval, as stated in the staff report, subject to some, what I'll call, cleanup language changes. They are not substantive in nature. They are just to get the language of the subdistrict into proper format, maintain internal consistency, et cetera. The one area that we did not recommend any change to of the applicant's language is that portion of the amendment that affects the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay itself. They simply have provided cross-references between the subdistrict and that overlay or exceptions to limitations within the overlay, again, to recognize that the subdistrict does exist within the overlay. And that also includes, Mr. Chairman, a couple points you had raised yesterday about the subdistrict reference within the overlay. In my opinion, the language is acceptable as it is. It does not need to be changed any farther. So that is the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? We'll start with Stan and then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you said the infrastructure is sufficient, you mean that utilities staff has looked at water and sewer, and transportation has looked at that part and determined that it February 15, 2018 Page 40 of 67 either will handle it or it can be made to handle it? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned, then Tom. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two questions. First of all, how -- with respect to infrastructure, how can -- how can the roadways be modified other than widening, which is not on the table, in order to accommodate the increased traffic we all expect we'll see starting with this? MR. WEEKS: Two things. One, our finding that the impacts are acceptable for infrastructure is based upon the reviews of the staff within those specific disciplines. Secondly, I would go back to something that Bob mentioned during his presentation, and that is this project is within a transportation concurrency exception area. So what that translates to is that this project is not reviewed on a link-by-link concurrency basis as would typically occur for a given project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, and I realize that the application is within the prescribed limits and is excused from other limits. MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question, though, is as a practical matter, does staff have a point of view on the practical effect of the additional traffic coming from this project and then combined with subsequent developments? And is the net result of those increases something that is going to make East Naples a better place? MR. WEEKS: Since that's a very specific question related to transportation, I'll have to defer to those professionals. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My second question then is, the word "catalyst" has been used a lot. Would you tell me what that means to you or that means to the county? MR. WEEKS: Based on the terminology in the overlay in the Future Land Use Element, it is a redevelopment of the project. There's no specific project in mind. There are allowances, as Bob has mentioned, for a maximum of 12 units per acre for a mixed-use project on this site or any of the other properties within the mini-triangle area: U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard, and Commercial Drive. So any redevelopment -- I mean, that could be viewed very broadly that any redevelopment of the mini-triangle is a catalyst for further development because it's removing what is there now, which is, just broadly speaking, not the most desirable of land uses for a gateway either into the City of Naples or out -- from the City of Naples heading toward the unincorporated area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Any redevelopment would be a catalyst? MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes. As a practical matter, because of the value of the property, I would think it would be a significant -- significant project on the site. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess, I thought what you meant by catalyst was something that was of a higher quality than just any possible redevelopment, something that would have the effect of being a magnet or an attraction feature to bring other first-class development in, not just any redevelopment. MR. WEEKS: Well, certainly the better, the higher quality, the better of a project that we see at this location would function to attract similar type projects, but the language in the Comprehensive Plan does not specify, it does not tell us exactly what type of development we're looking for. But, again, Commissioner, I go back to my comment, that given the value of the land, we think it's -- just to be economically viable, it's going to take a significant investment on the part of the developer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: David, just a clarification about the scope of your review. You said you didn't get into the details of it. So, hypothetically, you're looking at whether a hotel is compatible on this site with the neighboring properties, and is it correct that you're not looking at the intensity of that hotel? It could be a 10-room hotel or a thousand-room hotel. You don't get into those details. You're just looking at whether a hotel is compatible, or do you consider the intensity and the size of the hotel in your review? February 15, 2018 Page 41 of 67 MR. WEEKS: We do consider the intensity of the project. Simply to say a hotel because that could be a two-story, three-story building, so we do take into account the overall intensity of the development that occurs. What I'm saying is we don't look at it to the detailed level that zoning would. Whether we look at building heights, building orientations, building mass, setbacks, maximum height standards, amount of open space on the property, landscape buffers. All those types of details that zoning would look at, we don't look at it at that level. We just broadly say, if this intensity of development were located here, would it generally be compatible with the uses on the surrounding properties? You know, we have commercial right on the corridor. We have single-family development to the north in the Brookside subdivision and southeast of this property across 41. Beyond the commercial corridor, there's also single-family residential there. So in the big-picture view of the surrounding area, is this generally compatible? That's what we look at, and it's our conclusion it is. MR. EASTMAN: I appreciate your answer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your answer, though, you indicated you do look at intensity? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 210 development units that this was first portrayed as provides 39 units per acre, gross acre. Do you -- can you tell me any other project in that area or, for that matter, in Collier County that has 39 units per acre? MR. WEEKS: I don't know of any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second part of your density analysis, it looks at the 400 units per acre -- per development, and it says that's 75 -- 74.77 development units per acre. So I'm then to assume that if there's no similar compatible development units per acre of 39, you certainly don't have any at 75. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you look at intensity, how did you determine this was compatible? MR. WEEKS: Again, that big-picture view, whether it's 50 units per acre, 39, 77, 12, just looking at the total intensity of the project. Part of that, a big part of that is the actual building that can be on the property or buildings, because there's the height limit. Though the Comprehensive Plan amendment does defer to the mixed-use PUD document for the specific height, we do know that it's going to be a very tall building because we're not blind to what the PUD proposes. So staff -- Comprehensive Planning staff is certainly aware that the building height proposed is 160-something feet. So we've looked at more the standpoint of there could be multiple buildings of this 160-something-foot height, and is that generally compatible with the broader surrounding area. And regardless of the number of dwelling units, they have to fit within a certain building mass, and that physical impact is what we've focused on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, had you tied the provision of being a catalyst to the ability for the density to be compatible on a redevelopment area such as this, I think that would have been more logical for me to understand. I mean, a stand-alone project of this magnitude, I'm not complaining about the density. I'm just asking for purposes of trying to understand how your department saw this as compatible. I understand what you said, so we'll leave it at that. MR. WEEKS: I'll comment further just to say that we certainly recognize that the plan right now allows for 12 units per acre maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And this is three-fold or more greater than that. We've given deference to a couple things in particular; one, the fact that the CRA advisory board has been supportive of the project because, after all, it's in the CRA's boundaries. It's in their area. We give deference to what their opinion is, understanding that their focus is not on land use compatibility. You know, those are things that fall within the planning/zoning realm, but they are looking at the economic development of the whole CRA. That's the whole purpose of their existence is to try to February 15, 2018 Page 42 of 67 promote more development and redevelopment within that area. So we've given deference to them and their support of the project. And, secondly, we've given some deference to the applicant in his assertion that they need the development intensity that they are asking for and the flexibility they are asking for to make the project viable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you, in your understanding of what the CRA board had liked, realize that they were looking at that rendering that was provided to us in our packet and that the language in the zoning application and even in your Comprehensive Plan doesn't necessarily provide that rendering? I mean, does that have any bearing on your review of this? Because if you relied on the CRA to believe this was a better project for the area, and it was the portrayal of the photograph that was provided to everybody and they got flexibility in here to a point where you may not get that portrayal, how does that affect your analysis? MR. WEEKS: First, I don't know specifically what the CRA advisory board looked at, so I don't know -- the renderings you're referring to, I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the testimony today was they saw the renderings that are part of the packet. I didn't know if you've read the packet or not. MR. WEEKS: I did not know that prior -- beforehand exactly what they had looked at. I just knew the project. I knew that the petitioner has had discussions with CRA staff, that they had made a presentation to the advisory board. I just did not know the specifics of what it was. Secondly, to the specific question of the renderings themselves, I could only say that our viewpoint was just, again, the general compatibility. I think it would be appropriate if the CRA advisory board has made their recommendation based on specific renderings that the county should do whatever it can to try to implement, then, what is shown in those renderings. You know, we've been through this before -- not an assertion in this case. But we've been through this before in my 30-something years here when we see pretty pictures, and this is what could be there but we have to make sure that the regulatory part of the planning and zoning application that actually gets adopted, when it gets implemented, that it will make sure that the pretty picture is what we end up with there, to the greatest extent possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the piece that I've had the most trouble getting my arms around with my discussions Tuesday this week and so far today. In part of your Comprehensive Planning analysis, you refer to the subdistrict location is within five miles of high employment centers, Naples Community Hospital downtown, multiple shopping areas, including Coastland Center, Naples High School, many other employment locations. Did you do that because you think this is going to be an affordable housing project? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, because most of the references -- a lot of the people that work at Naples Community and the shopping centers like that probably aren't high wage earners. And I'm not sure this project is going to be even close to their realm. I'm just wondering what relevance that language had. MR. WEEKS: It's a general observation that there are employment centers, major employment centers within a reasonable distance to the property and that possibly some of the persons that would be residing here could be employed at those locations. The shopping in particular, I think, is probably not the best example for us to include. But the hospital, in particular, and schools, they employee professionals, particularly at the administrative and management level that, potentially, I would say, could be of an income level that might stay here. Commissioner, we don't know what the final product is going to be. We don't know what income level will be targeted or be able to afford these units. It was, again, a part of the broad evaluation of the product. And part of that comment as well was tying into the fact that this project site is similar to a mixed-use activity center. Mixed-use activity centers being intersections of major roadways, allowing for high density, allowing for mixed use, and many of the activity centers also are -- themselves provide employment opportunities or are proximate to major employment centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my last question: David, yesterday when we met I asked you to February 15, 2018 Page 43 of 67 clarify a paragraph that turned out to be part of the applicant's submittal, not necessarily the recommended language that you-all are providing, and it was that No. 4 item on Page 4 of their process that said, this particular paragraph is exempt from the mini-triangle subdistrict. And I just want to make sure, because I was confused. There's the mini-triangle subdistrict, which is only this piece of those properties compared to the whole mini-triangle area, which is about from Commerce (sic) Drive all the way to the point. Is that -- that's what it -- that's what we're -- all we're dealing with from the comprehensive perspective today. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. So that paragraph is needed because it does not comprise the entirety of the mini-triangle catalyst project that's identified in the Comprehensive Plan. It's just a portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so we make sure we're not tripping any self-amending language, I brought a point out to you in a Paragraph 8 on Page 5 of their submittal that suggested that the mini-district mixed-use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the mini-triangle subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. I suggest we drop that last language off "and in its implementing MPUD zoning." Did you look at that, and do you have a problem with that or -- MR. WEEKS: I still think it's appropriate to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you've been doing it longer than I have, so I'll go along with your position on it. I just wanted to make sure. And in No. 10, the word "except" I suggested change to the word "and." Did you have a problem with that? MR. WEEKS: I also think it should remain as "except." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I did look at both of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. As long as you looked at them. They just raised questions of me. They're not anything I was going to die my sword over. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. And that's the last questions I have for the Comprehensive Planning side of it. And, Bob, you have one thing? Or, David? MR. WEEKS: One last thing: I did want to acknowledge that, per the earlier discussions, staff is aware that the minimum number of dwelling units would move from 50 to 100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And there might be other changes that were needed in that language, that minimum language you have if -- depending on how the next day -- the rest of the day folds out. Bob, did you want something? MR. MULHERE: Very briefly, just relative to this discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You normally get a rebuttal but -- MR. MULHERE: I know. Relative to the comp plan. It's directly related to that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- to some of the questions that were asked. When we made a presentation to the CRA board, the official presentation, we not only discussed the graphic exhibits and showed them those, but we also discussed the conversion formula. They had all of the information in front of them. So their decision was based on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they realize that the document that we're seeing today had 50 units at 500 square feet each and a bowling alley potential, or did that -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we didn't talk about that, but it was in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did they realize that the number of units you were looking at as a cap were over 400 -- were 400 units? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So -- and the other thing I wanted to add real quick, you know, the term "catalyst" is used in the Comp Plan, and it was just -- a question was asked about it. It's not specifically defined, I think, as David said. To my knowledge, when something isn't specifically defined, you would use the sort of common definition of it. I believe that's some form of legal process. And I did look at this, and I just wanted to share it with you. You know, it really refers to a chemical February 15, 2018 Page 44 of 67 process, a substance that advances a chemical reaction without changing the substance. But the synonyms, I think, are more telling, and that's what I looked at. It's a stimulus, stimulation, spark, spur, insight, impetus. And I think that was the intent of using that word was as an impetus, a spark, an incitement, an inducement to do further redevelopment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which is really more than "any" redevelopment. MR. MULHERE: I think it is, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That takes us -- and I notice that Norm came in, so it's a good time to take an hour break for lunch. Thank you for showing up for lunch, Norm. That will help. So we'll resume all this -- we'll resume at 1 o'clock when we come back from lunch. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Dearborn is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, welcome back from lunch. When we left for lunch, we were finishing up with the Comprehensive Planning comments part of this collective group of land use actions. And before we left, I realized, in seeing one lonely person in the audience, that Jeremy French is sitting here waiting for us to address the LDC issue. And I don't know if there's much to address there, so I thought we'd take that first and free up Jeremy to get back to his office and do the things he does best. So, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Afternoon. Jeremy Frantz, for the record. Yeah, so the LDC amendment, there is one criteria in the LDC for LDC amendments, and that is to -- that they preserve the consistency with the GMP -- within the GMP. Our analysis is that it does do just that. We've also provided some other analysis about the exemption from building height, and we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you heard the discussion of the height and how it needs to be a little bit thought out yet, but no matter what happens, you're just referring to it as written in ordinance 27 -- whatever the -- it would be a 2018 ordinance now, but -- MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We include a reference also to the FAA determinations and the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the applicant, I believe, is going to come back with something to show how that folds out to Collier County's numbers, so maybe there's some opportunity there to take a look at it as well. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I didn't want to see the actual number within the LDC. Leave that in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, this is one of those items that we'll probably vote on two weeks or so from now, the next meeting. But is there any questions or any comments about the land use -- or the LDC language that Jeremy has? It's 9D. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We freed you up. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I guess I should just comment further then. You said we'll approve it in a couple of weeks. It should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if we'll approve it. We'll review it for vote in about two -- the first of March. MR. MULHERE: We like what you said. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Just that it should be reviewed at the same time as the GMP. It refers to that GMP subdistrict. It should have that same date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be. The only thing I'm suggesting is as the staff gets new information about the height from the applicant based on discussion today, you may want to -- there may be something that needs to be changed in your language. So at least you've got another two or three weeks to get that done. February 15, 2018 Page 45 of 67 MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeremy. Okay. Now, that takes us where we left off. And the next up was going to be a staff report on the PUD. Before we do that, Bob, during lunch I got to thinking about some of the issues that have come up and, basically, one of the things is a maximum type of uses. You have 400 residential, 200 hotel units, and 200,000 square feet of commercial, and that's due to this conversion formula that you've got in here. So can you tell me, since you did these tables, if you had used -- if you build 400 multifamily dwelling units, how many hotel rooms and/or retail general office would be left? And vice versa, if you built 200 hotel rooms -- see, this all gets to providing the -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- mix of the picture in the renderings that you provided. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to make a general statement, then I'm going to ask Norm to come up. He actually prepared the table. He's the transportation expert. It's really just a mathematical formula. If he needs to bring his calculator with him, he'll have to do that. But anyway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it would help us understand. Because if you use everything you've got to build 400 units, we're not going to have anything left, and it's not going to be the mixed use. MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the kind of analysis -- I was just wondering -- MR. MULHERE: Well, except that we have a minimum, so we can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, minimum, yes, a bowling alley. Okay. MR. MULHERE: No, it's not going to be -- it's going to be restaurants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one of the uses you're asking for. MR. MULHERE: That's one of the uses, yeah, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now -- and, by the way, we're on the uses. We discussed the idea of making these uses not stand-alone buildings and accessory to the other uses because you guys wanted to use the bowling alley, a boutique kind of bowling alley thing in conjunction -- MR. MULHERE: We don't have an objection. We don't want to build -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but your language doesn't say that, so that's something else we need to consider. MR. MULHERE: No stand-alone. They'll be integrated into these multi-story buildings, which I thought I did in the purpose and intent, but we'll make it more regulatory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't -- and that's one of the things we have to read by next meeting, so... MR. MULHERE: Okay. So what I wanted to say was you made a statement that I don't think is entirely accurate. I don't think you meant to -- you said you've got these maximums. Those are based on the tables. Those maximums aren't really based on the tables. We didn't establish a maximum by calculating -- you know, using the table. Those maximums were based on a reasonable expectation in the marketplace, and they would not consume -- necessarily consume, you know, all of the -- in other words, you have to do the calculations. So your example of if we built 190 additional multifamily, how much office square footage would that consume and how much hotel, vice versa, would that consume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't remember saying that it wasn't -- I can't remember what you just tried to paraphrase. MR. MULHERE: I thought you said they came -- that we arrived at that through the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I wanted to know if you were to do 400 units of residential, what's left to build. MR. MULHERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your table is probably the most complicated conversion table we've seen to date. I mean, the other one was Hacienda. Did you do that one, too? February 15, 2018 Page 46 of 67 MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so you're at fault in both cases. But the Hacienda one was -- MR. MULHERE: There are others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the beginning of, basically, a lot of conversions. This one's a completely different animal. I'm just try to figure out if you -- MR. MULHERE: Parklands had one. I did that one, too. But anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this one's broader than anything I'm -- MR. MULHERE: It is. It is. It's a unique site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if Norm needs some more time, you've got the question. In the meantime, we can start with the staff report, and we'll pick this up later then. Eric? MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Eric Johnson, principal planner. Staff reviewed the proposed MPUD. Provided that the GMP amendment, the companion GMP amendment is approved, this MPUD would be consistent with the GMP and also with the LDC provided that the nine deviations are approved as well as them complying with the three conditions of approval that are attached to the staff report. Just some housekeeping things I wanted to point out with the title. You'll notice that there's a blue underline that says "near" rather than the strikeout "on." This was advertised in the Naples Daily News to say "on" rather than "near," but the letters that were sent out and the signs that are posted on the property say "near." This is more accurate, and this will be the way it's advertised for the Board of County Commissioners. Also, early on in the process there was a gentleman named Ted Brousseau who wanted to be notified of the NIM. I notified him of the NIM the day before. He was in attendance at the NIM. He also wanted to be notified of this meeting. Evidently he is not here today. Finally -- well, not finally. Also, I think it would be appropriate to change one criterion -- one response to the staff report, and that's if the companion GMPA petition were to be approved, that's how I would respond to that. Finally, I was looking over the PUD document, and under the emergency portion of the commitments, there is a misspelled word. "Necessary" needs to be spelled correctly. So, in all, staff is recommending approval of the petition. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric, let's start with your recommendations on Page 25. Your first recommendation is any landscaping proposed within the Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard rights-of-way require approval from the Florida Department of Transportation. So if you didn't say that, they could just go out and put stuff in the medians along those right-of-ways? MR. JOHNSON: Not exactly, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then what value is that recommendation? MR. JOHNSON: One of the renderings showed landscaping in the right-of-way, so I felt it was important for me to say something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But even though the rendering shows it, we may -- a rendering shows it, it's outside the limits of the PUD, right? MR. JOHNSON: It would be, I suppose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- again, I'm not sure why we need to be repeating something that has to be done anyway. The issues of compatibility, and you heard me ask David Weeks where he has seen 39 units per acre gross in Collier County before. Have you ever experienced that? MR. JOHNSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this one is not only 39, but it can go up to about 75, and I'm assuming, then, you've never known -- well, you don't have anything at 75, so how did you base your compatibility criteria excluding the fact the density is beyond anything we -- what's the closest we ever came to it? I think it's, what, 26? February 15, 2018 Page 47 of 67 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I don't know the answer to that question. I haven't been here long enough. But the way I based my analysis was on the proposed language that's in the GMP amendment, the purpose and intent of that, as well as the distance between the subject property and any buildings that would be on site compared with how far they are from residential uses, particularly single-family residential uses in single-family district. That's how I conducted the analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fact we don't have any urban high-rise, I understand it's a new threshold, and I'm -- I don't have a problem with that part of it. I just wanted to understand how you fit it in with the intensity and density, and basically you really didn't. You looked at it's in a commercial area with other commercial products, and it's far enough from -- away from single-family for you to feel comfortable with it. MR. JOHNSON: Well, considering -- I'm sure Mr. Bellows is going to chime in. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. That is a correct statement. They're also using conversion factors to stay within the approved trip generation for this site. So if you're reducing commercial square footage in favor of residential units, the overall intensity is still within what was contemplated with the approval. So while staff didn't object to the higher density residential, it was only because it was part of this conversion factor, at least in my mind. MR. JOHNSON: And then, finally, if I may just add, you know, the C4 GTMUD-MXD is surrounding this property, and that has heights that are allowing up to 112 feet. If you go to the site, you'll notice that there aren't that many buildings that are that height, if at all. So, really, it could be said that the surrounding properties aren't being utilized to their highest and best potential. So it would look a lot different and this project would be seemingly different if everything around it were built to the highest and best use on the surrounding properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Much better answer. Thank you. We had talked when I met with you on Page 4 just above the Item C, that X, I brought it up to the applicant. The sentence that's added or the portion of the sentence added that's after the word "or," is that something you find necessary for descriptive purposes for that Item X on that page? MR. JOHNSON: I would not have a problem if anything after that "or" was struck out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going through the rest of what I've got here, Eric, so just give me a second to find it all. That's all I've got of staff at this time. So thank you, Eric. I guess that takes us to the road issues. And we can either ask the questions or, Norm, if you want to at least give us some information. Did you bring any -- something that explains the road system or situation that you're dealing with out there so we can get a graphic view of it? Or if not, we'll walk you through the questions. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if it's on there. You have to go to the -- there you go, and then open it up. MR. TREBILCOCK: I need to be sworn in, I guess, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. You came in late. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a certified planner and professional engineer with 28 years of experience. And I appreciate the opportunity to cover with you. What I have is kind of a summary of the Traffic Impact Statement that you have in more detail in your packets, but I can kind of review those items and then hopefully be able to answer any questions you may have as well. So what we really cover in the Traffic Impact Statement is a description of the project from a traffic perspective in terms of land use codes that we use, and we come up with a trip generation, and then we distribute those trips and assign them. We look at the background traffic that's there, and that background traffic data is, you know, developed and held by Collier County or the City of Naples, as the case may be, and then we look at the existing and future road network, and then we really add on our traffic impacts over February 15, 2018 Page 48 of 67 what's going to be there in the future and look at what those impacts will be, and then we look at site access and then have some conclusions. So from a land use standpoint, the various uses that we looked at, the snapshot, were the residential, multifamily, and there's a specific ITE land use code. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has a land use code for that hotel, likewise, the shopping center, and the medical/dental office, and they're looked at in different ways; you know, dwelling units, rooms, those would be occupied rooms, the square footage of the shopping center and the office as well. And then that really translates into a total trip generation. We look at a daily volume, a.m. peak, p.m. peak. And when we look at concurrency, though, for the county, what we look at is what we call the p.m. peak hour and peak direction of concurrency is what's analyzed. But in terms of the trips, when we run the trip generation numbers, we have kind of what we call a gross value and a peak-hour amount, and normally we'll look at a two-way volume is what you look at. So the upper right-hand corner, that 875, that's your peak p.m. hour trips, totally no adjustment. Then when we look at internal, that's internal capture between uses. You know, normally, that's the idea and ideal behind a mixed-use development because, you know, you can go to one place and not really have to get out on the road network because your needs can be serviced there by, you know, an existing restaurant or other type of use that may be there. So we use those values, collier County also, for internal capture. ITE has limits that they'll allow, and those will be typically higher than what Collier County -- Collier County will lower that, because they do want to look at what I call a conservative or high trip generation. So we come up with an external value for that with internal capture. And then there's another thing called pass-by, and pass-by is simply that -- somebody that's out on the road, he may -- that person may stop -- you know, the real simple example is getting a gallon of milk on your way home or something. You stop in, you get that, but you still were going to be on the road anyway. So we call those pass-by trips. But they actually go into the site and on the driveway. So when we look at impacts for driveways and such, we don't exclude the pass-by trips because those physically are occurring. We eliminate those from concurrency, though, because those trips were already on the road, and this site just removed them temporarily, and then they got back out on the road. So that's how that's used. And, again, Collier County has a limiting number on that. IT will typically have a higher value, and Collier County will always limit those. And so we follow Collier County's guidelines on those limitations for pass-by trips as well. But -- so then we come up with a total net external. So that total net external is used just for what we call a concurrency review. A total external is used for the turn-lane sizing, that kind of thing, when we do our analysis. So it gives you a little bit of a summary of things. But a part of the distribution will look at an overall distribution of traffic, and then that will translate into peak trips in different directions, and then we apply that on various tables on the links for the road network as well. So, in a summary, you know, the analysis you have in the Traffic Impact Statement has a lot more details on tables and as such as all. But one of the things that we identify is that the project is in a transportation concurrency exception area, so it is exempt from transportation concurrency; however, we've still done the analysis to show you that there is not a concurrency issue with the project, but -- to understand that, because the idea in these -- this particular area is you want to promote these kind of projects to develop and as such, so you do have that exception for this area. But, again, we still went ahead and did the analysis for you. And we look at, you know, the background traffic. We looked up to 2021 was the projection, and looking at Tamiami Trail East, its peak hour volume that's going to be without the projects, where it's going to be at, as well as Davis Boulevard, and these are just different links of the roadways as well. And then we look at the future conditions of the roads. They'll remain as, basically, six-lane roads. You've got the slightly wider section of Tamiami Trial as it gets into the city itself, but those are then the peak-hour volumes of those roadways that exist out there. February 15, 2018 Page 49 of 67 And in the end what happens is our -- the surrounding links will be operating at a satisfactory level of service with or without the project. That's really the bottom line in the future when we added all the trips for the project on there. The project impacts, though, would be considered significant, because it would be above normally, like, the 2 percent, and we give those values in the tables and the traffic study, but they're not adverse because there's not -- we're not going below concurrency as a result of the project as well. We are looking at consolidating the connections to the site. The existing site has about nine driveways, and we're going to consolidate them to two driveways on Davis Boulevard and two on U.S. 41. We also propose to have interconnects to the adjacent sites, to the Trio site to the west there, and we're hoping to actually do a shared access with them as well as to further reduce driveway connections and then to the site to the east as well when that is spurred for development, too. We do look at -- we've coordinated with the CAT folks on transit stop accommodation as well and proposed and coordinated with CAT too, and that really gets further defined when we do the site design. And the left turn lane extensions, we anticipate having to do those. And they would normally be reviewed at the time of development order approval by the FDOT. The Florida DOT -- both of these roadways, Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41, are FDOT roadways, so we would submit to them any designs and traffic studies, and then they independently review that, and they'll apply their criteria whether or not we need to do, say, right-turn lanes or left-turn lane extensions. We've done a preliminary review with them and met with them and provided them our preliminary data, and then I'll be able to just kind of go over what those results are. But I think you may have seen -- I can go over each of our access points here. On the Trail here with the site, this is -- so to the west of us is the Trio site and what we're looking to coordinate, and I've just shown this conceptually, is to consolidate our access. They're working on a separate access here, but the DOT would prefer to see those consolidated. So we would extend the left-in turn lane here, lengthen that turn lane up, and then provide access into our site. And what you can see is, we provide more depth, what we call throating there to allow the traffic to stack into our site, and we give our projected turn movements, and this includes the Trio's traffic there as well that we have. So we'd have 85 left peak-hour turning trips, and then for the right turn lane we'd have 68 trips and then a bunch of trips exiting as well. So that's the one access. And then we've another right-in, right-out access on 41 as well with lesser trips. And then on Davis Boulevard, we have a right-in, right-out there on kind of the -- would be the northwest corner of the site, and then on the east side of the site we'd have accesses in -- my next exhibit I'll show a little better what things look like off site, and that's what this shows here. And I think I had one term; I called it dual left -- it would be -- it's -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You called it proposed dual opposing single left directional median. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. So what this is is it's an opposing left. What we're proposing here -- so we'd have a left into our site here, and then we'd have what we call in common terms is a pork chop, a divider island there, so that would prevent any left-outs of our site. But this would allow a left turn U-turn or potentially this other site, if it develops, would have a left-in to its site as well. But that's what we meant by dual opposing left turn lanes there, that that would be proposed -- a proposed improvement we would put out there as well, and that's what's shown. So we'd have a left-in, a right-in, and a right-out there at that access point as well. And then we have this other left that would allow for U-turn movements there, too. And, again, there would be, like, a physical barrier there to prevent our vehicles from taking a left-out at that point as well. So we're consolidating the turns. In the analysis, when we've looked at these preliminary numbers, even though we see an interconnect here to the east -- and that will -- I would see would really be an important item, especially on Commercial Drive since it has a signal here on 41 as well. But we didn't count on that for the analysis that we've done. So conservatively we looked at all the trips coming in and out of our site externally at these four -- four points for the project. February 15, 2018 Page 50 of 67 And then we made an assumption of consolidating our access with the Trio site, and we did include their traffic numbers in what we've had in terms of their design that they've had. So that's something we would look to coordinate with them and also with the DOT. This is probably, really, typically a lot more detail than we would normally do at this point in time, but I think it provides some help and guidance and understanding as far as that goes. So, in conclusion, again, the project is exempt from concurrency, but we did still look at concurrency nonetheless. And it's not an adverse traffic generator. The existing site drives are to be consolidated and interconnection proposed as well. And the DOT will review and permit the project connections on 41 and Davis Boulevard based on their jurisdiction, and they'll determine the turn-lane requirements that we need to do for the project. Mitigation of impact is in the site improvements, the interconnection, and the payment of impact fees for the project as well. Okay. And with that, I'm available for any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. If you could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- go back to the first picture, please. You said something about shared with Trio. Has Trio given you an okay that this is shared? And you said you combined the traffic together? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How many trips did they have without this? MR. MULHERE: At that location. MR. TREBILCOCK: At that location? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh. MR. TREBILCOCK: Uh-huh. Good question. And I have that number. I need to just run to my TIS real quick, because I have it specifically written there in the diagrams. And maybe to answer your other question, we have been coordinating with them. There's no specific agreement. But the FDOT requires shared driveways or interconnection of the site, so we're looking to work together on this. And we've proposed this to really put everything on our site and provide that extra throating and stuff that I think would help allow vehicles to get off the roadway more efficiently. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: So that's -- and really kind of incumber -- incumbers our site, but I think it's beneficial from a traffic standpoint. Okay. So let me get these numbers for you. Sorry. And I have an exhibit that shows their -- okay. Very nice. Okay. So from -- for that particular access -- and this comes from numbers from their traffic study that they had prepared. Their site, say, for the 68 right-in movements, 15 of those would be from their site. For the 85 left-in movements, 15 of those would be from their site. And then for the outbound movements, 26 of those trips would be from their site of the 211. So we're, you know, more significant volume, but that's added into those total numbers that I provided to you there. Okay? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they're just -- their total -- what was their total p.m. peak hour if it were a stand-alone at this point? MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't recall. I just have it for that particular access because they do have another access point where they're probably getting a lot of their trips from as well, so sorry I didn't have that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just a question. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it was good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you sure you're done now? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The 2017 AUIR for -- well, first of all, for -- MR. TREBILCOCK: This -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry? February 15, 2018 Page 51 of 67 MR. TREBILCOCK: This is 2016 is what this was done on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course, this is 2018 now. So my question is going to go to the practical effect rather than whether you -- you know, whether you'd fall within exemptions or what the situation was back when you did the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get that. On Davis, let's see, the p.m. peak between the Tamiami Trail and Airport is 1,550, and on Tamiami from Davis to Airport is 1,700. So taking your 875 -- and I realize that it's not an equal amount on Davis and on the Tamiami, but for the ease of arithmetic for me, I split it in half. I've got 438 trips on one road and 438 trips on the other. In essence, what that means is, is that you're raising -- again, if my math is correct -- the actual conditions, the actual traffic conditions by 25 percent on Davis and by 20 percent on 41. MR. TREBILCOCK: The amount of our trips for that link on Davis would be 142 peak hour. Remember, we've got to do the peak hour and what we call peak direction as well, not -- we don't add both directions in there, because we're looking at a peak direction on the AUIR. So the number you had stated, we would add 142 to that, okay, and that would be the amount we're adding to that link. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- so the balance of the 875 is on the other? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. Then they get distributed throughout. The 875 is really not 875. It's the adjusted numbers, because we have internal capture, because those trips aren't actually occurring out there. But in terms of the other links -- and this is the peak direction because, remember, some of your trips, what they'll do, even on Davis, some of them are going to be going in the peak direction of the road, and then some will be going not nonpeak direction. So the stuff that's in the nonpeak don't get added to that peak hour/peak direction trips, you know. So they tend to get reduced from that standpoint because you're really looking at where -- the estimated peak. So your other peak directions, though, on Tamiami Trail, Davis to Airport, that's 72 peak hour peak trips from the project, and then on Tamiami Trail between the Goodlette and Davis section, that's 119 trips we would be adding on the peak direction for that one, so... Okay? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure I understand. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. It's in the tables in Table 6 of the study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The questions -- I'm going to pose mine in a different manner, but I think it will answer yours. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I didn't want to -- yeah, I want to make sure everyone else has got -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: The only point that I was making on this is that -- maybe my numbers aren't exactly right, but the percentages are high what this is adding to these two streets. And this is only the beginning of a much larger project that is particularly going to affect Tamiami Trail, if you look at the -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Only thing is, I'll just say the numbers you're adding are a bit on the high side, because if you look at -- if you really look at moving to the more current, say, AUIR numbers, you can use the numbers we provide in Table 6 and just add that -- put those background volumes on there. But our percentages in terms of impacts -- now, see, in terms of level of service of the roadways -- are in the magnitude of 2.5 to 5.3 percent level-of-service impacts is what we're looking at. So that wouldn't change no matter what AUIR we're doing. The AUIR just means that, hey, these volumes, we're raising them up to this level here. Now, when we did these projections, because we're using the 2016 at the time, we still did -- we did a background traffic -- we'd raise the background traffic up a couple percent each year, or we'd look at the trip bank, and I'd add the trip bank numbers, the greater of the two, because we really want to look and, you know, to grow it to a reasonable high level. February 15, 2018 Page 52 of 67 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll listen to your answer to the Chairman's question, but just the last thing I want to say is -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- I know you're in compliance with the various exemptions that are available -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and the capacity numbers that exist at the present time; I see that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it seems to me that we need to at least take a count of what's going to be available for subsequent developers and developments. This is going to be more than just the tip of an iceberg at the mini-triangle, and that was the only point I was going to make. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on traffic before I -- okay, Norm -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let me back up on a couple things you said so I understand it a little bit better. The picture that's on there now, you said you're going to potentially have a joint agreement with the Trio project. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that you're going to move the left-hand turn lane down to line up with that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Currently their -- they have a submittal into the FDOT to have a turn lane -- their turn lane and access right here, and then they provide interconnection to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is theirs approved by the DOT? MR. TREBILCOCK: To my knowledge, it is not. In coordinating with the FDOT, they've gone through some reviews with them, but I don't believe they have an issuance of a permit at this point from the FDOT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the DOT approves theirs -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then you wouldn't get one, would you, in that location? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, it wouldn't be to that location; however, in terms of even our own coordination with them is we could modify theirs and -- what we were shown is theirs possibly going through, and then we would come back and extend the turn lane and make a similar connection, and then theirs would go away, and they would just have an interconnect to our site. That was the proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the DOT -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, they require an interconnection for them. So if they didn't -- weren't willing to do -- to allow their access to, say, be displaced to our site, then they would just need to provide an interconnection from us to their site, and so then all our traffic would stream into their site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then how would that change the road impacts in other issues that you've utilized in this TIS based on turn lane being in alignment with your site? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Good question. What we would do, then, in that case, we would have to look to modify that turn lane or identify if it has sufficient capacity or if we could go back to the west end of that turn lane and modify it to get any extended queue that's needed to stack our site making a left into the site. And then the only realistic loss, and that's why our site plan made sense to me, is there's less throating that they can provide on their site for the traffic coming in. But, you know, the DOT would typically look to review and approve this. They may, though, you know, look at -- you know, they would probably encourage going to the design that we're providing here. But, you know, at the very least, they'll require them to make an interconnection, because they wouldn't allow two accesses to be that close to each other. February 15, 2018 Page 53 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something you said earlier about the standards you used for this project, and that was that the pass-by rate and internal capture rate, the county formulas were what you used to -- does the DOT have formulas for pass-by and internal capture? MR. TREBILCOCK: When they look at it -- yeah, they'll independently look at it. What they'll typically, though, allow and accept is the county's, because the county values tend to be lower. The county's more conservative, and they'll accept them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you used the more conservative numbers just in the case that the DOT would need it? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, exactly, for both agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then when the DOT requires deceleration lanes for right-ins, why didn't you use the more conservative approach to that? MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Supplying decel lanes for right turns into the project. MR. TREBILCOCK: Again, because based on the volumes and coordinating with the -- we're not within the threshold of requiring a turn lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the DOT? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But for the county you are. MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, the county -- the county standard, though, doesn't apply here because it's a DOT roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then neither -- but, okay. But you just said you used the most conservative between the DOT's internal capture and pass-by in the county's, and you chose the county's because it is more conservative. But in this case you're picking and choosing to use the most nonconservative -- MR. TREBILCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because the DOT is double what the county requires for the turn-lane access. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought they were 80 and we're 40. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. And, actually -- and I'll correct myself there, too, because when I had told you 40 for, say, a right turn lane, actually, for a divided highway in Collier County, Collier County always warrants a right turn lane on a divided highway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's even more conservative. That's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: There's -- that's how they do it. But what you have to do is you have to respect the agency that has that facility, because if you look on U.S. 41 and, say, this section of 41, you'll see that the standard isn't to have turn lanes. Even within the city's boundaries, if you look at the length of U.S. 41 within the city, it's a small percentage of turn lanes that are there, and the -- a good percentage of those that are there tend to be on public road connections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I can assume when you come back in two weeks you can show us somewhere else in the city where this kind of intensity is utilized and they're not using those right-turn decel lanes. I mean, because if you are, you better tell Eric and everybody else, because nobody knows anywhere else in the county this occurs. MR. TREBILCOCK: I can tell you right now. Northbound on U.S. 41 at Golden Gate Parkway. Much more intense -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a road to road, though. MR. TREBILCOCK: Road -- well, that's a lot more intensive, and that is no right turn lane, no northbound right turn lane there. I mean, I'll just tell you right off the bat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the traffic counts on that? That's Fleischmann Boulevard, two-lane road? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, not, it would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Golden Gate Parkway north of -- February 15, 2018 Page 54 of 67 MR. TREBILCOCK: It would be U.S. 41 and Golden Gate Parkway. So we're talking six-by-six roadways. You know, so, you know, there's no northbound right turn lane there. If you look at -- along the 5.6 miles of U.S. 41 within the City of Naples, there's -- I believe there's probably a dozen or so right turn lanes that exist, and there's probably 180 driveway connections along that roadway. So it's a small percentage. So we're consistent. And -- but we would certainly follow anything. Because, again, when you look at an urban design, there's different philosophies. You know, Collier County is -- we're a very suburban design. So you want to promote higher -- you know, you want to promote the capacity and issues, but the converse is you have higher operating speeds. You're allowing the cars to exit and quickly get off the roadway. In this mixed-use design, you're trying to create some more pedestrian-friendly environment and stuff. So you actually create a little bit more friction on the roadway for folks to get off the roadway. So that's why you'll notice on Davis Boulevard between 41 and Airport Road, I believe there's just one turn -- one right turn lane in that whole section of roadway for all those driveways along there. Similarly, along this section, too, there's minimal numbers of turn lanes that you see there. And, again, what you tend to do is have lower operating speeds. And that actually may be a part of the intention, so -- because when you create a lot of turn lanes and accesses, which I do like, you know, for capacity of my mainline roadway, people will whip off that roadway a lot quicker, you know. So we're trying to balance it, but we'd certainly do the turn lanes if required by them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is this -- the roadways that were shown here internal to the project, are they considered driveways? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, yeah. They always consider, exactly, a driveway connection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then my prior statement asking for where the intensity of interconnecting road -- interconnecting situations like this where we have a no right turn lane, and used Golden Gate Parkway as an example of this, one right-of-way to another right-of-way, do you have any instances where the intensity as high as this, 875, trips per day, where the right turn lanes don't exist or do exist -- don't exist where they have that kind of capacity? This is a -- this is a substantial project. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Sure. No, I understand that. It does get distributed. So what I'd need to look at is really the amount of right-turning vehicles, which in this case would be 68 right-turning vehicles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's above the county's threshold but below the DOT's? MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, exactly. So what I could do is look for a situation where I'd estimate that to be the case, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would help buffer your argument -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that this is acceptable. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we get in -- let's get into your TIS, and this may start working towards Ned's question and hopefully help clarify it. Table 3, which is on Page 8 of your TIS. Now, there was another plan that wasn't colored that seemed to have a perspective of this. I think it's the one below this. Maybe you could use that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Let me see. I can get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Over on the left, if you click on the left side, on No. 8. Do you see No. 8 over on the left? You're going -- you're circling them. There you go. There you go. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thanks. I need help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you hit "play," you'll get a bigger picture, or just open the full screen. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. There we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With all the calculations you do, boy, electronic, you and Bob are having fun today. MR. TREBILCOCK: And what was the page of the TIS you said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 8, and it's your Table 3. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with the roadway link, Tamiami Trail East/U.S. 41. February 15, 2018 Page 55 of 67 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're talking about -- that's from Goodlette Road to Davis Boulevard. You have entering southbound, 119. Where did -- how -- what entrance are we talking about on this plan? And where is the 119 in comparison to this table, Table 3? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. That would actually be the volume on the link, so that's not on this map itself. So from Goodlette to Davis is actually a link volume, and then that volume could potentially be split by the number of access -- you know, so that traffic is between Goodlette and Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this says p.m. peak hour, project traffic, so -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it says entering. So it's not entering because it doesn't reach the project. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it stops prior to Davis. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, no, no. That's linkage traffic that is going to enter the project, okay. So in other words, that 119 would be split between the -- the two -- let me see. The two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Point to them on this map so we know what we're talking about. So you're going east on Tamiami Trail. You're -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, you're over here. You're off the map a little bit -- THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time. MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Raise your hands again like that. She was talking about that during break, so I have to -- you did just what you said you would do. Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Where's my little arrow at? Bob? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, he'll draw lines. Be careful. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So, Chairman Strain, when we talk about that entering volume, it's coming in that similar direction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- and it's on that link. And then what it will do is then that traffic will split. Some of it will be left-in and come in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's -- but you've got 211 there, don't you? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. So that -- no. That's exiting. That's exiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Where's -- your entering is 85, right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to correlate this map to that table. So if the entering going southbound is 85 and you've got 119, what am I missing? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Then you have some -- remember, some of that traffic is going to take a left and come in off of Davis as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is southbound entering, so it didn't mean southbound. It could be eastbound. MR. MULHERE: It's southbound on 41. You know, it would be southbound/eastbound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we were to try to figure out how much that is, it would be 119 less 85 but plus 35, or 70 up above. So you've got 70 up above, 85, it's 150 -- that's more. You see your two right-ins on Davis? So if you're getting the traffic and you're pulling the traffic off southbound 41 to your two rights up on the north side and your one left on the south side, wouldn't you add those up to see if it matches the total traffic coming in? MR. MULHERE: It includes Trio. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, that includes Trio. So -- I'm sorry. Okay. So let's do that. No, we're good. Perfect. Thank you, Bob. February 15, 2018 Page 56 of 67 I'll show you something. Let's see if this all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do we get one of these tables to reflect Trio if that's going to have to -- if that's the only way we're going to be able to follow it? I mean, that doesn't -- why would you do this for your project, the traffic that flows through your project but only give us your project when it's -- you're going to be accepting both? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. What we did -- okay. So 85 -- remember, that 85 is us and Trio. Trio is 15 of those trips. We're 70 of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So that's why -- where you get the 85 from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. And the 235's up top. There's 140. You've got 119. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Now, the 119 is for concurrency purposes, okay. So these numbers would be higher because I did not subtract out the pass-by because we're -- in this purpose in the site access, we're looking at trips, and I didn't deduct the pass-by. Now, we deduct the pass-by from the concurrency analysis, okay, because those are trips that are already on the roadway network. And so that's a lesser value. So to your point, though, like what we're getting is, say, 70 plus the 35 plus the 35, that's 140. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. TREBILCOCK: But then when we deduct for the concurrency, that's where we get down to the 119. So that's how you get a total value. I can show you a map that kind of shows that, if you want, the differences. Because I get your point, you know, confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's kind of hard to follow your TIS when the maps that you provide us don't give you the numbers to follow. I think that's part of where probably Ned was trying to figure out how your numbers got there. For example, you've got on northbound 142 Tamiami Trail East. Now, this is after they leave Davis and 41, so the two have merged together, and you've got 142 going north, but you already got 211 coming out of the south side. I don't know what you're going to have going -- you've got 41 going west on the north side, so that's 252. So you're 10 off there. So is that -- MR. TREBILCOCK: No. But you're going to lose -- some of those folks will be doing a u'ey at the intersection to come back the other direction, because we're not giving, like, a full median opening there, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I said, there's 41 of them doing a u'ey. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, yeah, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your numbers still don't match up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right, but they wouldn't with the -- because what we're doing there is we're comparing the concurrency with the separate -- this is a separate analysis. This is site access, okay. So when we do site access, we're not using the concurrency data for that. We're using the values without the pass-by trips subtracted out. The concurrency analysis does subtract out the pass-by values. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know the term "rubber meets the road"? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one of these is rubber meeting the road? MR. TREBILCOCK: This is the -- site access is rubber meeting the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one: The picture in front of us? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one in our Table 3? MR. TREBILCOCK: The site access would be the appendix you also have. In the study that we provided to you, there's appendices that give you all the turning movements, and then we show the Trio traffic separately from ours. This has them all -- this has consolidated traffic but, again, there's two operations that we do. When we do concurrency, we subtract out internal capture and pass-by, okay. When we do site access analysis, we're looking specifically at that location, and we do not subtract out the pass-by trips, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you talk about Davis Boulevard, U.S. 41 to Airport Road eastbound, February 15, 2018 Page 57 of 67 142 on exit, you show 203 or -- yeah, 206 on your two entrances up on top. Why is there a difference there then? Is that -- it seemed to be one of the simpler ones, but apparently it's not. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. No, exactly. Because there, again, when you're looking at Table 3, we're taking out the pass-by values. When we're looking at the site access, we're not subtracting out the pass-by values. Because what -- as you said, this is the rubber-hits-the-road drawing. And what the DOT wants and what the county wants is they want to see what are you guys doing at the access in terms of cars moving in and out. Now, again, this is more for a PUD planning study. When we actually submit for development order approval, that's when these get galvanized in terms of approved, and that's where we submit a permit to the FDOT, and they determine whether or not we should put a turn lane in here in that case, and look at, like, the case, like you said about Trio's. Hey, what if they don't combine there. So we'd look at that situation and determine where we're at and then make an appropriate decision on whether or not, say, a turn lane is needed there or not, you know, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at that south entrance that has a left turn lane in -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but look at the right turn lane. The right turn lane in is 68, it looks like. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that right? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that include Trio? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, it does. There were 15 of those trips. We're 53. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Trio's going to -- if you had -- if that 68, because of a mixed change on Trio climbs to 80, you've got to put a right turn lane on your property? MR. TREBILCOCK: Not yet. It's 85, but, yeah, you know, so if we did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now it's 85? You told me yesterday -- two days ago it was 80. MR. TREBILCOCK: Did I -- I thought it was 85. And there's actually a range that they use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we talked about it Tuesday, but that's -- if it's 85, then what happens if you hit 85 -- MR. TREBILCOCK: My apologies. Let me just get that, because -- sorry about that. I have it in the report. I just -- but if it reaches -- I'm sorry. I stand correct. You're right. It's 80 to 125 is the range that they use. What they do is they look at that range and they make a judgment of whether this should have a right turn. It's -- just because it hits 80 doesn't mean they say that you're going to have to do a right turn lane. They'll make a judgment call on that as the permitting agency in this area. But I'm sorry. But you were correct. It was 80; 80 to 125 is the range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Trio comes back in and says, you know, I've got three acres, and the project next door got 75 units per acre so, therefore, I can ask for 75 units per acre, and he doesn't want to -- and he wants to do a PUD and comes back in with 225 units, how will that affect that 68 entry points? And, see, it's things like that -- MR. TREBILCOCK: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not asking -- apparently you're basically -- your position is you're not going to do turn lanes at this stage, but yet if you build your building, then we've got a constrained highway, we can't ever ask you for the turn lanes. So I'm trying to anticipate what the worst-case scenario is because, honestly, if your project gets approved, that's going to be a basis for other projects. And so the intensity could easily change on the Trio project as well as plenty of stuff to the east. MR. TREBILCOCK: No. You make a good point. And what we need to do when we're doing this is, these things go on together timing-wise. So what we would do -- when we get ready to go to the next stage to actually go to construction, we need to verify that -- whether that turn lane is needed, and then that would cause an adjustment as -- if that turn lane is necessitated. So that's a good point you make. So we don't work in vacuums in terms of the different disciplines that we're working on this project with. And it's just understood that we've got to work with the DOT. So that's why we simultaneously did coordinate with them on, hey, here's the preliminary layout of the project, and this is even the consolidation February 15, 2018 Page 58 of 67 concept for this other, but, you know, you make an excellent point that, hey, what if that adjacent project gets more intensive because we are doing a shared drive. So we want to make sure that we're working with them, and then we can accommodate that turn lane. And we'd need to. We'd have to, to your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only this is, your buildings are built pretty close to the road, so I don't know how you'd give up that much room and still provide sidewalks from the cross-sections you showed, which means by using that entry you're restricting the development on the project to the west, because if they do too much that triggers the right turn lane, you can't put it in because it's a constrained roadway. That's going to present a series of problems, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Not necessarily. I believe there was a little bit more room on that side of our project. I think the constraint, you're right, is on Davis Boulevard. There's a lot -- there's a lot less buffer distance there. But, you know, depending on that requirement, it may or may not. And, again, that agency is key, because, again, they do have a range of that, because what they do look like is, you know, a big part of it is driver expectation. And along this segment of roadway, the series of driveways, you don't have right turn lanes, so there isn't quite that same expectation. And you -- you know, you slip in a turn lane -- you know, again, deceptively, we think we're improving safety and operations but not necessarily always, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move -- MR. MULHERE: I just want to -- for the record, Bob Mulhere. I just want to clarify this Trio project isn't three acres; it's 1.99. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said three earlier. MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's two acres. It's 150 -- MR. MULHERE: So any -- God bless anybody who wants to go through the process we went through for the last year-and-a-half of Comp Plan amendment and LDC amendment and MPUD rezone and come in and ask for anything they want. But that's not what they've chosen to do at this point in time. They've gone through the by-right allowed SDP process and maximized their intensity on that site, which they should be able to do. So, you know, we're trying to work with them, and they're working with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, all I'm trying to do is find out if you guys are trying to not provide the right turn lanes, that we've got a reasonable expectation that they're not going to -- that the situation's going to stay as you say it is, and it's not going to get worse. That's what I'm worried about. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand. And, again, that's what we've looked to do, and that's why we coordinated with the agencies to determine what requirements they would anticipate, and that's why we do that preliminary coordination with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 10, did you look at that discrepancy I pointed out when we met on Tuesday? And did you find a resolution to it? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, thank you. What it was is the upper portion, that's reflective of FDOT data that they use. So that was -- the intention there was just to show that the DOT's data is showing a decline in their ADT, but their -- so their dataset would be slightly different than the city's. And so the lower table is city collected ADT data. So what we did, though, when we did the concurrency analysis, we used the city's values that actually were -- resulted in a higher. But the purpose of that paragraph above was just to demonstrate that, in fact, there was a negative in the traffic growth during that period of time, although we still did a positive traffic growth in the future. So that's the reason for the difference, so, you know, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 13, your site access turn lane -- by the way, Ned, did the explanation of that traffic flow on those streets get to your question, or did it confuse it even more? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Confused it somewhat more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. Well, that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think what happens is your documents provide a lot of information, and for those of us that aren't trained in traffic analysis, I think it's hard to understand how the February 15, 2018 Page 59 of 67 numbers match up when you use different numbers on some of your renderings versus the tables you produce. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, I see your point. I do. I do understand that. And I'm -- you know, I can adjust to clarify that for you. Again, they have different purposes, but I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your site access turn analysis, the first paragraph on Page 13 under that header says, connections to the site are proposed as follows. Can you walk us through those connections and show us where they are? I think the proposed dual left directional median is the one I'm kind of wondering where that is. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Here we go. Connection to the site. Okay. So the north entrance, that's -- so this one, that's a right-in, right-out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Directional left. MR. TREBILCOCK: Directional -- oh, I'm sorry. Right-in, right-out, directional median left-in, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the one that's going to have an increased stacking lane to accommodate both projects, assuming you use that common entrance. MR. TREBILCOCK: Absolutely. So the left-in that we're showing, that's 85 trips, and that's us and Trio, the right-in is 68 trips, and then the right-out is the 211 trips. Okay. So that's that one. Then the southern access, that's down here, all right, and that's just a right-in, right-out. So we're showing 17 right-in trips -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- and 21 right-out trips there. Okay. Then on Davis Boulevard, the western access, here, is just a right-in. That's the 35, and then the right-out, 103 trips. Okay. And then the eastern one, this is a right-in, the 35; right-out, is 103. And this is where I had my language a little bit that would be -- it would be opposing left, so -- oh, what did we do there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not going to have dual lefts. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, yeah. It's dual opposing lefts. I'm sorry. Like right now there's no left there, so we'd put in a left-in -- a left here for a U-turn, you see, and then we've got a left into our site, and then we have, like, a pork chop, so it's opposing lefts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there's no dual lefts? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was -- so that's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: You're right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to get at. MR. TREBILCOCK: I think my language is incorrect there the way I presented that, yep. But they're opposing lefts, like you said. Okay. So that's 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you did -- in the other analyses that go on, you actually get into the fact you don't believe the dedicated right turn lanes are warranted at the various locations, and we've already talked about that. That's -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. That's using DOT -- and, again, this is planning level, so we're not -- and we're not saying they won't be. It's -- they get finalized at the point of site development approval. But we wanted to give you conceptually we're not meeting their warranty. And so it just kind of gives you an idea that, hey, it's not necessary here, and consistent with the other projects along the east corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And now I'd like to take a look at the questions posed by the city. Have you -- you're familiar with them, I believe? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just completed their mobility study, and this is where they're talking about -- oh, this is talking about the dual lefts, I believe. It's the first one that -- the city urges -- strongly urges the county to apply a conservative approach to the traffic analysis to minimize the chance of level of February 15, 2018 Page 60 of 67 service failure at any point during the year of the project. Yeah, it's the issue with the right turn lanes. We've already kind of talked about that, so -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sidewalks we talked about while you were on vacation this morning. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the -- that's -- the second part there, that's about the dual turn lanes. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. TREBILCOCK: And then about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The transit bus, we talked about that. The guy was here this morning. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay, good. That covers it, then, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so. Just let me make sure we've got it all. Okay. I think we have. Anybody else have any questions that they'd like to ask? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a comment, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Yes, ma'am. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: When you -- not knowing the Trio project and this and everything else, to me it looked like a shell game. I mean, you're just kind of moving things around, and trying to understand this is very difficult, Norm. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And that's why I was wondering if Trio -- and you said, "I combined them." We didn't really know that. MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand. I don't show it here, but actually in the appendix I did -- and I'll look to clear that up for you-all. I understand. It's tough for you because there's a lot of technical information we're throwing, and I understand your points. You're trying to use some of the data over here that really isn't the same as over here. So, you know, maybe what we do is create an exhibit so you guys can add the numbers up better and they can make more sense to you. I get your points, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you do any work in the City of Naples? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I misspoke when I looked at the first question they asked. It was on a separate email by itself, and I'll read most of it to you. There are concerns as to the density of the project and traffic impacts, particularly upon U.S. 41 and intersecting streets within downtown Naples. The typical method is to consider a new project for the average time of year or 100th, 200th highest hour. To do this, standard adjustments are made. The city just completed a downtown mobility study that determined seasonal traffic conditions were 20 percent higher than FTOD (sic) standards. So the city, for planning purposes, has been looking at peak season and maintaining levels of service during that particular time. Are they doing that currently? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, they are not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: This is -- again, that was a particular study, a particular snapshot, but their Comp Plan doesn't require that analysis. And you can see he's not saying they're doing that there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. Perfect. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to understand. So this TIS that you've done for us is comparable to the type of TIS you do for the city then? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if -- technically, then, we're following their standards? MR. TREBILCOCK: We're consistent with them, definitely, yes. February 15, 2018 Page 61 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's important. MR. TREBILCOCK: In my opinion and belief, exactly. They -- they'll tend to use -- just so you understand, they'll use, like, two-way traffic, and that's why I was splitting it to do, like, a single directional. But it's the same concept and the same levels of stuff. And, you know, they had that particular mobility study, but that's not -- hasn't been adopted into their Comp Plan in terms of how you do level-of-service analysis at all, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I'm glad you showed up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're confusing, but you helped. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. And I'll look to clean up a couple of items that you-all have said, too, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we are going to -- MR. TREBILCOCK: My TIS will be about 10 pages longer now, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are going to come back in two weeks to finish this up because we were given some new information that the vision -- the new vision statement that's probably going to have to have some regulatory language added to make sure we're getting that, but that's all the stuff we're going to probably work on over the next couple weeks and come back and finally discuss it and finish it the first meeting in March, the way it looks. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from staff's perspective, I think that's it. There's no -- okay. Now, do we have any registered public speakers, Ray? And then the public speakers, for those of you that are patiently waiting here, the room is just full. Feel free to address any of the three issues that we've -- in discussions today. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Katie Cole. MS. COLE: Good afternoon. My name's Katie Cole with the law firm of Hill, Ward, Henderson, 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 800, Clearwater, Florida. So I appreciate your time today. I represent Crown Castle International, who is the tenant of the county's for the wireless telecommunications tower that is on site on this property. And there was a question by Mr. Dearborn earlier about that tower being relocated. And the staff report indicates it's being relocated. Early last year, Crown Castle began discussions with the county about the county's proposed termination of Crown Castle's lease. There has been no agreement to date to terminate that lease. So when we found out about this hearing and that the rezoning was moving forward on Sunday night when we happened to be perusing the agendas, it obviously caused concern, because the MPUD and the Growth Management Plan will create a nonconforming use for the tower. And while there are provisions in the wireless communications code that allow for some changes in addition of antennas and modification of antennas to be made, the age of this tower sometimes requires structural changes, which is clearly prohibited in the nonconforming use provision of the code. So while the lease has certain provisions about the landlord preceding with a rezoning, which would negatively impact the tenant -- and those are discussions that we'll have outside of this arena -- without waiving any of those rights, I would respectfully request that this board recommend including in the list of permitted uses a provision to allow this tower to remain as a conforming use temporarily until the lease expires or until it is terminated by mutual agreement as provided for in the lease. So -- and I do know there are a lot of other lease negotiation discussions that have occurred where I have not been privy to. I know Mr. Starkey has been. There is a disagreement about what the appropriate buy-out should be. But in light of this, my client did send communication to the county yesterday, Tuesday, February 15, 2018 Page 62 of 67 reflecting the fact that Crown Castle's very willing to enter into an agreement to terminate to facilitate this redevelopment. It just needs to be an appropriate number. And we look forward to continuing those conversations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you mentioned possibly adding this as a temporary permitted use by right to avoid the nonconformity? MS. COLE: If that would be the appropriate place to do it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just thinking there might be another option. If the issue is that under the nonconforming standards you can't structurally alter the tower, maybe we just need to look at a deviation to that nonconforming standard. So should things like that be needed while that tower is still there and not moved, something like -- if that's the appropriate way to handle it. Do you have know -- any ideas, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. In the past when PUDs are proposing new uses different than the base zoning allows and the base zoning uses are in place, we've had a provision to allow those base zoning -- existing base zoning uses to exist until such time as there's a change in ownership and/or that the building permits are being issued for the new use, and then there would be a relocation or demolition of those old existing uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what they're saying, though, is they can't -- in order for them to move and relocate, it's going to take a certain amount of time possibly and processes to get there. So if we just provide some language that says that they have to move when the new buildings are ready to be built and they've not got a new place to go, that might be problematic then, so... MR. BELLOWS: Well, a change of ownership, that would mean they've divested their interest in the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unless -- a change of ownership for the project would mean that it's just assignable. They probably have a lease that's assignable, and that would go with the property. MR. BELLOWS: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't know what needs to be worked out, but between now and the next time we come back, I ask that you get together whatever parties are involved and let's get something included in the next rendition that comes to us on the first meeting in March, which is March 1st, and try to resolve the issue. MS. COLE: Yes. We would like to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate you highlighting it to us. We'll do what we can. Anybody? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Cole, I read in the materials that we were provided a reference to another communications tower southeast of this location on Kirkwood, I believe. Is that your client's leasehold down there, too? MS. COLE: It is, yes, sir. And that is actually the tower that is being proposed to be reconstructed to accommodate the tenants that are on this tower. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. Would combining the communications capability of both towers to one location, in any respect, degrade service to the residents? MS. COLE: Potentially, yes, and I believe that's the crux of the negotiation issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Wouldn't you need the fee simple owner of the property to agree and acquiesce as to what you're asking for as far as the rights and use of the property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're -- that's what they're going to -- supposed to come back with. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need the mike, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The CRA is the owner, the Collier County CRA, and it's under contract by the applicant. MS. COLE: The county CRA is the owner of the property that consented -- I presume, provided February 15, 2018 Page 63 of 67 owner's consent to this application. They are also the landlord and have obligations under the lease to Crown Castle. So they have two roles in this. MR. EASTMAN: One of which, I think, would be to request what the future zoning should be as opposed to the tenant doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean as far as the -- right now the future zoning allows the communications tower, and I think what we're saying is the tower owners will get together with the future owners of the property once the contracts are completed and arrange for having language added to the PUD, either a permanent or temporary basis, for communication towers to be there. I think that's the solution, right? MR. MULHERE: Well, actually before the contracts are completed. We actually need to resolve this issue now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that requires the current owner to be part of that process. MR. EASTMAN: Amen. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It will have to be resolved in one of two ways. One is that the tower is allowed as an interim permitted use until a building permit is issued for the mini-triangle project or, when it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, the issue needs to be resolved and they have to have a termination agreement that both parties are in agreement to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how long is the remaining time on the lease? MS. COLE: 2024. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You guys are going to move, I hope, faster than that. Is that -- you're in one piece of the overall picture. So maybe that piece could be the last phase instead of an early phase, and that would help provide some extra time. MS. COLE: I think from a timing standpoint, I became engaged in the project to facilitate the relocation and the permitting of the new tower. Unfortunately, in October, communications at -- there was a meeting with Crown Castle and the county in October, and since then -- at that meeting, the county was unhappy with Crown Castle's financial request, and until this week there had not been additional communication from the county to Crown Castle about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Jerry? MR. STARKEY: Jerry Starkey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you swear in? MR. STARKEY: No, I haven't been sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. STARKEY: So we've been dealing with Crown since we began and notified Crown at the time that we won the RFP. We've been in discussions with the county. Nick Casalanguida has been representing the county, the CRA, and Crown, and ourselves as the contract purchaser. We're really -- Crown owns the site on Kirkwood that they would like to move the tower to. The county has worked with Crown to facilitate a re-permitting or permitting of a new tower that would replace the existing tower at Kirkwood and the tower at the triangle, and we simply are negotiating the economics. And so the parties have been engaged. It got off track a bit with the hurricane because of the county's -- was really focused on a lot of other things a few months later. But I think we will reach an agreement or buy subject to it and figure out what to do later. But I think the goal is to reach an agreement. And I don't -- I don't see any reason why we can't. But that's not to say, you know, we agree to the numbers, because there is an economic disconnect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And my concern from the land use perspective is that by the next meeting you at least reach some agreement to provide something so that however this tower works out in the meantime, it's not got a problem. MR. STARKEY: Right. And I think that her -- excuse me. The request for a temporary ability to change the structure or whatever, you know, probably is fine with us. First we've heard of the request, but that would enable the tower to stay while we move forward and then, ultimately, hopefully we reach an agreement on the economic relocation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll look forward to the 1st. Thank you. February 15, 2018 Page 64 of 67 MS. COLE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you use the word "code," are you talking about the Collier County tower code? MS. COLE: Yes, sir, and the nonconforming use code. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does that tower code still require a yearly, or every two years, a formal report to be submitted on the status of the tower? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we took that out. Remember we added it when that one tower collapsed, and I don't think it's been taken out. Do you know, Ray? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could you bring a copy of the latest report? MS. COLE: I will certainly find out if that's been recorded and what it is, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they should be filed with us as required. So somewhere, if that exists, we should have it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Even if it was, like, eight years ago? MS. COLE: I'll request it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's only one other person sitting in the audience that's not part of the applicant's team. If there's no other speakers, if anybody else would like to speak on this issue, please come on up. There isn't any, so with that, I think we're finished up here, Bob. Is there anything you want to wrap up before we go into a continuance discussion real quick? MR. MULHERE: I just want to express our appreciation for the time that you've put into this. We understand there's a lot of issues and moving parts, and we're anxious to continue to work with you to resolve this. We'll be prepared with those issues for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And any comments from the Planning Commission before we -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The overriding concern that I mentioned at the beginning of my comments had to do with achieving a sense of what I believe are the expectations that this would be -- and I'll use the expression without asking that it be put into the ordinance -- but high-end first-class. And I can see myself getting more comfortable with all of the uses that we may end up approving if there's stronger language of some kind that points to an objective that fulfills the expectations for a premiere, or whatever you want to call it, a leading kind of a development. And I would suggest to you the following. And I took the first sentence of your Exhibit A, and I rewrote it to make it sort of an undertaking. And it would read, the mini-triangle MPUD will be an attractive catalyst project designed to spark further redevelopment in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. And I don't think that's as strong as first-class and the other, high-end. But I believe when you word it in terms of an undertaking, it would give subsequent people something to hang their hat on. And so -- MR. MULHERE: We don't disagree with that. That's absolutely our intent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you accept that language? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, without -- I mean, that's pretty ambiguous language in regards to who can interpret it. And the bottom line is, if we don't attach it to regulatory standards, it's meaningless. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I am wanting to do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? February 15, 2018 Page 65 of 67 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's the Potter Stewart definition of attractive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the what? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Potter Stewart definition of attractive. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You know it when you see it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know it when I see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we had -- before we moved forward, I would want to -- I have to echo what Ned just said, because I mentioned to you guys Tuesday, the big elephant in the room for me is you've got to somehow convince us you're going to do what you said you're going to do. And normally we attach those kinds of drawings to the PUD, and we lock it in. And it doesn't mean it's conceptual and you can go from the stories and buildings you show down to a -- you know, an apartment building with a bowling alley. I keep saying that because that's still some of the uses. So we've got to get beyond that, and that's what we're looking for on the first, so... MR. MULHERE: And we attempted to do that by suggesting there be at least two multi-story buildings. You know, our intent is to build three. But we do need some flexibility. Those are conceptual. We might be able to accomplish everything in two buildings. And the third building, whether it gets built or not, we don't know, or maybe it's seven stories or eight stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we're making progress, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just need to get it tightened up so that when staff looks at it it's not ambiguous. Because they're going to look at it black and white. You can do this or can't do this. MR. MULHERE: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to get there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My language is not a total fix, but I earnestly hope to see it in two weeks. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I just want -- I have the same concerns with the matrix, conversion matrix. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked. COMMISSOINER HOMIAK: Because of what it could end up being if something happens. You could have workforce housing to an unlimited number of dwelling units and a car dealership, or -- and that's not -- MR. MULHERE: We're subject to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No one expects that. No one expects that, really. There are -- people along the Trail in some communities are looking for a high-end destination, and that's what they think -- that's why nobody's in here, because I don't think they understand what could happen if they actually read this. MR. MULHERE: That's what we're going to build. You know, you have to think, there's a lot of zoning documents out there, and this is always a challenge is ensuring that the intent is what you get. I understand that. In this one, I think we've gone further than anybody has to ensure that -- what you're going to get. You know, you have significant architectural standards that will apply to us. Okay. We haven't got there yet. I hear that. I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you haven't gone further than anybody has. We, a lot of times, have diagrams, concept plans, pictures like you're showing as backup to what the developer says he's going to do. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and that's what we submitted. We have those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but your language doesn't match that. That's the piece. That's what -- so generally we'll attach that stuff, see Exhibit A or something like that, and it will be something that's reflective of what we expect the project to appear like. We're not there yet. That's the piece that I think is the problem. And I think you can work on that and we can get there, but it doesn't -- MR. MULHERE: But you generally have to be consistent with those concept plans that you see. You generally have to be consistent with that. Yeah, you can change the designs -- February 15, 2018 Page 66 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But look at your generalities: 100 units or 30,000 square feet. That's a far cry from what was on those plans. That will never get us that picture. MR. MULHERE: That's about 50 percent, because when we went in, it was 200 units and 74,000 square feet, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus the hotel and plus, plus. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a -- first of all, Bob, as the representative, you're requesting a continuance to March 1st? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to move this to March 1st. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion and seconded. Discussion: I would like to make sure that at that date we wrap it up for both consent and the final hearing so that the -- this developer's not put off from his date with the Board of County Commissioners. So I just wanted to add that, because that will be the intent. Unless something radically goes wrong, that's what it will end up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ordinarily consent, as I have learned, is limited to examining the proposed fixes to issues that have been raised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that going to be the limit of the scope of two weeks from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. What I'm saying is that we don't add another meeting after that two weeks later for consent. We'll wrap it all up at one meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as long as everybody's in agreement, is there a motion subject to what we just talked about? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: This applies to all three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 (sic). And, yes, Stan, it's for all three. We didn't vote on anything -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: 5-0. Oh, that's right. Patrick left. 5-0. Thank you. And that takes care of that. Thank you for your endurance today. MR. MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business, no old business. There's -- anybody left in the public to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see none, hear none, and with that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. February 15, 2018 Page 67 of 67 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:22 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-C STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION - ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 15, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20170000425, CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) APPLICANT: PROPERTYOWNERS: Arthrex, Inc RES Florida 1284 Holdings LLC 1370 Creekside Boulevard Krisdan Management Inc., Manager Naples, FL 34108 Reinhold Schmieding, Vice president Erica Schmeiding, Vice president Zeida Orbea, Assistant Treasurer and Daniel Hall, Assistant Teasurer Note: There are 12 other property owners within the subject PUD. AGENTS: D. Wayne Amold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, p.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending Ordinance Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), as amended, by adding outdoor recreation facilities as a general permitted use; by providing that wellness centers associated with employees and hotel guests shall not count towards square footage maximums in the Business District and IndustriaVCommerce District; by allowing a 169 room hotel on Tract 6 west of Goodlette-Frank Road; by decreasing the allowable square footage in (continued to page 4) CREEKSIOE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA.PL2O17OOOO425 March 2, 20'18 Page 'l of 1E 'n SITE LOCATION Location Map Petition Number: PL201 70000 425 Zoning Map ffi m \4ll_t 3l tl ;r :r "ffiiiE .;E *!:*o.',*ffi, TA'{D I,ISE S{.IMIIARY VC - IndustrlaycomrneG =,09.9()r AcB - &dness R ght oa WayL - L,ake = 22.9Or Ac = 9.25i Ac = 7.19r k ^\<-: 1\-.}.,-**-.../ 0B---6-_ /lll . PW - Presen ed WetanG = 2.90r Ac PU - Pr€ser\red Uplands = 4.10r Ac Otpr (butrers, open sp8ce) = 9.84+ Ac = 106.Gr Ac @GIAI- rcTE r. lI.B trrx a crrrcEaru& k t a .tBccE lttEY Att !a*gt(ErEL ^al a''rcra r!. a llc alrFCa ElEratE!I mIEan{E! c.6,lc-t, }t} tltCt tor FDOOCUIX? hlralrrH zia rl. it lrar rt EtcdED, NOT A PART OF THIS PUO t:. I TRACT B l!.. PUO !d. a!. ltfi 2) TRACT 9 B iiiiri ti r lli1.,1I ,i!ilil ffi ERe o lr,tI E the Industrial/Commercial District by 6,900 square feet for a total of 709,100 square feet of floor area of Industrial/Commerce uses; by decreasing the allowable square footage in the Business District by 23,000 square feet to 269,000 square feet including a reduction from square feet offloor area of Industrial/Commerce uses; by decreasing the allowable square footage in the Business District by 23,000 square feet to 269,000 square feet including a reduction from 242,000 square feet to 219,000 square feet of Office uses; by adding indoor and outdoor recreational facilities as a permitted accessory use in the Business District and Industrial/Commercial District; by adding deviations to allow any use on Tracts 3 and 6 on the Master Plan to be eligible for the county's architectural deviation process; and a deviation to permit existing street trees to satisfo the buffer tree requirement for Tract 5. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 106+ acre property is located south of Immokalee Road and both east and west of Goodlette-Frank Road (CR 851) in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Coltier County, Florida. (Please see the Location Map on page 2 of this StaffReport.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Creekside Commerce Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in Ordinance Number 97-51 on October 21, 1997. There was a subsequent ordinance, Ordinance Number 06-41, which was repealed along with Ordinance Number 97-51 with the adoption of Ordinance Number: 06-50 on October 24, 2006. There have been three amendments to Ordinance Number 06-50 since, Ordinance numbers 13-23,16-05 and 16-32. The petitioner is now proposing the following changes with this amendment: Increase the hotel/motel allowance fiom one to two, increase the number of rooms allowed by 169 (from 180 to 349), add an allowance for one hotel/motel to be located west of Goodlette-Frank Road, not to exceed 180 rooms, add a provision that the hotel on PUD Tract 6 (west of Goodlette-Frank Road) may not exceed 169 rooms; In the Industrial/Commerce District, decrease the allowed floor area by 6,900 square feet (from 716,000 square feet to 709,100 square feet); In the Business District, decrease the total allowed floor area by 23,000 square feet (from 292,000 square feet to 269,000 square feet) and decrease the office use floor area by 23,000 square feet (from 242,000 square feet to 219,000 square feet); Add outdoor recreation facilities as a general permitted use in the PUD; o Add indoor and outdoor recreation facilities as an accessory use in both the Industrial/Commerce District and Business District; o Add provision that wellness centers as an accessory use do not count towards the square feet caps in the PUD; CREEKSIDE COMi/!ERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA-PL2O1 7OOOO425 March 2, 2018 Page 4 of 18 Add provision that the Land Development code (LDC) deviation process is allowed for all buildings on PUD Tract 6 and the southem portion ofPUD Tract 3. Add a deviation to permit exisring street trees to satisry the Type D landscape buffer tree requirement for Tract 5. The net effect ofuse changes is to decrease the allowed floor area by 29,900 s.f. and increase the number of hotel/motel rooms by 169. The Master Plan has been revised to show the locations ofthe architecture and landscape deviations. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Immokalee Road, then (Collier's Reserve), 506+ acres of mixed-use: 61.4+ acres commercial, 385 residential units, with a zoning designation of Collier Tr act 22 PIJD; and a 611 acre professional center (North Collier Hospital), with a zoning designation of Collier Health Center PUD East: Collier County Utilities Division Water Plant, with a zoning designation of Industrial; a 17 .7 4+ acre commercial and medical park, with a zoning designation of Southwest Professional Health Park PUD South: Collier County Utilities Division Water Plant, with a zoning designation of Industrial; and 2,104+ acres of mixed-use: 80t acres commercial/industrial, 8,600 residential units, 4.26 units per acre, with a zoning designation of Pelican Marsh DRI (Development of Regional Impact) West: 35.24+ acre Business Park, with a zoning designation of The Naples Daily News BPUD (Business Park PUD) CREEKSiDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA-PL2O1 7OOOO425 March 2, 2018 Page 5 of 18 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and has found it consistent with the FufiIe Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. See attached Exhlbit B: FLUE Consistency Review dated January 23, 2018. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staffreviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2016 and 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SM designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall counwide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overdll County transportation system, and shall not CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA-PL2O1 7OOOO425 March 2, 2018 Page 6 of 18 approve any petition or opplication that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts on adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Stondard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations ore also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the trffic impact statement reveals that any of thefollowing occur; a. For linl<s (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For linl<s adjacent to linl<s directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project trafic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the trffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. Staff also reviewed the petition using the now applicable 2017 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately 1,983 PM peak hour adjusted trips, which is consistent with the currently approved PUD. No additional trips are proposed for this development. Trips will occur on the following roadway links: Roadway Link 2076 AUIR Existins LOS 2017 AUIR Existins LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 201,6 Remaining Caoacitv 2017 Remaining Capacitv lmmokalee Road (CR 846) TamiamiTrail to Goodlette- Frank Road (6 lane divided) c e 3,100/West 1.084 1.,O49 lmmokalee Road (CR 845) Goodlette- Frank to Airport Road (5 lane divided) D a 3,100/East 504 489 lmmokalee Road (CR 846) Airport Road to Livingston Road (6 lane divided) D D 3,100/West 286 305 Goodlette- Frank Road lmmokalee Road to Vanderbilt D D 1,000/North 82 55 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA-PL2O17OOOO425 March 2, 2018 Page 7 of 18 Beach Road (2 lane undivided) Airport Road lmmokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road (4 lane divided ) c C 2,200/North 927 950 Tamiami Trail North (us 41) Wiggins Pass Road to lmmokalee Road (6 lane divided) D D 3,100/N o rt h 485 1.7 3 Tamiami Trail North (us 41) lmmokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road (5 lane divided) C C 3, 1.00/ N o rt h 801 762 Based on the 2016 and 2017 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the five-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. This project is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) boundary and is therefore subject to Policy 5.6 of the GMP. This policy requires any new development exceeding LOS levels within a TCMA designated area must provide documentation that at least two Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies are provided./used. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02. I 3 8.5., Planning Commission Recommendatior (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (refened to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: CREEKSIDE COMIVIERCE PARK CPUD, PUOA.PL2Ol 7OOOO425 l\,larch 2,2018 Page 8 of '18 Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document and Master Plan and is recommending approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document and Master Plan and is recommending approval. Utilitv Review: Utility staff has reviewed the petition, the PUD Document, and the Master plan and is recommending approval. Landscape Review: Landscape staffhas reviewed the petition, the PUD Document, and the Master Plan and is recommending approval. Architectural Review: Architecture staff has reviewed the petition, the PUD Document, and the Master Plan and is recommending approval. Zoning and Land Development Review. The Creekside Commerce Park CPUD is an established commerce park, which has been substantially developed and approved for 716,000 square feet of industrial/commercial uses, 292,000 square feet of business district uses, a 400 bed assisted living lacility, and a I 80 room hotel. The amendment to the Creekside Commerce Park CPUD proposes to add one additional hotel, to increase the maximum number ofhotel rooms from 180 to 349, to add physicat fitness facilities as an accessory use, and to request deviations to architecture and landscaping. These modifications are made to both the Industrial/Commerce (l/C) and Business (B) Districts within the pUD. The proposed additional 169 room hotel will be integrated into the Arthrex campus expansion and will be located adjacent to the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road on Tract 6. (Refer to Master Plan on page 3 of this Staff Report.) Development of the hotel will be consistent with the previously approved zoned building height of 50 feet for parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road. Wellness centers associated with the employees and hotel guests within the PUD shall be deemed an accessory use and shall not count towards the overall floor area of the PUD. The impact of the increased number of hotel rooms will be offset by a corresponding reduction of 6,900 square feet of Industrial/Commerce District floor area and a reduction of23,000 square feet of Business District floor area. The Conceptual Master Plan has been revised to add a note on Tract 3 and 6 regarding an architectural standards Deviation and a note on Tract 5 regarding a landscape buffer deviation. Zoning stafffinds the proposed reallocated square lootage and proposed deviations to be compatible with the existing Commercial,{Industrial District and Business District land uses and intensities. For further information regarding the Deviations, please see the Deviations section ofthis StaffReport. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA-PL2O,17OOOO425 March 2,2018 Page I oI 18 Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the ccPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in tum use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis.,, In addition, staff offers the following analysis: l. Whether the proposed change will be consistenl h'ith lhe goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pafiern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattem can be characterized as residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional lands. 3. The possible creotion of an isolated distticl unrclaled to adjacenl and nearby districts. At the time the subject property was rezoned to a CPUD, it was deemed to be of sufficient size and did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD Amendment does not change this finding. 4. llhether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on lhe properly proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of lhe proposed amendment necessdry. The proposed change is not necessary; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to add a hotel, add an accessory wellness center and fitness facilities, add deviations, and change the change the square footage areas of the Industrial Commercial District and Business District to offset the addition of the hotel. 6. ll/hether the proposed change will adversely influence living condilions in lhe neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies upon adoption that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA.PL2Ol 7OOOO425 March 2, 2018 Page 10 of i8 7, llhether the proposed change will create ot excessively increase trafJic congestion or create types of trafftc deemed incompatible h)ith sunounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traflic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affecl public safety. The roadway infiastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the CPUD Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. llhether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Amendment will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whelher the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacenl areas. The proposed PUD Amendment will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas outside the PUD. Furthermore, the PUD Document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. 10. Whelher the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area Staff is of the opinion this PUD Amendment will not adversely impact property values. 11. Wether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjocent properly in accordance with existing regulations. Properties around this property are already mostly developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and./or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development ofadjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Ilhether the proposed change will constitule a grant of special privilege lo an individual oh,ner as contrasted $,ith the public welfare. The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed amendment does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. CREEKSIDE COMIiIERCE PARK CPUD, PU DA'P120170000425 irarch 2,2018 Page '11 of '18 13. |l/hether there are subsrantial reasons thy rhe prupe,ly cannot be used in accordance wilh existing zoning. The subject property could be developed within the parameters ofthe existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this PUD Amendment in compliance with LDC provisions. The proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the counly. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether il is impossible to Jind other adequate sites in the county fot the proposed use in districls already permilting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness ofa zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staffdoes not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characlerislics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make lhe property usable for any of the range ol potential uses under the proposed zoning c lassiftcatio n. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part ofthe building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consislent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as deJined and implemented through the Collier Counly adequale public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable critena set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives ofthe GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staffthat is responsible for jurisdictional elements ofthe GMP as part ofthe rezoning process, and that staffhas concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commrtments so that the impacts ofthe Level of Service will be minimized. 18. Such other faclors, standards, or criteria that the Board of Counly Commissioners shall deem importanl in the protection of the public heallh, safely and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PU DA-PL2O17OOOO425 March 2,2018 Page 12 of 1E PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the ccpc shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria.,' 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pafiern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, sunounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, htaler, and olher utilities. The Creekside Commerce Park is an established business park which has been developed with a variety of light industrial, commercial, and office uses. The proposed hotel and accessory wellness center uses are compatible with the existing development within the Creekside Commerce Park. The project would also be required to comply with county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of uniJied conlrol and suitability of any proposed agreements, conttact, or other instruments, or lor amendmenls in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to afiongemenls or provisions lo be made for the conlinuing operalion and mainlenance of such areas and facilities that are not lo be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and./or site development plan approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staffhas reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis ofthe relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staffreport. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The inlernal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements, The currently approved development, landscaping, and buffering standards were determined to be compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself at the time the PUD was approved. Staffbelieves that this amendment will not change the project's compatibility, both intemally and extemally, with the proposed commercial and industrial land uses along with the proposed deviations. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in exislence and as proposed lo serve the developmenl. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. CREEKSIDE COMi/lERCE PARK CPUD, PU DA-PL2O17OOOO425 March 2, 20,l8 Page 13 of 18 6. The timing or sequence of development for ,he purpose of assuring rhe adequaqt of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate tuming movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of lhe suhject propefi and of sunounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infiastrucfure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. Furthermore, adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. ConformiQ with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modiJications of such regulalions in the particular case, based on determinalion lhat such modifications are justilied as meeting public putposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application ofsuch regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking one revised deviation and two new deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A.). Staffbelieves that the deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations is'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application ofsuch regulations." Please, refer to the Deviation Discussion po(ion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination olthe dev iations. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking one revised deviation and two new deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are found in PUD Section 3.5 "Development Deviations," and in PUD Section 4.5 "Development Deviations." The deviation locations are depicted on the Master Plan. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Deviation #2: (Revised Deviation in Section 3.5. 2, applies to I/C District only; see underlined text below for added language to the original deviation) Deviation #2 seeks relief fiom LDC Section 5.05.08, Deviations and altemate compliance, which CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PU DA-PL2O17OOOO425 March 2,201E Page 14 of 18 authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively approve deviations from compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for specific types ofbuildings, to allow general office and medical office, hotel and physical fitness facilities that can be constructed on Tract 5 and 6 of the Master Plan to be eligible for this deviation process. Petitio ne r's J ustifi c atio n : Creekside Commerce Park PUD contains provisions /or exceptions from the County's Architectural and Site Design standards for industrial type buildings internal to the site. The requested deviation from the Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards applies only to Tract 5, 6 and southern portion ofTract 3, which is internal to the site and more than 300' from Immokalee Road and more thon 500'from the southern boundary of the PUD where abutting the Bay Colony Golf Course. The applicant intends to constuct a new multi-story signature building that will house engineering research and product development functions, and administrative functions for Arthrex, which is a global medical equipment and supply manufacturer. The Arthrex complex will also include a hotel and accessory physical fitness facility, which are intended to be developed with a complimentary architectural design to the headquarter building. The architectural standards found in the LDC do not adequately address a scenario in which a modern signature multi-story headquarters building would be constructed. The required massing and transitional elements that require numerous fagade off-sets and transitions is impractical for a multi-story building of the type proposedfor the property. The LDC does provide for the BCC to grant exceptions to the architectural standards where it is demonstrated thal the exceplions are warranted for innovative design. The proposed signature Arthrex building, hotel and accessory physical Jitness facility will be a custom architectural design, which will express, through its architectural design, the unique nature ofthis international compony and its corporate presence in medical reseorch and product development in Collier County. Staff Analysis and Reco mmendalion: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends Approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is 'lustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #3: (New Deviation in Section 3.5.3. applies to I/C District only) Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.. Type D Buffer. which requires a 10' wide buffer tree requirement ofthe eastern boundary ofTract 5. P etitio ne r's J us tiJic ati on : This buffer deviation is warranted due to the adjacent FPL and Collier County easements located just west of Creel<side Street. Placement of required buffer trees is encumbered, requiring the use CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA-PL2O1 7OOOO425 March 2,2018 Page 15 of '18 of smaller trees, limited in size per FPL, and tree locations to be shifted farther into the site due to Collier utility easements. The existing mature trees are ideally located to provide an alternatiye to the typical buffer requirement, provide for the Streetscape enhancement, and pose no conflict with existing utilities, while meeting the intent ofthe landscape buffer requirement. Creeltide Street is a private street and is owned and maintained by the Creekside Property Owner's Association. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends Approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is 'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application ofsuch regulations." Deviation #3: (New Deviation in Section 4.5. 3. applies to B District only) Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08. Deviations and alternate comoliance. which ofthe Master Plan to be elieible for this deviation process. P etiti one r's I us t ilicatio n : Creel<side Commerce Park PUD contains provisions for exceptions from the County's Architectural and Site Design standards for industrial type buildings internal to the site. The requested deviation from the Collier County Architectural and Site Design Standards applies only to Tract 5, 6 and southern portion ofTrqct 3, which is internal to the site and more than 300' from Immokalee Road and more than 500'from the southern boundary of the PUD where abutting the Bay Colony Golf Course. The applicant intends to construct a new multi-story signature building that will house engineering research and product development functions, and administrative functions for Arthrex, which is a global medical equipment and supply manufacturer. The Arthrex complex will also include a hotel and accessory physical fitness facility, which are intended to be developed with a complimentory architectural design to the headquarter building. The architectural standards found in the LDC do not adequately address a scenario in which a modern signature multi-story headquarters building would be constucted. The required massing and transitional elements thal require numerous fagade off-sets and transitions is impractical for a multistory building of the type proposedfor the property. The LDC does provide for the BCC to grant exceptions to the architectural standords where it is demonstrated that the exceptions are warranted for innovative design. The proposed signature Arthrex building, hotel and accessory physicalfitness facility teill be a custom architecturol design, whichwill express, through its architectural design, the unique nature of this international company and its corporate presence in medical research and product development in Collier County. CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA.PL2O l7OOOO425 March 2,2018 Page 16 of 18 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on November 13,2017 at Arthrex, Inc., located at 1370 Creekside Boulevard, Naples, Florida. For further information, see attached Exhibit C: Transcript of Neighbor hood Information Meeting. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attomey Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on February 26,2018. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA- PL20170000425, Creekside Commerce Park CPUD to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: FLUE Consistency Review Attachment C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD. PU DA-PL2O17OOOO425 l\,larch 2,2018 Page 17 of 1E PREPARED BY: /ryP4 MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION.ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD, PUDA-PL2O1 7OOOO425 March 2. 2018 N.z-o ' \ t DATE 2-at - t0 DATE 3-t-/ g DATE ON-ZONINC SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: ZONINC DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Page 18 of '18 ZONING MANAGER ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2006-50, THE CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD), AS AMENDED, BY ADDING OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES AS A GENERAL PERMITTED USE; BY PROVIDING THAT WELLNESS CENTERS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYEES AND HOTEL GUESTS SHALL NOT COUNT TOWARDS SQUARE FOOTAGE MAXIMUMS IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; BY ALLOWING A 169 ROOM HOTEL ON TRACT 6 WEST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD; BY DECREASING THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY 6,900 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 709,100 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE USES; BY DECREASING THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT BY 23,000 SQUARE FEET TO 269,000 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING A REDUCTION FROM 242,000 SQUARE FEET TO 219,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES; BY ADDING INDOOR AND OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS TO ALLOW ANY USE ON TRACTS 3 AND 6 ON THE MASTER PLAN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE COUNTY'S ARCHITECTURAL DEVIATION PROCESS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND BOTH EAST AND WEST OF GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 106 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20170000425] WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 06-50, the Creeksidc Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (the "PUD"); and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 13-23, which amended the PUD; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 16-05, which further amended the PUD; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 16-32, which further amended the PUD; and [17 -CPS -01705/1394221/1] 66 Creekside Commerce Park CPUD 1 of 2 PL20170000425 2/9/18 Attachment A WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates representing Arthrex, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the CPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to the CPUD Document of Ordinance No. 2006-50, as amended The CPUD Document attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 2006-50, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By:. _ Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A — CPUD Document [17 -CPS -01705/1394221/1166 Creekside Commerce Park CPUD 2 Of 2 PL20170000425 2/9/18 , 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IC ANDY SOLIS, Chairman CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK I] PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 106± Acres Located in Section 27 Township 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105 PREPARED BY: WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, Florida 34105 YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34101 AMENDED DECEMBER 2005 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 ROETZEL AND ANDRESS, L.P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive, 3'd Floor, Naples, Florida 34103 AMENDED MAY 2012 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 COLEMAN, YOVANOVICI AND KOESTER, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 AMENDED AUGUST 2015-9 ,JULY 2016 anci OCTOBER 2016 BY: Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Spring, Florida 34134 COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 Words wruek th..,,are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment February 6, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, & GENERAL DESCRIPTION SECTION II COMMERCE PARK DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Purpose 2.2 General Description Of The Park and Proposed Land Uses 2.3 Compliance With County Ordinances 2.4 Community Development District 2.5 Land Uses 2.6 Lake Siting 2.7 Fill Storage 2.8 Use Of Right -Of -Way 2.9 Sales Office and Construction Office 2.10 Changes and Amendments To PUD Document Or PUD Master Plan 2.11 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Phasing 2.12 Open Space and Native Vegetation Retention Requirements 2.13 Surface Water Management 2.14 Environmental 2.15 Utilities 2.16 Transportation 2.17 Common Area Maintenance 2.18 Design Guidelines and Standards 2.19 Landscape Buffers, Berms, Fences and Walls 2.20 Signage 2.21 General Permitted Uses SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT 3-1 SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT 4-1 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5-1 EXHIBIT A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, LOCATION MAP (WMB&P File No. RZ-255A) EXHIBIT B CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B-1 CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED) EXHIBIT C CONCEPTUAL BUILDING RENDERING Words zqtpiyek t4e are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment i February 6, 2018 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this section is to express the intent of the Barron Collier Partnership, hereinafter referred to as Barron Collier or the Developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 106± acres of land located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Creekside Commerce Park. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will be in substantial compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies and land development regulations adopted thereunder of the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use District as identified on the Future Land Use Map which allows certain industrial and commercial uses. The Urban designation also allows support medical facilities, offices, clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers and pharmacies provided they are located within 1/4 mile of the property boundary of an existing or approved hospital or medical center. The Creekside Commerce Park PUD is located within 'A mile of the North Collier Hospital. The 2016 petition request is to add 166,000 square feet to the I/C District and 32,000 square feet to the B District. All additional square footage approved in the October 2016 Ordinance amendment will be medical related uses, and will be on Tracts that are within or partially within 'A mile of the North Collier Hospital property. 2. The existing Industrial zoning is considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as provided for by Policy 5.9 and 5.11 of the FLUE. The FLUE Urban -Industrial District allows for expansion of the industrial land use provided the rezone is in the form of a PUD, the site is adjacent to existing land designated or zoned industrial the land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and the necessary infrastructure is provided or in place. Creekside Commerce Park has expanded the industrial land use accordingly. 4. The FLUE Urban -Industrial District requires the uses along the boundaries of the project to be transitional. Creekside Commerce Park has included transitional uses accordingly. Creekside Commerce Park is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 6. Improvements are planned to be in substantial compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. The development of Creekside Commerce Park will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.H and L of the FLUE. Wordsg�i,uek-' ,eugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment ii February 6, 2018 8. Creekside Commerce Park is a master planned, deed -restricted commerce park and is planned to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination as set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Planned Unit Development District. This master planned park will incorporate elements from the existing Industrial, Business Park and Industrial PUD sections of the LDC. Words wruek thre are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment iii February 6, 2018 SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". Words . are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment iv February 6, 2018 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of Creekside Commerce Park, and to describe the existing condition of the property proposed to be developed. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows; COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Section 27; thence along the north line of said Section 27 South 89°45'21" East 1869.61 feet; thence leaving said line South 00°14'39" West 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence along said right of way line in the following Six (6) described courses; 1) South 89°45'21" East 485.99 feet; 2) South 00°14'39" West 10.00 feet; 3) South 89°45'21" East 150.19 feet; 4) South 89°48'33" East 716.81 feet; 5) North 05°34'33" West 10.05 feet; 6) South 89°48'33" East 486.21 feet to a point on the west right of way line of Goodlette Road as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 58, Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said line South 05°33'48" East 1767.02 feet; thence leaving said line South 89°20'53" West 51.18 feet; thence North 23°55'53" West 13.07 feet; thence northwesterly, 30.71 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 21°59'52" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 12155'57" West 30.53 feet; thence North 05°00'53" West 31.56 feet; thence North 36°19'20" West 32.02 feet; thence North 56°04'35" West 3 5. 11 feet; thence North 80'39'15" West 32.53 feet; thence North 88'39'12" West 97.78 feet; thence North 86°04'40" West 45.79 feet; thence North 89°49'48" West 132.77 feet; thence North 69°40' 10" West 37.23 feet; thence South 89°20'53" West 142.47 feet; thence South 84°59'26" West 24.66 feet; thence South 74°56'50" West 121.32 feet; thence South 79°49'59" West 45.93 feet; thence westerly and northwesterly, 45.51 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northeast, having a radius of 66.00 feet, through a central angle of 39"30'16" and Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 1-1 February 6, 2018 being subtended by a chord which bears North 80°24'53" West 44.61 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence northwesterly, 52.92 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 150.00 feet, through a central angle of 20112'57" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 70°46' 13" West 52.65 feet; thence North 80°52'42" West 36.59 feet; thence westerly and southwesterly, 46.18 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast, having a radius of 80.00 feet, through a central angle of 33'04'14" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 82'35'11" West 45.54 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence southwesterly and westerly, 38.16 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest, having a radius of 60.00 feet, through a central angle of 36'26'19" and being subtended by a chord which bears South 84016'14" West 37.52 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence westerly and northwesterly, 68.85 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 305.00 feet, through a central angle of 12°55'59" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 83°58'36" West 68.70 feet; thence South 89°33125" West 18.36 feet; thence South 89°39' 19" West 71.63 feet; thence North 89°34'56" West 36.03 feet; thence South 86006'41" West 42.94 feet; thence South 83'44'16" West 26.23 feet; thence South 51°O1' 13" West 27.49 feet; thence South 33125'50" West 19.95 feet; thence South 15°40'05" West 20.54 feet; thence South 10154'39" West 34.64 feet; thence South 89'20'14" West 101.06 feet; thence North 10'46'06" East 101.42 feet; thence North 89°20'53" East 65.45 feet; thence North 00°39'07" West 100.64 feet; thence South 89°20'53" West 503.78 feet; thence North 00°39'07" West 27.71 feet; thence North 72°58'55" West 131.30 feet; thence North 02°08'56" West 1473.29 feet to a point on the south right of way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Containing 69.48 acres more or less; Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South 89°49'40" East. All that part of Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 27;. Words sp wek t ••~•. are deleted, words underlined are added 2017 CPUD Amendment 1-2 February 6, 2018 thence along the east line of said Section 27, South 01°09'43" East 125.00 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Immokalee Road (S.R. 846) and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence continue along said east line South 01°09'43" East 1189.62 feet; thence leaving said line South 89°48'50" West 677.35 feet; thence South 05°35'39" East 886.02 feet; thence South 89'48'50" West 400.00 feet to a point on the easterly right of way line of Goodlette Frank Road as Recorded in Plat Book 13, page 58, Public records of Collier County, Florida; thence along said line North 05°35'39" West 2088.10 feet to a point of the south right of way line of said Immokalee Road (S.R. 846); thence along said line South 89°49'40" East 1168.55 feet; thence continue along said line South 89°12'58" East 1.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Containing 38.9 acres more or less; Subject to easements and restrictions of record. Bearings are assumed and based on the north line of said Section 27 being South 89146'26" East. LESS A PORTION OF TRACTS "R" AND "L1" CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTHWESTERLYMOST CORNER OF TRACT "R" (CREEKSIDE WAY) CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 AT PAGES 57 THROUGH 58 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89045'00" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FOR A DISTANCE OF 249.45 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°25'51" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 107.22 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 60°02'56" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 117.20 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 82°32'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.17 r)✓ET TO A POINTON THE EAST LINE OF TRACT "LI" OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE, ALSO BEING THE WES LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK WEST -UNIT ONE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°07'39" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 111.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT "R"; THENCE RUN NORTH 89158'01" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 456.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID TRACT "R"; THENCE RUN NORTH 02119'57" WEST, ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A DISTANCE OF 294.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 2.32 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPDD Amendment 1-3 February 6, 2018 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership or control of Barron Collier Partnership, or its assigns, whose address is 2640 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL 34105. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project site is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, and is generally bordered on the west by Agriculturally zoned and developed property; on the north, across Immokalee Road by office and medical (North Collier Hospital) PUD zoned and developed property; on the east by Medical Office Park currently under development, County Park and County Wastewater Treatment Facility; and on the south by PUD and County Wastewater Treatment Facility. The location of the site is shown on Exhibit A Aerial Photograph, Location Map. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of PUD application is I (Industrial) and A (Agricultural). C. Elevations within the site are approximately 7.5 to 9 feet-NGVD. Per FEMA Firm Map Panels No. 1200670193D, dated June 3, 1986, the Creekside Commerce Park property is located within Zones "AE -11" of the FEMA flood insurance rate. D. The soil types on the site generally include Riviera limestone substratum, Copeland fine sand, Pineda fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Myakka fine sand, Basinger fine sand, Riveria fine sand, Ft. Drum and Malabar fine sand, and Satellite fine sand. E. Prior to development, vegetation on the site primarily consists of active croplands and small amounts of pine flatwoods. An isolated wetland system is located along the south side of Immokalee Road west of Goodlette-Frank Road. This wetland consists primarily of Brazilian pepper that surrounds a small willow area. The wetland on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road consists primarily of cabbage palms. A portion of the historic water course within this wetland has been channelized. Brazilian pepper has infested the northern part of this wetland. F. The project site is located within the Pine Ridge Canal and West Branch Cocohatchee River sub -basins, as depicted within the Collier County Drainage Atlas (July, 1995). 1.5 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Creekside Commerce Park does not meet the minimum thresholds for a Development of Regional Impact (DRI), pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, 2016, in that it is at or below 80% of all numerical thresholds in the guidelines and standards set forth therein. Words s yue' thp,e„gh are deleted, words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 1-4 February 6, 2018 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for Creekside Commerce Park (park), and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. Creekside Commerce Park will consist of predominately industrial, warehouse, wholesale, financial institutions, business and office uses, with limited amounts of retail uses. Creekside Commerce Park shall establish project -wide guidelines and standards to ensure a high and consistent level of quality for proposed features and facilities. B. A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the Master plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plat approval with minor adjustments at the time of Final Plat approval, in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Creekside Commerce Park shall be in accordance with the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not inconsistent with this PUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the LDC and Collier County Growth Management Plan which are in effect at the time of issuance of any development order. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that is otherwise applicable shall apply to which said regulations relate. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 3.15 of the LDC. D. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. Words s,_..oeh th,wogh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-1 February 6, 2018 E. The Site Development Plans Division of the LDC (Article 3, Division 3.3) shall apply to Creekside Commerce Park, except where an exemption is set forth herein or otherwise granted pursuant to LDC Section 3.3.4. F. The Developer shall submit to the County an annual PUD monitoring report in accordance with LDC Section 2.7.3.6. 2.4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT A. The Developer may elect to establish a Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, 1997, to provide and maintain infrastructure and community facilities needed to serve the park. A CDD would constitute a timely, efficient, effective, responsive and economic way to ensure the provision of facilities and infrastructure for the proposed development. Such infrastructure as may be constructed, managed and financed by the CDD shall be subject to, and shall not be inconsistent with, the Collier County Growth Management Plan and all applicable ordinances dealing with planning and permitting of Creekside Commerce Park. B. The land area is amenable to infrastructure provision by a district that has the powers set forth in the charter of a Community Development District under Section 190.006 through 190.041, Florida Statutes. Such a district is a legitimate alternative available both to the County and to the landowner for the timely and sustained provision of quality infrastructure under the terms and conditions of County development approval. 2.5 LAND USES A. The location of land uses are shown on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit B. Changes and variations in building tracts, location and acreage of these uses shall be permitted at preliminary subdivision plat approval, preliminary site development plan approval and final site development plan approval to accommodate utilities, topography, vegetation, and other site and market conditions, subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County LDC. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined at the time of site development plan approval. B. Roads and other infrastructure may be either public, private or a combination of public and private, depending on location, design and purpose. The request for a road to be public shall be made by the Developer at the time of final subdivision plat approval. The Developer or its assignees shall be responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, common areas, water and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the County Code regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise approved during subdivision approval. The Words ai wek it.,.. ugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-2 February 6, 2018 Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the LDC. 2.6 LAKE SITING A. As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, lakes have been preliminary sited. The goal of this Master Plan is to achieve an overall aesthetic character for the park, to permit optimum use of the land, and to increase the efficiency of the water management network. Fill material from lakes is planned to be utilized within the park; however, excess fill material may be utilized off-site. The volume of material to be removed shall be limited to ten percent of the calculated excavation volume to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. If the applicant wishes to take more off-site, a commercial excavation permit will be required. Final lake area determination shall be in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District stormwater criteria and Section 3.5.7. of the LDC. Setbacks: Excavations shall be located so that the control elevation shall adhere to the following minimum setback requirements, subject to approval of County staff at time of final construction plan approval: a) Twenty feet (20') from right-of-way of internal roads. The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections, and need for barriers. b) Forty feet (40') from Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road rights-of-way. Perimeter property lines will have a setback of twenty feet (20'). The roads will be designed to (AASHTO) road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections and need for barriers. 2.7 FILL STORAGE A. Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Creekside Commerce Park FUD. Fill material generated frorn properties owned or leased by the Developer may be transported and stockpiled within areas which have been disturbed. Prior to stockpiling in these locations, the Developer shall notify the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator per Section 3.2.8.3.6. of the LDC. The following standards shall apply: 1. Stockpile maximum height: Thirty-five feet (35') 2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5') in height shall be separated from developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical barriers if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4 to 1 (i.e. 3 to 1). Words Thr-eugh are deleted, words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-3 February 6, 2018 a) Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC Division 3.7. 2.8 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY Utilization of lands within all park rights-of-way for landscaping, decorative entrance ways, and signage shall be allowed subject to review and administrative approval by the Developer and the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator for engineering and safety considerations during the development review process. 2.9 SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE Sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures related to the promotion and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout Creekside Commerce Park. These uses may be either wet or dry facilities. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.4., Section 3.2.6.3.6. and Division 3.3 of the LDC, with the exception that the temporary use permit shall be valid through the life of the project with no extension of the temporary use required. These uses may use septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. l OD -6 and may use potable water or irrigation wells. 2.10 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN A. Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or PUD Master Plan as provided in Section 2.7.3.5. of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the LDC. B. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan upon written request of the Developer or his assignee. C. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: 1) The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Creekside Commerce Park PUD document. 2) The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5.1. of the LDC. 3) The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with external adjacent land uses and shall not create detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, Words wyuek Mr.,are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-4 February 6, 2018 water management facilities, and conservation areas within or external to the PUD. D. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1) Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. 2) Internal realignment of rights -of -ways. 3) Reconfiguration of parcels per Section 5.5 of this PUD. E. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by appropriate Collier County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County Ordinances and regulations prior to the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator's consideration for approval. F. Approval by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan approval, however such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and approvals. 2.11 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT PHASING Submission, review, and approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plats for the park may be accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property. 2.12 OPEN SPACE AND NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS The PUD will fully comply with all sections of the LDC and meet the requirements of the Growth Management Plan relating to open space and retention of native vegetation. 2.13 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT In accordance with the Rules of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Chapters 40E-4 and 4-E-40, this project shall be designed for a storm event of 3 -day duration and 25 -year return frequency. The lake originally approved as Lake L-1, Creekside Unit I Plat, shall continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved plat and approved South Florida Water Management District Permit. Words . w ,, ,h ..oath are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-5 February 6, 2018 2.14 ENVIRONMENTAL Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05.00 of the LDC. 2.15 UTILITIES A. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. B. The owner shall convey to Collier County a County Utility Easement (CUE) no less than 15 feet in width for construction of an irrigation quality (IQ) main through the PUD west of Goodlette-Frank from the North County Water Reclamation Facility to the existing IQ main on Immokalee Road. The requested CUE shall be provided in a mutually agreeable location, deemed acceptable by both the Owner and the Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Division, prior to approval of the next development order west of Goodlette-Frank Road. The CUE shall be conveyed to Collier County and the Collier County Water Sewer District at no cost to County, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 2.16 TRANSPORTATION A. The Developer shall provide appropriate left and/or right turn lanes on Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road at the main park entrances. Such turn lanes shall be in place prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for a use that utilizes the perspective/associated entrance. B. There shall be a full access intersection at the park's southern entrance on Goodlette Frank Road. When justified by traffic warrants, this intersection shall be signalized, notwithstanding its proximity to Immokalee Road. C. Future access points to Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads are those shown on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan. D. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided by the Developer at the park's main entrance in conjunction with the development of this entrance. E. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 92- 22, as amended. F. The Developer shall provide the appropriate easements or reserve right of way so that the southerly access road west of Goodlette Frank Road may be interconnected to the properties to the west of Creekside Commerce Park. Words it i.ek_�L....,., i, are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-6 February 6, 2018 G. The Developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signals at any project access when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signal shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. H. The Developer agrees to complete construction of the segment of internal roadway that connects Goodlette-Frank Road to the UC parcel (herein called "southern parcel") that is west of Goodlette Road and abuts Pelican Marsh prior to the first of the following to occur: 1) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the "southern parcel"; 2) The issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the second business parcel to be developed west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement; 3) Within 3 years of approval of this PUD; or 4) Within 9 months of obtaining "grant" money or other funds for construction of such infrastructure from an outside source. The I/C parcels west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement and immediately north of the south road shall connect for service and employee access at the time that the south road is extended to a point that they may connect. J. The Developer agrees to provide the County with an update of the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS) at the time of submittal of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Site Development Plan. K. The Goodlette-Frank Road southernmost access to the I/C parcel east of Goodlette- Frank Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access. L. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses both primary and ancillary may not exceed 2,045 (external to the PUD, per TIS dated 09/16/2016 and 07-07-2017 as amended) PM Peak Hour, two-way trips. M. The owner, its successors, or assigns, shall construct a 5 -foot wide sidewalk within the Florida Power & Light (FPL) easement, subject to approval by FPL on the west side of Creekside Street and the south side of Creekside Parkway along/within folio # 29331193049 to connect to the existing sidewalk along Creekside Parkway. The construction plans for the sidewalk and the letter request to FPL shall be completed and mailed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan. The construction of the sidewalk shall be completed no later than one year following FPL's approval. N. Due to the removal of a portion of the Creekside Boulevard minor collector roadway and re-routing of traffic, the owner, its successors, or assigns, shall design Words tpig. t !hFough are deleted, words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-7 February 6, 2018 and construct the re-routed roadway to adequately accommodate AASHTO Interstate Semitrailer (WB -62) standards and provide access to existing postal service truck traffic prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The design and construction shall be at no cost to Collier County. Any additional right- of-way easements required by County for a public road pursuant to County standards shall be dedicated to the County, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances without County maintenance responsibility. Such dedication shall occur prior to the issuance of the Certification of Occupancy for the proposed Arthrex Headquarters building redevelopment on Tract 5 of the Master Plan and prior to the removal of a portion of Creekside Boulevard. The owner, its successor, or assigns, shall also accept ownership of the entire length of Creekside Boulevard with all maintenance responsibilities. 2.17 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Most common area maintenance will be provided by the CDD or by a Property Owner's Association (POA). The CDD or the POA, as applicable, shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the surface water and stormwater management systems and reserves serving Creekside Commerce Park, in accordance with any applicable permits from the South Florida Water Management District. 2.18 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in the LDC, Section 2.2.20. B. Creekside Commerce Park is planned as a functionally interrelated business park under unified control. The Developer will establish community -wide guidelines and standards to ensure a high level of quality for both the common areas and the individual parcel developments. C. These guidelines will serve as a control for individual parcel development, and be referred to as The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Creekside Commerce Park. The level of quality defined in this document is directed towards the creation of an attractive business environment, and these standards are the basis for evaluation of projects submitted for review to the Property Association's Architectural and Landscaping Committee, referred to as the ALC. The standards in this document will include criteria for site planning, architectural design, lighting, landscaping, and graphics and signage. D. The specific design guidelines will act as supplemental standards to the requirements of this Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and other County codes, but in no way supersede them. Words st,.uek thro, tgh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-8 February 6, 2018 1. Common Areas The master design of the park's entries and signage, streetscapes, and open space areas will form a harmonious framework that visually links the entire park together. This unified appearance will enhance the image of the entire community. Internal roadways will provide efficient vehicular circulation with streetscapes that create pleasant neighborhood environments. Streetscape plans will be designed to establish a hierarchy of landscape improvements appropriate in scale and character with the function of the street and adjacent land uses. Along these streetscapes a pedestrian walkway system will be established to link each project with the overall community. 2. Individual Projects A. Site Planning: Each individual parcel project will provide a visually appealing, articulated, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles from the street to the site and from the site to the buildings themselves. The orientation of a building or structure upon a site will not only reflect the project's functional need, but will also be responsive to the individual parcel's characteristics and be sensitive to adjacent land uses and the surrounding community. B. Architectural standards: The objective of the architectural standards will be to promote the creation of an attractive, value -apparent business environment. Design elements throughout a project must be consistent with the nature of the chosen style and building materials selected. Project design should endeavor to adhere to the classical principles of design and avoid clichds, overly complex or garish motifs, while seeking to invoke a "timeless" quality. C. Lighting: The guidelines for lighting will establish a continuity of design for all lighting in the park which is consistent with the overall visual impression of the park. D. Landscaping: The purpose of landscape design guidelines within individual projects is to guide development toward harmonious and visually pleasing landscape that is cohesive with the overall master landscape plan. The Creekside landscape concept will have a naturalistic theme. Similar to the overall project's plant palette, individual sites will be dominated with plants that are native, xeric, or naturalized within Southwest Florida. Landscape designs will create a coherent theme which emphasizes plant material as a primary unifying element. I. Landscape elements along public R.O.W.s will be complimentary to streetscape landscaping. Parcel entries will be Words sowek Mo..,� are deleted; words underlined are added, 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-9 February 6, 2018 designed to harmonize with adjacent streetscape landscaping, and clearly accentuate, the parcel entry. 2. Individual parking lots will be screened from the roadways as much as possible, without obscuring views of the building entrances. In addition, plant materials used around main entrances of buildings will visually cue visitors to their location. E. Graphics/signage: The guidelines serve to provide continuity of design for all signage in the park which is consistent with the overall visual impression of the park. Parcel signage serves the identification needs of the individual tenants and user. 2.19 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout Creekside Commerce Park. Required buffer treatments shall terminate at entrances to accommodate entrance treatments and at lakes to accommodate views into the park. The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape buffers contiguous to Immokalee Road R.O.W. will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per construction phase and will have the following characteristics: 1) Minimum width of 20'-0", measured from the R.O.W. 2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business District, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' on center (O.C.), planted at an initial height of 13'-14' overall (O.A.) with a 6' spread. In addition, a continuous 24" high shrub hedge shall be provided within the 20' buffer. B. Landscape buffers contiguous to Goodlette-Frank Road R.O.W. will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per development phase and will have the following characteristics: 1) Minimum width of 20'-0", measured from the R.O.W. 2) Adjacent to Business District type uses within the Business and Industrial/Commerce (UC) Districts, trees will be native, xeric, or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' O.C., planted at an initial height of 12' O.A., with a 6' spread. At the time of individual lot improvements, hedges will be placed at parking lot edges to satisfy the requirements of LDC Section 2.4.7.4. 3) Adjacent to industrial type uses within the Industrial/Commerce District, trees will be native, xeric or naturalized canopy trees, spaced at 25' O.C., planted at Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-10 February 6, 2018 an initial height of 12' O.A, with a 6' spread. Trees will be placed on a berm, 3 feet high and supplemented with a 5 foot high hedge consisting of but not limited to the following plant material: coco plum, viburnam, ficus. The intent will be to obtain 80% opacity within one year of planting for travelers on Goodlette-Frank Road. C. Landscape buffers surrounding the perimeter of the park will be installed at the time of subdivision improvement per construction phase. The buffers are referenced on Exhibit B, and proceed in a clockwise direction from the northeast corner of the project as follows: 1) The landscape buffer along the eastern most property boundary, north of the preserve area, as depicted on Exhibit B, shall consist of an Alternative "A" type buffer. Any preservation areas within this buffer may be credited toward buffering requirements. 2) The preserve area along the balance of the eastern most property boundary will serve as the buffer between uses. 3) The Developer will provide a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center between the business use and the preserve/lake area, as depicted on Exhibit B. 4) The Developer will provide a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type landscape buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center along the eastern property boundary contiguous to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 5) The landscape buffer along the southern most property boundary, east of Goodlette-Frank Road, shall be a five feet (5') wide Alternative "A" type buffer with trees planted fifty feet (50') on center. An opaque hedge six feet (6') high will be planted to supplement the existing oak tree buffer planted by the County at the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 6) The existing landscape berm/buffer from Goodlette Frank Road to the west side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement will be supplemented as follows: a type "A" buffer along the proposed lake; and the remaining area westward of the lake will be supplemented to consist of 50 sabal palms, 8'-14' O.A. and 4 Ficus nitida 12'-13' O.A. and 6'-8' wide; locations to be coordinated with the adjacent property owner. 7) The Developer will provide a ninety percent (90%) opaque landscape buffer and berm between the I/C District and the Pelican Marsh PUD from the west side of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement to the existing berm to the west, that approximates the existing Pelican Marsh berm/buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Words struck ,z,...:ugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-11 February 6, 2018 Easement. The buffer shall meet ninety percent (90%) opacity within one (1) year of planting. 8) The Developer will supplement with additional trees the buffer along the remaining portion of the southern property line westward to achieve a ninety percent (90%) opaque buffer. This buffer will be installed concurrent with any I/C construction west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. 9) The landscape buffer between the I/C District and the adjacent Agricultural District along the southern portion of the western property line will be an Alternative "A" type buffer. 10) The landscape buffer between the R.O.W. and the adjacent Agricultural District to the west will be an Alternative "A" type buffer and be incorporated into the R.O.W. D. Maximum fence or wall height internal to the PUD: Twelve feet (12'). E. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls will be constructed along the perimeter of the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary concurrent with subdivision and site development construction phase, except where noted in this document. F. Sidewalks, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be allowed in landscape buffers pursuant to review and approval of the Development Services Administrator. G. Landscape berms located within the Creekside Commerce Park PUD boundary and contiguous to a property line and/or right-of-way line may be constructed such that the toe of slope is located on the property line and/or encroaches into the right-of- way line when approved by the applicable owner or agency. 2.20 SIGNAGE A. GENERAL 1) Pursuant to Section 2.5.5.2.3.7. of the LDC, the following conditions provide for the required comprehensive sign plan for the Creekside Commerce Park 2) Each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land. 3) Signs and decorative landscaped entrance features within a County dedicated right-of-way, shall require a right -of way permit subject to the review and approval of the County. 4) All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight line obstructions. Words s',...ek !h; ugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-12 February 6, 2018 B. PARK ENTRY SIGNS 1) Major park entry signs shall be located as depicted on Exhibit B. Each sign will not exceed 160 square feet in size on any side and signs will be no Ionger than 25 feet in length and 8 feet in height. 2) Minor park entry signs shall be located as depicted Exhibit B. Each minor monument sign will not exceed 100 square feet in size on any side. Minor monument signs will be no larger than 20 feet in length and 8 feet in height. C. INTERNAL SIGNS 1) Directional or identification signs are allowed within the business park. Such signs may be used to identify the location or direction of approved uses such as sales centers, information centers, etc. Individual signs may be a maximum of 4 square feet per side in size, or signs maintaining a common architectural theme may be combined to form a menu board with a maximum size of 25 square feet per side, and a maximum height of 8 feet. No building permit is required unless such signs are combined to form a menu board. 2) Grand Opening signs: The Developer or parcel owner may display an on-site grand opening sign not exceeding 32 square feet on a side, and not exceeding 64 square feet total. Banner signs shall be anchored and may be displayed on- site for a period not exceeding 14 days within the first three months that the Developer/occupant is open for business. D. USER SIGNS 1) Wall, mansard, canopy or awning signs: One wall, mansard, canopy or awning sign may be permitted for each single -occupancy facility, or for each establishment in a multiple -occupancy facility. Corner units within multiple - occupancy facilities, or multi -frontage single -occupancy facilities shall be allowed two signs, but such signs shall not be combined for the purpose of placing the combined area on one wall. However, the combined area of those signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable display area for signs by this ordinance. a. The maximum allowable display area for signs may not be more than 15 percent of the total square footage of the visual facade of the building to which the sign will be attached and may not, in any case, exceed 200 square feet in area for any sign. 2) Monument and Pole signs: One (1) monument or pole sign is permitted for each lot or parcel for each external and internal road frontage(s). Words smuok ihreugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-13 February 6, 2018 a. Internal road frontage setbacks: A minimum of fifteen feet (15') from the edge of pavement. Signs may encroach within the right-of-way subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility. b. External road frontage setbacks: Pole signs shall be setback from any external right-of-way in accordance with the applicable section of the LDC. Monument signs may be permitted closer to the right-of-way subject to maintaining safe site distance triangles as per Section 2.4.4.16. of the LDC and when approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator and applicable utility. c. Spot or floodlights may be permitted provided said light shines only on the signs or landscaping and is shielded from motorists and adjacent residents. d. Should the U.S. Postal Service purchase or lease land within Creekside Commerce Park, in addition to the user signs as permitted herein, they will be allowed one sign between Immokalee Road and the proposed lake adjacent to the west entry. E. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic signs such as street name signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, etc. may be designed to reflect a common architectural theme, in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.19. of the LDC. 2.21 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Creekside Commerce Park PUD except in the Preserve Area. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the Developer and tenants of Creekside Commerce Park and are typically part of the common infrastructure. B. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Temporary sewage treatment facilities. 4. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 5. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-14 February 6, 2018 6. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 7. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.11 of this PUD. 8. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. Site filling and grading as set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. 9. _ _ Outdoor recreation facilities, including but not limited toplayfields, fitness [arils, etc. 9.10. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible. 4-0-.11. Sidewalks may occur within County required buffers if approved by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator. 44-.12. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC provision in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. 2.22 MISCELLANEOUS A. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 2-15 February 6, 2018 SECTION III INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE DISTRICT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "UC". 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as "I/C" on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of 716.4i 0709.100 square feet of tfe4s,-4- loor aArea, as defined in the LDC. of industrial/commerce uses on 49.90 t net acres. Intermediate care (SIC Code 8052), parking garages, and group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are in addition to the IC gross square footage figures. Wellness Centers associated with efn p to ees and hotel 7Liests within the PUD shall not exceed a maximum of 40,000 s.f- shall be deemed accessory to principal uses and shall not be counted towards overall square foota��e, Notwithstanding the foregoing, the United States Postal Service parcel may use any available square footage in the I/C District (excluding the 166,000 square feet added by the October 2016 amendment) and the Business District up to a FAR of .35 on the United States Postal Service Parcel until all available square footages are used up in the FUD. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. The permitted principal uses and structures will generally consist of light manufacturing, wholesale, warehouse, processing and packaging, laboratories and clinics, research, design and product development, business services and corporate offices and headquarters. 1. Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment (Group 3728) 2. Apparel and Other Finished Products (Groups 2311-2399) Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction. 4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338,7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies, Words are deleted, words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-1 February 6, 2018 except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service; dogs, rental of. for protective service; automobile recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with hair spray, insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a contract or fee basis) 5. Child Day Care Services (Group 8351) 6. Communications (Groups 4812-4899 not including major communications towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, radar or telephone service) 7. Computer and Office Equipment (Groups 3571-3579) 8. Construction; Special Trade Contractors (Groups 1711-1799 except for boiler erection and installation contractors; drainage system installations, cesspool and septic tank contractors; fuel oil burner installation and servicing contractors; gasoline hookup contractors; sewer hookups and connection for buildings contractors; epoxy application contractors; fireproofing buildings contractors; gasoline pump installation contractors; lead burning contractors; and mobile home site setup and tie down contractors) 9. Depository and Non -Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163) 10, Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836, except for adrenal derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives) 11. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction; survival schools; vocational counseling) 12. Electronics and Other Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (Groups 3612, 3613, 3624, 3625, 3631, 3641-3676, 3678, 3679, 3694, 3695, 3699, except for airport lighting transformers, autotransformers, electric (power transformers) distribution transformers, electric; electric furnace Words -wu k through are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-2 February 6, 2018 transformers; lighting transformers, street and airport; transformers, reactor; atom smashers (particle accelerators; electron beam metal cutting, forming, and welding machines; electron linear accelerators; electrostatic particle accelerators)) 13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services (Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research; automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories; pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories) 14. Fabricated Metal Products (Groups 3411-3432, 3442, 3444, 3446, 3452, 3469, 3492, 3495, 3496, production of metal is prohibited) 15. Furniture and Fixtures Manufacturing (Groups 2511-2599) 16. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224- 9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661) 17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011), not to exceed a maximum of 4-84-349 rooms for the entire PUD. Only 4-2 Hotels/Motels mare permitted within the PUD, aadOnly one hotel/motel it-�aay be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and one hotel/motel may be located west of Goodlette Frank Road. The hotel/motel west of Goodlette Frank Road shall be located on Tract 6. 4w44 not exceed 169 rooms. and is. No individual heielhn tel will e 41 80 - Fns id aFe subject to specific development standards and setbacks in Section 3.4. 18. Industrial and Commercial Machinery (Groups 3524, 3546, 3553-3556, 3559, 3562, 3564-3566, 3581-3599 except for bronzing and dusting machines for printing trades; foundry type for printing; presses, printing - slugs printers'; ammunition and explosives loading machinery; brick making machines; cement making machinery; chemical kilns; control rod drive mechanisms for use on nuclear reactors; foundry machinery and equipment; frame straighteners, automotive (garage equipment); fur sewing machines; ginning machines, cotton; metal finishing equipment for plating, except rolling mill lines; metal pickling equipment, except rolling mill lines) 19. Leather and Leather Products (Groups 3131-3199) 20. Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical and Optical Goods: Watches and Clocks Manufacturing (Groups 3812- 3843, 3845-3873) 21. Membership Organizations (Groups 8611-8631) Words stf"e'� are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-3 February 6, 2018 22. Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries (Groups 3911-3999 except for dressing of furs: bleaching, blending, curring, scraping, and tanning; feathers: curling, dyeing, and renovating - for the trade; fur stripping; furs dressed: bleached, curried, scraped, tanned, and dyed; pelts: scraping, curring, tanning, bleaching and dyeing; plumes, feather; tear gas devices and equipment; veils made of hair) 23. Motion Picture Production (Groups 7812-7819) 24. Motor Freight Transportation (Groups 4214, 4215) 25. Packing and Crating (Group 4783) 26. Paper and Allied Products (Groups 2652-2657, 2673-2679) 27. Personal Services (Groups 7213, 7216, 7219, 7221) 28. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991) 29. Plastic Materials and Synthetics (Groups 2833,2834) 30. Printing, Publishing and Allied Industries (Groups 2711-2791) 31. Professional Offices: including but not limited to, Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311- 6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512, 6514, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552,) 32. Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products (Groups 3021, 3085, 3086, 3088, 3089) 33. Transportation Equipment (Group 3732, except for boats, fiberglass: building and repairing; boats: motorboats, sailboats, rowboats, and canoes - building and repairing; houseboats, building and repairing; motorboats, inboard and outboard: building and repairing) 34. United States Postal Service (Group 4311) 35. Warehousing and Storage (Group 4225, 4226, 5014 except oil and gas storage, petroleum and chemical bulk stations and automobile dead storage) only one (1) self -storage use allowed to be located adjacent to the Collier County Sewage Treatment Plant. 36, Wholesale Trade -Durable Goods (Groups 5021-5031, 5043-5049, 5063- 5074, 5078, 5091, 5092, 5094-5099 except for fencing, wood -wholesale; lumber: rough, dressed, and finished -wholesale; batteries, except automotive -wholesale; storage batteries, industrial -wholesale; unit substations -wholesale; boilers, power: industrial -wholesale; boilers, steam and hot water heating -wholesale; burners, fuel oil and distillate oil - wholesale; oil burners -wholesale) Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-4 February 6, 2018 37. Wholesale Trade -Nondurable Goods (Groups 5111-5143, 5145, 5147- 5149, 5192, 5199 except for cats -wholesale; charcoal -wholesale; dogs - wholesale; fish, tropical -wholesale; furs, dressed -wholesale; greases, animal and vegetable -wholesale; ice, manufactured or natural -wholesale, leather and cut stock -wholesale; linseed oil -wholesale; oils, except cooking: animal and vegetable -wholesale; oilseed cake and meal -wholesale; rubber, crude -wholesale; sawdust -wholesale; vegetable cake and meal -wholesale; wigs -wholesale; worms -wholesale) 38. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. B. Restricted Principal Uses The following medical related uses must be located within a 1/4 mile radius of the hospital property boundary. Group housing for the elderly limited to Assisted living facilities, independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.13.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. Health Services, medical clinics and offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.13.1, 3.3.13.2, 4.3.13.1 and 4.3.13.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 3. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-8092, 8099) 4. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted in this district, including indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to physical fitness facilities, playfields, fitness trails, etc. Words are deleted, words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-5 February 6, 2018 2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the permitted principal use. D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing uses described in Section 3.2.B.1 shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F. B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT. C. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard, adjacent to Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road: Fifty feet (50'). For parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road, see additional setback requirements in Section 3.4.C.7.a. Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-6 February 6, 2018 2. Front Yard, Internal: Thirty feet (30') Side Yard: Ten feet (10') Five feet (5') to internal property line along Pine Ridge canal drainage easement and FP&L easement 4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0') to bulkhead or rip -rap at top of bank, otherwise twenty feet (20') 5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25') 6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD: Fifty feet (50') 7. Minimum Building Setback from Existing Goodlette-Frank Road Right -of - Way East of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50'), except as provided as follows: i) For group housing for elderly and intermediate care use: (a) If the zoned height of any structure exceeds 50 feet, the minimum setback is 75 feet plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over 50 feet of height. ii) For hotel/motel use: (a) Minimum setback of 75 feet regardless of height Plus for any portion of a building exceeding fifty feet in zoned height an increased setback at a 1:2 ratio (i.e., for one vertical foot of height, setback is increased by two horizontal feet) for that portion of the building over 50 feet of height. D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road: fifty feet (50'), including silos, storage tanks, elevator towers, satellite dishes, antennas, etc. Facilities located on Tract 5 on the Master Plan shall have a maximum zoned height of one -hundred four (104') feet and a maximum actual height of one -hundred twenty two (122') feet, For parcels east of Goodlette-Frank Road: the Hotel, group housing for the elderly, and the intermediate care facility shall have a zoned height seventy-five feet (75'), actual height eight -five feet (85'). All other uses permitted Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-7 February 6, 2018 east of Goodlette-Frank Road pursuant to Section III shall have a zoned height of fifty feet (50') and an actual height of sixty feet (60'). E. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal and external public roadways with a fence or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design. All manufacturing operations and equipment, including accessory process equipment such as compressors and air handlers shall be contained in an enclosed structure. F. All I/C buildings shall meet the requirements of Section 5.05.08 of the LDC, except for buildings located on Tract 5, and 6 on the Master Plan, which shall be subject to the deviation process in Section 5.05.08 of the LDC (see Section 3.5.2, Development Deviations, of this PUD Ordinance). The building located on Tract 5 shall be similar in architectural style to the conceptual building rendering in Exhibit C. G. Business District type uses located within the I/C District along Goodlette-Frank Road will meet the Collier County Architectural Guidelines in Division 2.8. of the LDC. H. Industrial type uses abutting Goodlette-Frank Road shall meet the requirements of Section 2.19.13.3 hereof, alternatively, said uses shall have the option of utilizing the landscaped buffer applicable to business uses fronting Goodlette-Frank Road, provided the portion of the building facing Goodlette-Frank Road meets the following Architectural Guideline Sections of the LDC, therefore satisfying the intent of the building design section of the Architectural Guidelines in the opinion of the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator: 1. Section 2.8.3.5.1., Purpose and Intent 2. Section 2.8.3.5.4., Facade Standard Section 2.8.3.5.6., Project Standards 4. Section 2.8.3.5.7., Detail Features except for 2.8.3.5.7.2. 5. Section 2.8.3.5.12. I. Loading Areas: Buildings west of the Pine Ridge canal and adjacent to the Pelican Marsh boundary shall orient loading docks to the north, east or west. Noise: Uses within the I/C District shall not exceed 65 dBA between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 60 dBA after 10 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. and all of Sundays, as measured at the property boundary of the land use from which the sound emanates. Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 3-8 February 6, 2018 K. Odor: No business shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air from any single source such as to result in odors which are detectable outside the parcel boundaries. Best practical treatment, maintenance, and control currently available shall be utilized in order to maintain the lowest possible emission of odorous air. L. Lighting: Lighting shall be located so that no light is aimed directly toward a property designated residential if lighting is located within 200 feet of residential property. Light fixtures within parking areas shall not exceed 25 feet in height. M. Emissions: All sources of air emissions shall comply with rules set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-2). No person shall operate a regulated source of air emissions without a valid operation permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. 3.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses, including the intermediate care facilities. 2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08, Deviations and alternate compliance, which authorizes the County Manager or designee to administratively approve deviations from compliance with Section 5.05.08 of the LDC for specific types of buildings, to allow general office and medical office. hotel and physical fitness facilities that can be constructed on Tract 5 and 6 of the Master Plan to be eligible for this deviation process. 3. Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.. Tvne D Buffer. which reauires a 10' wide Type D buffer adjacent to rights of way, with trees spaced no more than 30: on center, to perrnit the exist ing street trees p [anted alon g the west side of Creekside Street to satisfy the minimum Type D buffer tree requirement of the eastern boundary of Tract 5. 3.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section 2.19.B.2. (and B.3) are prohibited Words 6hF&ugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPDD Amendment 3-9 February 6, 2018 SECTION IV BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Creekside Commerce Park designated on the Master Plan as "B". 4.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as `B" on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of 292.000269,000 square feet of fFloor aArea, as defined in the LDC, including approximately .42;0942 l X3.000 square feet of office uses and 50,000 square feet of retail uses on 22.90± net acres. Intermediate care facilities (SIC Code 8052), parking garages, and group housing and hotel/motel uses (SIC Code 7011) are in addition to the B District gross square footage figures. Wellness Centers_ associated with employees and hotelug ests within the PUD shall not exceed a maximum of 40.000 s.f— shall be deemed accessory to arinci al uses and shall not be counted towards overall s care footage. 4.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Apparel and Accessory Stores (Groups 5611-5699) 2. Breweries (Group 2082) Building Contractors (Groups 1521-1542), except for general contractors for mobile home repair on site, modular housing and premanufactured housing assembled on site, dry cleaning plant construction, paper pulp mill construction, and truck and automobile assembly plant construction. 4. Business Services (Groups 7311-7313, 7319, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7352, 7359-7389 except for industrial truck rental and leasing; plants, live: rental and leasing; toilets, portable: rental and leasing; employment agencies, except theatrical and motion picture; labor contractors (employment agencies) model registries; labor pools; manpower pools; modeling service; dogs, rental of for protective service; automobile recovery service; automobile repossession service; bartering services for businesses; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; check validation service; contractors disbursement control; filling pressure containers (aerosol) with hair spray, insecticides, etc.; fire extinguishers, service of gas systems, contract Words 9h-uek Mre are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 4-1 February 6, 2018 conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis produce weighing service, not connected with transportation; scrap steel cutting on a contract or fee basis; solvents recovery service on a contract or fee basis; tobacco sheeting service on a contract or fee basis) 5. Child Day Care Services (Group 835 1) 6. Convenience Store, food market (Group 5411) only two (2) allowed within the PUD and Gasoline Filling Station (Group 5541) only one (1) allowed within the PUD. 7. Communications (Groups 4812-4899), not including major communication towers related to cellular phone service, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, radar or telephone service. 8. Dance and Martial Arts Studios (Groups 7911 and 7999, including only gymnastics and martial arts instruction) 9. Depository and Non -Depository Institutions (Groups 6011-6163) including automatic teller machines 10. Drugs and Medicines (Groups 2833-2836 except for adrenal derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; barbituric acid and derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; cocaine and derivatives; codeine and derivatives; gland derivatives: bulk, uncompounded; mercury chlorides, U.S.P; mercury compounds, medicinal: organic and inorganic; morphine and derivatives; opium derivatives) 11. Eating Places (Group 5812) not including stand alone drive-thru restaurants. 12. Educational Services (Groups 8249-8299 except construction equipment operation schools; truck driving schools; automobile driving instruction; survival schools; vocational counseling) 13. Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management and Related Services (Groups 8711-8748 except chemical laboratories, commercial research; automobile proving and testing grounds; metallurgical testing laboratories; pollution testing, except automotive emissions testing; radiation dosimetry laboratories; seed testing laboratories; veterinary testing laboratories) 14. Government Offices/Buildings (Groups 9111-9199, 9221, 9222, 9224- 9229, 9311, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611, 9631-9661) 15. Hardware Stores (Group 525 1) 16. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores (Groups 5712-5736) Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 4-2 February 6, 2018 17. Hotels / Motels (Group 7011); not to exceed a maximum of 488-349 rooms for the entire PUD. Only 4-2 hotels/motels }sire permitted within the PUD, eAd Only one hotellmotel it-�may be located east of Goodlette-Frank Road and shall not exceed 180 rooms. No-i&,Idual hazel/mat .:" exeeed a of 180 j-oems and It is subject to additional building development standards and setbacks identified in Section 4.4. 18. Miscellaneous Food Stores (Group 5499) 4-:19. Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores (Group 5399) 4.9-.20. Miscellaneous Retail (Groups 5912-5949 and 5992-5999, excluding used merchandise stores, fireworks, gravestones, tombstones and monuments, ice dealers, sales barns, and swimming pools; retail) 28:21. Paint/Glass and Wallpaper (Group 523 1) ? E 27. Personal Services (Groups 7215, excluding self-service or coin laundries, 7221-7251, 7291 and 7299, including only clothing rental, costume rental, tanning salons and hair services) 22:23. Professional Offices: Travel Agencies (Group 4724); Insurance Agencies (Group 6411); Insurance Carriers (Groups 6311-6399); Real Estate (Groups 6512-6515, 6517, 6519, 6531, 6541, 6552, 6553); Holding and Other Investment Offices (Groups 6712-6799); Attorneys (Group 8111) 23-24. Physical Fitness Facilities (Group 7991) 2425. Retail Bakeries (Group 5461) 25-26. Security and Commodity Brokers (Groups 6211-6289) 24:27. Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. B. Restricted Principal Uses The following medical related uses must be located within 1/4 mile radius of the hospital property boundary. 1. Group housing for the elderly limited to assisted living facilities, independent living units, skilled nursing units and continuing care retirement communities. A maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B,1 and Wordsno we - hi. e .-h are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 4-3 February 6, 2018 4.3.13.3. These uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 2. Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores (Group 5912) only one (1) drug store allowed. 3. Health Services, Medical Clinics and Offices (Groups 8011-8049, 8052), a maximum of 400 aggregate beds shall be permitted for the uses listed in Sections 3.3.B.1, 3.3.B.2, 4.3.B.1 and 4.3.13.3. SIC Code 8052 land uses are limited to parcels located east of Goodlette-Frank Road. 4. Medical Laboratories and research and Rehabilitative Centers (Groups 8071-8099) Any other use or service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and is otherwise clearly consistent with the intent and purpose statement of the District and which the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator determines to be compatible in this District. C. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this district including indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, inc iudin r but not limited to physical fitness facilities, lafields. raness trails, etc. 2. Retail and wholesale sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, not to exceed an area greater than forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the permitted principal use. D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing uses described in Section 4.2.B.1 shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be Words smuek thm are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 4-4 February 6, 2018 responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 S.F. B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 FT. C. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1, Front Yard, Immokalee and Goodlette-Frank Roads: Fifty feet (50') 2. Front Yard, Internal Roads: Thirty feet (30') 3. Side Yard: Ten feet (10') Five feet (5') to internal property line along the Pine Ridge canal drainage easement and FP&L easement 4. Waterfront: Zero feet (0') to bulkhead or rip -rap at top of bank, otherwise twenty feet (20') 5. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25') 6. Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD for Properties West of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) Fifty feet (50') for buildings up to thirty five feet (35') in height. b) Three additional feet (3') for every one foot of building height over thirty five feet (35') adjoining residential districts. 7. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum Building Setback from Perimeter Boundary of PUD and from Public Roadways: Words;r--mss are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 4-5 February 6, 2018 a) Immokalee Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50') plus for any portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50'), that portion of the building shall have its building setback increased at a 1:3 ratio (i.e. one (1') vertical foot of height for every three (3') horizontal feet); or For any portion of a hotel that may be constructed on the B designated tract at the southeast corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road, a minimum three hundred fifty foot (350') building setback from Immokalee Road. b) Goodlette-Frank Road: Minimum of fifty feet (50') and for any portion of a building exceeding a zoned height of fifty feet (50'), that portion of the building shall have the setback increased at a 1:2 ratio (i.e. one (1') vertical foot of height for every two (2') horizontal feet); or For any portion of a hotel on the B designated tract on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road, the minimum setback from Goodlette-Frank Road shall be seventy-five (75') regardless of height. D. Maximum Height (Zoned): For parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road, three stories over parking to a maximum of fifty feet (50') except that no structure shall be greater than thirty-five feet (35'), on property west of the Pine Ridge Drainage Easement. For Properties East of Goodlette-Frank Road: a) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed on the B designated tract located at the southeast quadrant of the Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road intersection shall have a zoned height of sixty feet (60') and an actual height of seventy feet (70'), except that a hotel building or structure associated with this use may not exceed a zoned height of seventy five feet (75') and an actual height of eighty five (85'). All other uses on Tract 9 on the Master Plan shall be permitted to have a zoned height of seventy five feet (75') and an actual height of eighty five (85') b) The group housing for the elderly and intermediate care facilities constructed on the easternmost B designated tract adjacent to Immokalee Road, as shown on the Master Plan, shall have a zoned height of sixty feet (60') and an actual height of seventy feet (70'). C) All other uses permitted pursuant to Section IV shall be limited to a maximum zoned height of fifty (50') and an actual height of sixty (60'), Words .,iruek eh?w are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 4-6 February 6, 2018 E. Commercial design guidelines for facilities in the Business District shall be subject to the provisions of Division 2.8. Architectural and Site Design Standards and Site Design Standards for commercial buildings and projects.... exijut btii ldines located on the southern portion of Tract 3. Buildings located in the soutle_n portion of Tract 3 as labeled on the Master Plan shall be sgbmect to the deviation process in Section 5,05.08 of the LDC see Section 4,5,3 Development Deviations. of this P[JD Ordinance), F. Outside storage or display shall be permitted and shall be screened from all internal and external public roadways with a fence at least seven feet in height above ground level, or landscaping equivalent or combination thereof. Said fence, wall or landscaped screen shall be opaque in design. 4.5 DEVELOPMENT DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes a .45 floor area ratio (FAR) for group housing uses, to permit an FAR of .6 for group housing uses, including the intermediate care facility. 2. Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 Directory signs, which authorizes one (1) directory sign to be located at the project entrance, to permit installation of the directory sign on Immokalee Road east of Goodlette-Frank Road, not at the project entry, but rather at a location between the project entry and Goodlette-Frank Road. 3. Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.G, Deviations and alternate compliance, which authorizes the County Manager or designee to idinimstratively approve deviations from compliance �A ith Section 5,05.08 of the LDC for specilic types of buildings. to allow general office and medical office, hotel and physical fitness facilities that can tic constructed on the southern portion of Tract 3 of the Master Pian to be eligible for this deviation process, 4.6 LANDSCAPE BUFFER RESTRICTIONS The use of bald cypress trees to meet the landscape buffer requirements in section 2.19.A.2 (and B.2) are prohibited. Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 4-7 February 6, 2018 SECTION V PRESERVE AREA 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for the area within Creekside Commerce Park, designated on the Master Plan, as Preserve Area. 5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Preserve Area on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate natural systems existing or created as preserves and limited water management uses and functions. 5.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails). 2. Water management structures. 3. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, permitted in accordance with the LDC and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 5.4 PRESERVE DISTRICT PRESERVATION EASEMENT A non-exclusive preservation easement or tract is required by LDC Section 3.2.8.4.7.3. for preservation lands included in the Preserve Area. The Developer, its successor or assign shall be responsible for the control and maintenance of lands within the Preserve Area. Exact location/boundary of the Preserve Area will be determined during the development permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District, Army Corps of Engineers, and Collier County. Words strifek throu are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 5-1 February 6, 2018 5.5 PRESERVE AREA ADJUSTMENTS The proposed native vegetation retention areas, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park Master Plan, are intended for meeting the native vegetation requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Collier County LDC. Adjustments may be made to the location of the preservations areas at the time of preliminary plat or site development plan approval. If adjustments are needed, per the Collier County LDC the Developer will have the option to increase the preservation in another area, enhance and preserve another area, or provide increased native landscape per the Collier County LDC. The proposed preservation areas, including acres of wetlands and 4.1 acres of uplands, depicted on the Creekside Commerce Park master plan, are areas where the native vegetation requirements may be met on-site as set forth in the Collier County LDC. Words are deleted; words underlined are added. 2017 CPUD Amendment 5-2 February 6, 2018 COLLIER'S NORTH COLLIER NORTH COLLIER EmrINGTRAFFIC RESERVE PUO MEDICAL HOSPITAL PUD SIGNAL T'- -• `( , •�-� .._— .— _.__. ._ _ .� — —_ I 1`r CM16TrIG'1�AFFH: .. ._ _ __—___ _. .� �_.� �—_..— - �. --� - I MOKAL.EE ROADWLgR Elili[Y_ra6?IAGE - EwTw �--- ' --..-- MwoliFarrRystmacGe� _ [� _. _ . �_ i1G1iAG16 `.© , • _ 4 —• 1 i '� y ; . NAA7R BITR* W—.11AOE 7� � _ { 7Y rllrt uucseAli ' t rrtcT 4 xO , ` , �. } - - B IAL AI. a}, >17 . MI { NOT A PART _ TRACT 1 m ' I Slgn Deviation (See PU Ij c v c 2 �. •. c c i m 1t TRACT 3 _ _ Section a.S, item 2) OF THIS PUD' B ALTERNATE -A• B , Ba: TRAC —1a x'oE LANDKAPE J c sw PKWY= !iC,� 4 il ;' TRACT 8 �: .Dr.e PER Las 1Mkrt L.ANWGK� y I l}} •' - .�~.-.•. Ip r R.aAvtroelnc �-� ALM! ATI •A- i f SOUTHWEST PROFESSIONAL TRACT 4 A G C,wte1S�R!>r Ci< 4 ALTH PARK NAPLES DAILY !-�' I '� Iw+ -, m NttivwsPUD tl° VVV TRACT 5 t + i m TRACT UC UCs , m " � AnhltedHnl Standards DeviationU t FE (Sae PUD SaeUoll 3S, Rom 21 y 1 t � 6 1 �1 nor FRAr a UC l mer rIRAFiCT777--77 --+nn�;� f/f�� µ� I I- WGUAGE I s ' -REEtS:►DEt3QSlt EV c _ - - � W V,.,TY ti M.IOI ill„IV 4ors' EFA _...t TRACT T t, i YN la t UC IaXU7EL .A _ F�� UC e11FFeR , i L TRACT 71 4 IEJ11 aa- - . S AL7EANATI 'A' K"60 COLLIER ct wry A£ES riSTH iSU' O.C. I I I - •.•~ �•- i_ �, icAl SEWAGE TAEATMENF Pt ANT LAND USE SUMMARY atxsT�rr elmrroeuFreH rr--+j� t•�' cwL EwMsatlr •� . WITHADOMIULTREMM AcHwAww%oM 8wTM I --�_— �-� y -• IndustdaVCommence = 49.90-+ Ac -- E I&WMRAM REM !„ap° „� l B [Hess = 22.90E AC A}T!lOriIAT[�mTegiS.M'PER ��'” - Rl �n UC of Way = 9.25± Ac PELICAN MARSH PUD 4 l L — Lake = 7.19± AC PW — Preserved Hands = 2.90-+ Ac PU — Preserved UpI = 4.10-+ Ac Other (buffers, o ce)= 9.84± Ac {a� { .•„�-,�,MMR.Kn< TOTAL Aa HEDDETOSIRD� EXWf= OAK TIME D11FFERO1 TIEAQIACENI'SIVIAGE GENERAL NOTES TRFAIIFJEF 105.08± Ac f:lHIrYST�csMor „� av .TRILL 17!ALMalI�iAlltl9l. PUNT 1. TF9SPLAN ISCON CBT'TUAL,NOTA9PECFlC3lIRVEY. ALL EASE `fin r LOCATIONSAREAPPROXMATE 2 THE BUFFER DESIGNATIONS N PARBBRHESIS M (C_1, A-4 REFERTO PUD DOCUMENT PARAGRAPH 219 WHERE BUFFER IS DESCRIBE). EXISTING TRAFFIC � SN7U1L ✓ N �•. U&M MOWN UOFTHISPUD APART 4 RUFT ROJAL PERLnjr ARLDL }'�^'•^' - m UC NAPLES DAILY ;5 NEWS PUO p G r m r m cs ... � lo.El Il+. ..� ..x GiLLh.E itYYc9 ur, COLLIER'S NORTH COLLIER NORTH COLLIER RESERVE PW MEDICAL HOSPITAL POD , naaNOKALEE ROAD f - -- - - - '--_ - - - - —'�_ wLIOn CIiR1r �lr}RR BfIiiTT541AGE ElnR1I y� i T B 20' VADE LANDSCAPE". �r CT j ! u1 A2 f/U1L Ai� a a uI eA ftn DevWdon (See PU TRACT 1 i m° sxdon a.5 item z) G c ig B TRACT 3 ' I i�..j ALTENNATe -w- B i B m: TRACT 9 i I "'� + ; TRACT 8 t { - S j' ArcrlReT:lulEl 300 Devhiwn 1 e+ Slgldards Oevleilon '� - K'UqI t 1 1 'b SM 3) SCc!!Cn 4.5, s j - TRACT 4 UC TR uC 5ij ARhIt@CiYTiI TRACT 10 ArehIh wm Stendude DevSdon � O ` f �� { UC N (s.e PUD Seaton SS, Item zI oa �TRACT 6 r i 11CDkMMAL I i i {Item PUD S MA- s EN c i I Rem TPGT,�E lIn L t � 17 TRACT 7 M319MTE.,, �rVAM w4D7.wY--- UC OWNER Not Lmr- fCS1 r MJPPLE»Ii E16nNG aws m I W" AOPnOkAL TRIES W ... � lo.El Il+. ..� ..x GiLLh.E itYYc9 ur, SCM PpdCAN WARM PUD FF ..ti I 1-1 EAlIYEMf ^'• . µ, TRACT 11 j IF AL.TEPkATF "A' eVFFFII GOLLiER COOIITY }--_-., L • � •F. '. A_. Y� NRSH TAEEB YO' O.C. SEWAGE TAE-ATWNT LAND USE SUMMARY mEa EAMEW ~ I/C — Industrial/Commerce = 49.90f Ac F BTE ID A<Ta�IHAw>•R' �' I� � B —Business = 22.901 Ac (CIO' UC Right of Way = 9.251 Ac L —Lake =7191 PW — Preserved Wetlands = 2.90± Ac r r � PU —Preserved Uplands = 4.10± Ac Other (buffers, open space)= 9.84± Ac s, LAWSfJiEtr IFO! Tr m TOTAL = 105.08± AC A F HEDGE TOSUPPLOJEIT MUTRIGGARTRIM BUFFMON nxAG,ACMTSINEAGE GENERALNOTES TNEATTBITTRANT (�1 1. THIS PLAN B CONCEPTUAL, NarASPECFIC SURVEY. ALL EASELU NT LOCATTOHS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2 THE BUFFER DESIGNATMS IN PpRk'HTH1 .SM E.0. 4C.1. A41 REFER TO PUD DOCUMENT PARAGRAPH 119 WHERE BUFFER IS DESCRiS CO. S Go N a a 0 W U3 5 Uiw EXHIBIT B1 CROSS SECTIONS (ENLARGED) 2MMNA1. PARCEL PAM MO *FMN- WHY NED� CANOPY TM CANOPY TM FARM INTRANCE YOI JWW f r----81oN ALM 13' 1 Ir Y 74 wi c 24 at� INTERNAL PARR PAfKMQ HEDCO CANOPY TME PARM WMANCE 1KNRIRJR it 1 it 1 iv I it +r y ea- ion � T1rPlCAL �T CI�t1�f ■lCTiQM ...... IfIfAMAL PAROMPARC PARxa�a `-CANOPY TM ,o--*Drwp" §nWO L FARCW PAROM *TRW LxW "MM CANOPY CANOPY PAROM dfiRAMCR YONIRIEMT J Aw�ur OM PANM c +r I ry Tr a UNA W s+• 01. .-6,4 Ci0 BY �r07�Ylt� Growth Management Department Zoning Division Memorandum To: Nancy Gundlach, RLA, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Comprehensive Planning Section Date: January 23, 2018 (and minor revision February 9, 2018) Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL20170000425 (REV 3) PETITION NAME: Creekside Commerce Park PUD REQUEST: An amendment to the Creekside Commerce Park PUD to: 1) increase the hotel/motel allowance from one to two, increase the number of rooms allowed by 169 (from 180 to 349), add allowance for one hotel/motel to be located west of Goodlette Road, add provision that no hotel can exceed 180 rooms, add provision that hotel on PUD Tract 6 (west of Goodlette Rd.) cannot exceed 169 rooms; 2) in the Industrial/Commerce District, decrease the allowed floor area by 6,900 (from 716,000 s.f. to 709,100 s.f.); 3) in the Business District, decrease the total allowed floor area by 23,000 s.f. (from 292,000 s.f. to 269,000 s.f.) and decrease the office use floor area by 23,000 s.f. (from 242,000 to 219,000 s.f.); 4) add outdoor recreation facilities as a general permitted use in the PUD; 5) add indoor and outdoor recreation facilities as an accessory use in both the Industrial/Commerce District and Business District; 6) add provision that fitness centers as an accessory use do not count towards the square feet caps in the PUD; 7) add provision that the LDC deviation process is allowed for all buildings on PUD Tract 6 and the southern portion of PUD Tract 3; and, 8) request certain deviation(s). The net effect of use changes is to decrease the allowed floor area by 29,900 s.f. and increase the number of hotel/motel rooms by 169. LOCATION: The subject PUD, consisting of ±106 acres, is located at the southwest and southeast corners of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Goodlette-Frank Road (C.R. 851), in Section 27, Township 48 South, and Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The existing PUD, which allows a variety of commercial, industrial and institutional uses, was approved in 1997 by Ordinance No. 97-51; FLUE consistency for that approval is contained in the Statement of Compliance (most of the site was previously zoned I, Industrial). The PUD was amended in 2006 by Ordinance No. 06-50 to subtract +3.11 acres at the northwest corner of the PUD so that it could be incorporated into the existing Naples Daily News Business Park PUD. The PUD was amended in 2013 to add hotel/motel to the list of principal uses permitted within the Industrial/Commerce District and the Business District of the PUD; and add assisted living facilities (ALF); independent living units; skilled nursing units; continuing care retirement communities; and intermediate care facilities, to the list of restricted principal uses permitted within the Industrial/Commerce District and the Business District of the PUD. Additionally, the amendment increased the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from .35 to .6 for the proposed new uses; eliminated the maximum FAR restriction to Attachment B individual parcels; added operational requirements for the proposed group housing uses; and, increased the maximum building height to those parcels of the PUD located east of Goodlette- Frank Road. No changes were made to the overall approved intensity (building square feet). The PUD was amended in 2016 by Ord. No. 16-05 to: amend the Industrial/Commerce District to reduce the allowed floor area by 70,000 s.f.; amend the Business District to add some uses from the C-4, General Commercial zoning district, increase office uses floor area by 50,000 s.f, increase retail floor area by 20,000 s.f., add allowance for group housing uses east of Goodlette Road, add allowance for hotel/motel use at the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Goodlette Road, and revise certain development standards; the net effect of the floor changes was neutral (increase 70,000 s.f. and decrease 70,000 s.f.). The PUD was amended again in 2016 by Ord. No. 16-32 to: amend the Industrial/Commerce District to increase the allowed floor area by 166,000 s.f. and the acreage by 8.3 acres; amend the Business District to increase the total allowed floor area by 32,000 s.f., increase the office uses floor area by 42,000 s.f., decrease retail uses floor area by 10,000 s.f.; increase the overall floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.45; revise certain development standards; and, decrease the preserve area and allow a portion of the preserve to be off-site; the net effect of the floor area changes was an increase of 198,000 s.f. These amendments were deemed consistent with the FLUE based upon certain policies under Objective 5, the provision allowing medical offices and other similar uses within'/4 mile of a major medical facility such as North Collier Hospital, and the Urban designation allowance for group housing uses. This PUDA petition proposes several changes but the most significant are to add 169 hotel/motel rooms; decrease uses in the Industrial/Commerce District by 6,900 s.f.; and, decrease office uses in the Business District by 23,000 s.f. The net effect of use changes is to decrease the allowed floor area by 29,900 s.f. and increase the number of hotel/motel rooms by 169. The added outdoor recreation uses are allowed by the Urban designation, and the recreation uses added as an accessory use are not addressed in the FLUE. The proposed hotel/motel use addition is not allowed by the existing Future Land Use designation. However, the existing PUD was approved, in part, based upon a prior FLUE provision and is now deemed, in part, consistent by FLUE Policy 5.14 (previously 5.12). Accordingly, FLUE Policy 5.3 (previously 5.1) is applicable in evaluating the proposed hotel/motel use and shift in building floor area. It states, in relevant part: "Policy 5.3: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: b. For such industrially -zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity industrial, or commercial, zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of industrial land use allowed by the existing zoning district is not exceeded in the new zoning district." *** *** text break *** *** *** "e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district." FLUE Policy 5.3 contains a two-part test. Below is staff's analysis and determination of each part. Part 1 - In comparing zoning district intensity, it is necessary to determine the lowest intensity zoning district(s) in the LDC allowing the existing uses in the PUD to the lowest intensity zoning district in the LDC allowing the proposed commercial and industrial uses. The existing PUD allows some uses only found in the C-5, Heavy Commercial, BP, Business Park, and I, Industrial, zoning districts. The proposed hotel/motel use is allowed in the C-4 and C-5 zoning districts. Commercial zoning districts in the LDC are viewed as increasing in intensity from C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office, as lowest intensity to C-5, Heavy Commercial, as highest intensity. Further, the "I" zoning district is viewed as higher intensity than the commercial zoning districts. Conclusion — part 1: The new zoning district (proposed uses in the PUD amendment) is the same or a lower intensity industrial, or commercial, zoning district as the existing zoning district. Part 2 - In comparing public facility impacts to determine overall intensity, it is necessary to have a comparative analysis of impacts from uses allowed in the existing zoning district and the proposed use upon facilities (usually viewed as category A public facilities) - arterial and collector roads, potable water and sanitary sewer (wastewater), drainage, solid waste, and parks and recreation facilities. The applicant prepared a comparative analysis of public facility impacts using "medical office" as the representative existing use — notwithstanding that the PUD allows other office uses besides medical office in the Business District and other industrial and commercial uses besides medical office in the Industrial/Commerce District, and there is no proposed PUD language that the square feet reduction is only applicable to medical office use (and medical office use is consistent with the FLUE). That is, the existing use(s) comparison reflects a reduction of 23,000 s.f. of medical office uses from the Business District — though the PUD amendment proposes a 23,000 s.f. reduction in "office uses" generically in that District, and a reduction of 6,900 s.f. of medical office uses from the Industrial/Commerce District — though the PUD amendment proposes a 6,900 s.f. reduction in "industrial/commerce" uses generically in that District. Staff notes that FLUE Policy 5.3e. does not indicate (provides no guidance) whether each of the public facility components are weighted equally or not; or whether all components must reflect a neutral outcome or reduction or a simple majority must reflect a neutral outcome or reduction or a weighted majority must reflect a neutral outcome or reduction. Staff observes that, historically, transportation impacts have been of greatest concern to the County, whether generally or in context of this policy. Staff acknowledges this is a "policy decision" for the Board of County Commissioners as to how to implement this Policy 5.3, but is of the opinion that increased impacts upon roads outweigh the reduced impacts of other facilities. Conclusion — part 2: Based upon the petitioner's comparative analysis, overall impacts upon public facilities are not exceeded in the new zoning district. FLUE Policy 5.6 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section's staff as part of the total review of the petition. Regarding FLUE Policies 7.1-7.4, pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities, no changes are proposed to PUD access, interconnection or sidewalk provisions, and the PUD must comply with open space requirements of the LDC. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD amendment consistent with the FLUE. cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division CD/FLUE File PUDA-PL20170000425 Creekside Commerce Park 113a G:�CDCS Planning Services�Consislency lleviews�2018�PUDA dw-mb/2.9-18 TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING FOR CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK CPUD NOVEMBER 13, 2017 Appearances: RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. I.Gy_akilm,11 0owk DAVID BUMPOUS NORMAN TREBILCOCK Attachment C MR. YOVANOVICH: Good evening. My name is Rich Yovanovich. And we are here today for another neighborhood information meeting for revisions to the Creekside PUD. Many of you have heard (indiscernible) Dave Bumpous is here from Arthrex and Wayne Arnold is here from Grady Minor & Associates. Norm Trebilcock, our transportation engineer is here. Nancy Gundlach from the county is here. MS. GUNDLACH: Hello. MR. YOVANOVICH: So they're reviewing the proposed amendments. And basically what we're proposing to do, and I think you probably have read about it already in the paper, is, and we talked to many of you one on one already about what we're proposing to do, but we're proposing to revise the Creekside PUD to the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road to allow for an additional hotel, not to exceed 169 units, and to allow for a wellness center, workout facility as an accessory use to Arthrex employees and guests of the hotel. The hotel is to serve Arthrex doctors and people that come in for training, et cetera, for the Arthrex products. Like I said, there's going to be no changes to the east side of Creekside, which (indiscernible) Goodlette-Frank Road, which we're talking about. What we're going to be doing, and David will take you through a little bit greater detail, but essentially hotel here. These existing buildings, which are medical offices and offices, will be razed, and that's kind of where the fitness center will go and the wellness center. We're making adjustments in the square footage in the PUD, so we're transportation neutral for what's existing today. So all the transportation commitments will stay, all the traffic (indiscernible) will stay the same. I think most of you probably (indiscernible) seen the architecture. That's kind of what David is here to tell you about, but that's essentially what we're doing. That's what we talked about in our smaller group meetings, what you read about in the paper. And, again, the changes are really talking about right in -- right in this area right here. This is the -- when we were here last time, talking about, you know, the office complex, that's tract 5. Tract 6 is what we're talking about and part of tract 3. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Where is 3? MR. YOVANOVICH: 3 is right here, the corner. This is where the -- where I was pointing to, with the medical offices, the existing buildings are. Those will go away. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So that's what started as the John R. Wood building? MR. YOVANOVICH: John R. Wood building (indiscernible). It's the corner building (indiscernible) but just south of that corner building, the one-story medical offices, those will go away and be replaced with the fitness center. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And be the fitness center? MR. YOVANOVICH: Fitness center, yes, sir. So that's what we're here to talk about. We'll answer any questions you may have. I don't know what the next slide is. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Bumpous. MR. BUMPOUS: Thanks, Rich. Thank you. Thank you all for coming tonight. Appreciate it. I'm happy to share with you some renderings we have. The hotel is currently still in design, so we're obviously trying to make progress forward, hoping that the PUD goes through successfully. We've talked about this many times in our past meetings, the volume of visitors that we see. Right now, those visitors are staying in hotels all around southwest Florida, from down on Fifth Avenue up all the way to Estero, and then they're being shuttled in and out every single day. It's in excess of 12,000 visiting doctors each year. In addition to those doctors, many times they bring representatives with them or other guests. So it's a significant number of people. It's a significant amount of traffic as well that we're hoping not only to alleviate, but we're hoping to create more of a cohesive environment so that they're literally able to get up each morning, walk simply down the street, attend their classes all day, have dinner, and return to the hotel as well. So as you can see, we're trying to create something that blends with the campus. And, you know, I've used that term many times, the campus of Arthrex, because that's what we want. We want the area to kind of, you know, be cohesive and really fit the environment, the area, lots of landscaping. This is a view, basically, from the west and south. This is what we're looking at here. We change views -- this, of course, just being lobby entry side. We've named the hotel Innovation Hotel. It will not be a flagged hotel such as a Marriott or a Hilton or something along those lines. And at the same time, we are not going to put this hotel on Amazon or Orbitz or those types of things. It's truly a business hotel for primarily -- primarily, I should say, designed to fit the needs of our visitors that are here throughout the year, both domestic and International visitors. At the same time, we look to partner with other businesses in the area that are constantly bringing guests into town. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Like what's an example of that? MR. BUMPOUS: Bank of America is a great example. There are a lot of businesses like that that have, you know, thousands of nights of stays here in southwest Florida. And one question that may cross your mind, because I know the newspaper was certainly interested, is what kind of a negative impact does this have on the other hotels in the area. Well, at 160 rooms and the volume that Arthrex plans to put in this hotel, it really doesn't have a negative impact. Plus, you have to take into consideration the fact that we've been putting a large portion of our guests in Estero up by Coconut Point. So, in essence, there's really no negative impact. And that's what's driving this. We talked about this in the last meeting, how five years ago, there was plenty of hotel space. We were looked at as a preferred customer in southwest Florida, because we were year -around business. We're not looked at, you know, in the same light now because you have all these European guests in the summer and all these other things that are driving up demand. Plus we have FDA and AvaMed restrictions. So we can't put guests in the Ritz Carlton and other resort levels. So it really paints us into a corner many times. So, again, you have doctors that are getting on a bus at 5:30, 5:45 in the morning in Estero to make the breakfast and class at 7 a.m. This affords them the ability to walk two blocks, a block and a half, and they're basically at their class. The next photo I want to share with you is this is a -- this is a view from Goodlette-Frank Road, so if you were driving up Goodlette-Frank, looked off to the left. Obviously, there's still a landscape barrier or buffer here. But the thing I really wanted to point out is we talked about this in the early stages, and many of you visited with us back in the spring, because most of our guests come in via shuttle from the airport, the county has graciously worked with us to allow us to put in much less parking than a hotel would require this size. And so our intent is to landscape heavily all around the hotel and only have parking on the perimeter. That's for the employees that work there. And certainly, you know, we have employees from around the world. So if we have a visitor from California or a visitor from Germany, obviously, we're going to want them to stay here and not stay at the Hilton or the Hyatt or somewhere else. So many times they will have a rental car from the hotel. So that's the intent of making sure that, again, it blends in. It's four stories. It's below the PUD height restriction that's imposed now. We're not asking for any additional height at all. And we're really hoping to make it something that, as you drive by, you just simply say, wow, it's a beautiful building, and it just kind of blends into the environment, if you will. The final slide you may have seen in the paper or in other pictures. We're over here in the main campus. We're actually in the cafeteria right here. And this is the building we talked about last year. And, of course, now we're talking about a hotel and what would become the fitness center. The fitness center is a little bit deceiving. I had someone call me this morning and say 30 some thousand square feet. I said, yes, but we're designing it as a two-story building with a solid atrium up through the middle. So you get natural daylight that -- sorry -- natural daylight that floods the entire facility . So you'll have weights, treadmills, all the basic things that you would see in a normal fitness center. What this allows the employees to do is those that are going to fitness centers now early in the morning and then commuting here at 7:30 or 8:00, they'll just come here a 5:30 or 6. Those that are going out at lunch -- and, by the way, we allow people flexibility, so they can be gone an hour, hour and a half, two hours at lunch sometimes to work out. They don't have to leave the campus. Same would be true in the evening. I work out at 5. I go to the gym. I go home at 7:30, 7, whatever time it may be. So it really does support the campus, support the activities. The other piece of that is the surgeons who visit us, these are high-end sports doctors. Many of them played sports themselves. They're generally very fit and very into fitness. So we found, over time, that we've had to shuttle or work with these surgeons at the hotels they were at to either -- they would work out there or they would want to go to a bigger, better gym in the area. It will eliminate that need. So when they're staying here, they walk across the pathway, they work out, they come to class. So we're, again, trying to create an environment where the campus is compact, self-sufficient and really meets the needs of our employees and our guests. And that's my last slide. Do you have questions? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: All the buildings that you've shown, those are all hotel buildings. The fitness center is just in this one photograph because you don't have a building -- you don't have plans yet to show? MR. BUMPOUS: No. In this -- in this photo, this would be the hotel. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. BUMPOUS: This is a fitness center. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. BUMPOUS: This is an office building. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. BUMPOUS: Tonight, we're talking about the PUD amendment strictly for this parcel here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Rich or Dave, can you comment -- I mean, the paper keeps referring to a second hotel. The first hotel, so to speak, is the one east of Goodlette-Frank that's been in the PUD approval for three years or something like that; is that right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. On this -- I'm sorry. On this side of the street is the existing 180 unit, not to exceed 180 -unit hotel that's been in the PUD for awhile. You're probably right, three or four years. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: By some number (indiscernible). MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't remember how long it's been in there. This is an additional hotel to what's already in the PUD on the west side. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Do you now, by coincidence, what the status of that hotel is on the east side? MR. YOVANOVICH: I know that, as of right now, there is no hotel, but it doesn't mean there won't be. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: All right. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's no formal plans to come out of the ground that I'm aware of anytime soon. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. The earlier rendering of the hotel, it looked like there was some sort of a skylight -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: -- and a concave skylight. How tall was that? Just give us a little more detail. MR. BUMPOUS: Yeah. Let me address that. First of all, let me apologize. This is the most current picture I have. This was the artist rendering of creating a sweeping skylight over the center of the hotel. It will have a skylight. That's the plan. But it will be flat. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. MR. BUMPOUS: But even with this particular drawing, it's below the PUD maximum height of 50 feet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's a very attractive design, I must say. MR. BUMPOUS: This is just a difficult design and it's expensive, so the flat foot tends to make a lot more sense. And, quite frankly, no one is going to see it except when you're underneath it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Any other questions? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And this is still the hotel? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. BUMPOUS: Yes, sir, this is the hotel. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And is it a similar thing where you have an atrium in this fitness center also? MR. BUMPOUS: It is similar in that -- except this atrium in the hotel would actually be open, so you would see up through the glass into the sky, if you will. It will allow us to air condition the interior space and create a nice gathering space. Where the difference is with the fitness center, it would have more of a transom effect. So it would have a roof, but you would have like three feet of glass. So it, again, it allows sunlight to really penetrate the building. It's similar to what we've done on the administration building. Each floor plate from the window to the furthest wall is no more than 75 feet. What that does is it allows natural sunlight to penetrate, which everybody wants natural sunlight during the day, especially in the work environment, and so that's something we've worked really hard to create. I mean, we have this beautiful weather, so we want to make sure that everybody gets to enjoy it. And then kind of to flip that around, we've also worked with the engineering firms so that the lighting fixtures in the administration building, I know we're not talking about the administration building tonight, but they're designed so that they're indirect so you don't have light pollution coming out of the building. Yes, sir. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) there was the last building, your brand new building, your administration building, and now it's this. Do you see them being built at the same time? What is the time frame? MR. BUMPOUS: Great question. As far as timing, this building, ideally, will start in the spring, the administration building. That's our plan right now. In fact, we're already working with the county on those plans and approvals and everything. And then sometime later next year we would actually begin to work on these projects as well. The goal for us is to have everything completely done, buttoned up and beautiful by December 2019, the end of 2019. That's our objective. MR. YOVANOVICH: Anything else? That's all we have. Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you all very much. (Recording concluded.) STATE OF FLORIDA I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 16 contain a full, true and correct transcript of proceedings in the above -entitled matter, transcribed by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a digital audio recording. 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or employed by any of the parties in the above -entitled cause. 3. I am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this case. DATED: November 27, 2017 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: Joyce B. Howell Arthrex PUDA November 13, 2017 PROJECT TEAM Applicant: Counsel: Planning: Transportation: Arthrex, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, P.A. ,.. Awl 46 . I XV.;9 J Al . AwlA _ � ! r � -�.: • r +fir � All r wt�llz zz- 167 ..� yr"' .w . r• - t _ _ � tis"' - ^ '�T^7T"'�w - - � .� • 1[`, ..-:. 1 '[ F .wl r" fir „ r ANY z` `► .wIL C4LLOrl NonTM CC -LER hoRro ccuikn uTvrl 7.AF9( REBERvE PUD WEACA- HGiPIT4L fc1G WHAL [=G5Rf7 PIyK _... _. —1 IaF.N FYiin seiwnF� sba'Ara " j1I it LKIk NIS rfi 7x YME LSaMW.. , 4 ��• 1 �� CT 1., , Ik5 atia°a� Rs o� L4L !R 61 3 6 77 IJCi f A DART TRACT �ji � 2 _ � 51811 6�y1g1lr1vL ISS. r . f OF Tf+l PUD -4' • B TRACT 3 rsg n45 nun;:l If B j �y R ! ihlFFirlf `i' n L 9 TRACTSj �ICKUH51OFPKWY � TMT n e cFcC!fM ,4 Lt_TOtb11UG�A' IY �,FTR �.ow IA1C1Ai= Y 1 {7j s Arlt l—ltla,} �a A 1"L!aL0 S I . H.II] Schon 4'� 1 r k*r9+:*'�- vyac u+oerrrc I PRUESSIOI4L �.1� > 1! lhr il" "` y -1, , 4 �r = �.;.: I HEALTI Fih nMAPLES 3MLr'TRACT -v Il I h€H3rUD j lfc A1rh1 Ir4T krhk&Gtural Inwida•rps bav atki,1300 2ufdWica 1 114M 21 TRAGT 6 FM T L�1�aF +` _�- I + wiFe ra rnaF �r,.T ar 1 '� __ _�_ y �� 1&1,t 1'L3D Sirtltili 73. f R� r `. SS u14 7�A[k4FV! awrCF. 11 L �: --- ■yJy� II y ,�•,..,,�a nip, � r ti I ssrav �sv� b iGllr,¢ � - _ VG iLet fnlatE TRACT ` WAW 4'Wt*Lu�f— 1fV 12CH t: r p - I _•. I 17 UTEfWIrE 'R- tIL1FfTli: VA Ta Ti za uc. Gf�LLlEf i`afJf11� I. 1 SEWAGE TREATh%E11T L FLINT ■ 7 � LAND U5E SuMMY Zell 6ni:YiFf s T{C — MustrlalECornm-rroR _ Qig)± Ac �e•. i7lyGii aa►>xk.nh ec/n.l +L'IO�N�L "A�'NJRI;Ft 8 = &u ir' = 7-2.93+ Ac lcjye L�FILCEN Mhliil o�lp I >� ` — Uke = 7.17± Ac PVJ — PrEscrved VvcrJands - 2.90-+ Ac PL a Pm—q€rvpd Upbnds = 4.10E At L Other (hif�rs, own spam) = 9 B41 A -c 71— , LA �* #� �� 1— 171Y1S LAua09L1WL i IR:rrH TOTAL = 1'341_}C F Ar- fit Lfit n6fk IMaKf". T _ L r��nrouue IHtrv:rfe�c. I a ; ; � I.1 Lffl'l!lRrnw wr.+r Hn I_ q .�rw+w wear 900 oii�e, -,id 1. -FqSPLAH IS G7MGEPNIL F407 b SPi4mrG SIFZ4E'V. Jt1LCAEENtE{R - - Y �111tiR LEXATIONSARr WRWPOTE ++ �= 3. THE 2WIPfEIL DEAG"DOWS a1 VA*WlHIM$ E a q.' t,4,q RE#EA TO PW OXUWEX- Mk(aAlM Z'S MEW WHO MOBCAINED �1- li woppppp"- �.q 1/ 11, V- 1 �Mj1�� IIW ��-'��• rte' r�� t � � - � _ �_ r � � �� • ��ir3 r - �aa,� t 1. � ;E •ate. � � k• _. r � — e AGENDA ITEM 9.D STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COLTNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONINC DIVISION - ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 15, 2018 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20l70001345 MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMTINITY PLANNED I.'NIT DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent: NM Marco Shores, LLC. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 225 Banyan Blvd., suite 240 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Naples, FL 34102 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended, the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow group housing for seniors and new development standards, specific to Residential Parcel Two A. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 5.57+/- acres and is located near the Marco Island Executive Airport in Section 26, Township 5l South, Range 26 East, Collier County (see location map, page 2). PURPOSEiDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to amend the PUD to revise the multi-family section to allow a maximum of 240 group housing units for seniors on the area identified as "Residential Parcel Two A" on the proposed Master Plan, formerly "Residential Parcel Two." The petition also proposes development standards, including new setbacks, building heights, minimum living area, and minimum off-street parking requirements for gtoup housing on Residential Parcel Two A. The maximum height will also be increased for all other uses on this parcel. All other uses that are already permitted on Residential Parcel Two will still be permitted on this parcel. PUDA-PL2o17ooo1345 Page 1 of '13 March 2, 2018 ,l Zoning MapLocation Map Petition Number: PL201 7000 1345 t SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the Marco Shores Golf course Community puD ("Marco Shores PUD''): North: Drainage easement, then farther north is conservation land zoned Conservation Special Treatment (CON-ST). south: Right-of-way for Mainsail Drive, then farther south is golfcourse depicted as Golf Course (GC) on the Master Plan of the Marco Shores PUD. Maximum building height is 45 feet above the finished grade of the lot. East: Tract N, which is a platted utility site depicted as Utility Area on the Master plan of the Marco Shores PUD. Maximum building height is 35 feet above the finished grade of the lot. West: To the northwest, is a drainage easement zoned CON-ST. To the southwest is right- of-way for Mainsail Drive zoned Marco Shores PUD. PUDA-P120170001345 March 2, 20'18 Aeriol (County Property Appraiser Offce) Page 3 of 13 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMp. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed amendment to the PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP please, see Attachment 3 - FLUE Consistency Memorandun for a more detailed analysis of how staffderived this determination. Transportation Element (TE): In evaluating this project, Transportation Planning staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the TE of the GMP using the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the TE of the GMP states the following: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall counttwide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access o deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the curuent AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopled Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the trafic impoct statement reyeals that any of the following occur: a. For linl<s (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 20% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For linlu adjacent to linl<s directly accessed by the project where project trafic is equal to or exceeds 2'% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other linla the project trafrtc is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 30% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigalion plon prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the trafic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. PUOA-P120170001345 March 2,2018 Page 4 of 13 The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed senior housing development will generate approximately 60 PM peak-hour two-way trips which represents an equal trip generation from the currently approved multi-family development for this property. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Table 1. Traffic Impact Summary. Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed trips for the amended project within the five-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the TE of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff reviewed this PUD Amendment. No revisions to the environmental portions of the PUD are being made. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." Drainage: The proposed Marco Shores PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. The project is located adjacent to a major stormwater drainage outfall swale that flows directly into the adjacent Rookery Bay Estuary. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project's PUDA-P120'170001345 March 2, 2018 Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Existing LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2016 Remaining Capacity Collier Boulevard (c.R. esl) Mainsail Drive to Manatee Road D 2,200lnorth 536 Collier Boulevard (c.R. esl) Mainsail Drive to Marco Island Bridge C 2,200lnorth 609 Page 5 of 13 stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this PUD Amendment. Landscape Review: The subject property is identified on the Master Plan as Residential Parcel Two A. A Type B Buffer is required along the east property line where abutting the utitity site. A Type D Buffer is required along Mainsail Drive. No buffer is required along the no(h property line. These buffers would need to be shown on the eventual SDP. School District: The Collier County School District does not have any issue with the proposed amendment as it will not impact the District's level of service. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this PUD Amendment. utilities Review: The Marco Shores PUD is located within the collier county water-sewer District boundary but is excluded fiom County service area pursuant to an lnterlocal Agreement with the City of Marco Island, which provides both water and wastewater services to that development, referred to as the Hammock Bay Service Area. Pursuant to that agreement, the city of Marco Island purchases bulk water fiom the Collier County Water-Sewer District via a master meter near the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Mainsail Drive. The City of Marco Island has reviewed this PUD Amendment and determined the City will be able to meet the anticipated water and wastewater impacts. Zoning Services Review: The subject propefiy is labeled Residential Parcel Two on the current Master Plan of Marco Shores Golf course community PUD. This petition proposes to amend the Master Plan by relabeling the subject property as Residential Parcel Two,4. In addition, the applicant is proposing a new use (i.e., group housing for seniors) and development standards for that use on this relabeled parcel. The applicant indicated to staff that the group housing use will not include residents having substance abuse issues or who are developmentally disabled. From a zoning perspective, Zoning Staffdetermined the proposed use would be acceptable, given the context ofthe surrounding land uses. Emergency Management has met with the applicant and expressed its concerns regarding the possibility of senior housing having to evacuate due to the high likelihood of storm surge inundation. The developer indicated that they will build in an elevated fashion to be more surge and flood resilient. In support of the possible evacuation impacts on local shelters, the developer is committed to making a one-time contribution of evacuation cots to off-set the potential impacts fiom evacuation ofthe property, as described in the proposed PUDA. The new development standards would be nearly identical to those currently in effect for the subject property in accordance with Ordinance 2016-37. The changes to the development standards are summarized by Table 2 on the following page. PUDA-P120170001345 March 2. 2018 Page 6 of 13 Table 2. Proposed Changes to Development Standards. Standard Existing (Does not currently allow grouD housins) Proposed Minimum Setback From edge ofpavement of public roadways - 30 feet From road rights of way - 25 feet for group housing for seniors Minimum Front Setback for Single- Family Detached 30 feet 25 feet Height of Principal Structures 3 stories above the required floodplain elevation or one level of parking 4 stories above the required floodplain elevation or one level of parking but NTE: Zoned, Height of 58 feet Actual Heieht of 72 feet Maximum Height of Accessory Structures 20 feet above required flood plain elevation 20 feet above required floodplain but NTE: Zoned Height of 20 feet Actual Heieht of 25 feet Minimum Living Area (Principal Structures) 750 gross square feet of livine area per dwelline unit No minimum unit size for group housing Most of the above changes are minor. All new standards apply only to group housing, except for maximum building height, which would be applied to any use proposed on the parcel, and minimum front setbacks for single-family homes, which would decrease from 30 feet to 25 feet. For principal structures, the current development standards for the subject property allows for a maximum height of three stories above the required floodplain elevation or one level of parking. This PUD Amendment proposes a maximum height of four stories or one level of parking not to exceed a zoned height of 58 feet and an actual height of 72 feet. While the maximum height proposed for this petition is greater than what is currently allowed, it is still less than the maximum allowed elsewhere in the PUD (i.e., seven stories above the finished grade with the option of having one floor of parking beneath). Staff determined the proposed development standards would be appropriate for this parcel and compatible with the PUD. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics ofthe land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The existing area is suitable for the proposed PUD Amendment with respect to characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, sewer, water, and other utilities. The City of Marco lsland currently provides water and wastewater service to the Marco Shores PUD. PUDA-P1201 70001 345 March 2, 2018 Page 7 of 13 1 This petition is not expected to create a drainage problem, because the Rookery Bay Estuary has the drainage concurrency necessary to prevent adverse impacts (under normal conditions). staff notes that the subject site is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area AE6, which will likely require any skilled nursing facility to have a finished floor elevation of at least 15.5 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD). Also, there appears to be a significant storm-surge threat in the event of a major storm, which would likely necessitate evacuation. Emergency Management staff recommended mitigating strategies that have been incorporated into the PUD Document. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance ofsuch areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with rhe application, which were reviewed by the County Attomey,s Office, demonstrate unihed control ofthe property. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staffhas reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analpls section of this staff report, stafl s opinion is that the proposed amendment will result in a project that will be compatible with the surrounding area. Ifan SPD is required, it will show all required perimeter landscape buffers. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. No deviation from required usable open space is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the TE consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate tuming movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans. PUDA-P120170001345 March 2,2018 3. 4. Page I of '13 1 The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including City of Marco Island potable water and wastewater systems, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner, assertions made by the City, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications ofsuch regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. All future development proposed on Residential Parcel Two A would have to comply the LDC and other applicable codes. The petitioner is not requesting any deviations to the LDC. Rezone F indinss: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners. ..shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed changewill be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staffdetermined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattem (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use pattems ofthe surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation ofan isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such. This amendment merely seeks to introduce a new principal use and development standards for Residential Parcel Two A. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries ofthe PUD. The Master Plan would be updated by relabeling the subject property. PUDA-P120170001345 March 2, 2018 8. Page 9 of 13 1 Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage ofthe proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to include the proposed uses and development standards that are specific to the subject parcel. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the PUD Document. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at time of SDP and/or PPL. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated the changes proposed in this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be intemal or extemal to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host offactors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The subject property is currently vacant and staff does not anticipate this amendment serving as a detenent to its improvement. PUDA-P120170001345 March 2, 2018 9. 10. Page 10 of 13 5. 8. 12.Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light ofthis fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship, because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed use (group housing) and development standards cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff s opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petrtion was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and,/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives ofthe GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. PUDA-P12017000134s March 2,2018 Page '1 1 of 13 as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part ofthe amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection ofthe public health, safety, and welfare. NEIGHBORIIOOD INFORMATION MEETING NIM): The applicant held a NIM at the Marco Island Library on September 19,2017. The NIM started at approximately 5:39 p.m. One person fromthepublic signed in. The applicant,s team explained the proposed amendment and clarified the maximum allowed zoned height would be 58 feet and the maximum actual height would be '/2 feet. }/'r. Wayne Amold (agent) explained the land is entitled to 100 multi-family dwelling units, which from a traffic perspective, equates to 240 senior housing units. The public primarily asked questions about the utility site on the abutting property, waterfront access, and public noticing for future hearings. The documents provided by the agent that were available for public inspection did not indicate the proposed decrease to the front setbacks for single-family homes. The NIM ended at approximately 5:50 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attomey's Office reviewed this staff report on February 21,2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments : l) 2) 3) 4) s) 6) 7) Proposed Ordinance Application and Support Material FLUE Consistency Memorandum Density Map LIDAR Legal Notifications Emails Letters from Public PUDA-P120170001345 March 2,2018 Page 12 ot 13 ERIC JOFTNSON, AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION ZONING SERVICES SECTION PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA-P120170001345 z-f zc/rt DATE z .L6.lB DATE 2-2o- 0 DATE 3-t- /3 DATE BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER SION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION Page 13 of '13 RAYMOND JAMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 81-6, AS AMENDED, THE MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO ALLOW GROUP HOUSING FOR SENIORS ON RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO A, AND TO ADD NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO A; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA- PL20170001345]. WHEREAS, on September 8, 1998, The Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 81-6, which established the Planned Unit Development (PUD) now known as the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD zoning classification; and WHEREAS, the PUD was amended by Ordinance Nos. 85-56, 94-41, 16-37, 16-38 and Collier County Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-29; and WHEREAS, NM Marco Shores, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 81-6, as amended, the Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION I: AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 81-6, AS AMENDED The Marco Shore Golf Course Community PUD Document attached to Ordinance Number 81-6, as amended, is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION II: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUDA-PL20170001345, 2/5/18 Page 1 of 2 46J PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney L,zdsl)$ 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA mm ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Exhibit A — amendment to Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Document Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUDA-PL20170001345, 2/5/18 Page 2 of 2 0 Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Revised PUD Language SECTION IV MULTI -FAMILY *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** 4,07 REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO A 4.07.01 USES PERMITTED Residential and group housing uses may not be jointly developed on Residential Parcel Two A. Only one of the two LISeS may be developed. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (1) Boardwalks, viewing stands or docks, and nature trails not associated with any particular multi -family development. (2) Golf Course uses (1), (5) and. (6) as set forth in 5.02.A. (3) GrOLIV housing, for seniors including assisted living, continuing care retirement communities, skilled nursing;, memory care and independent living facilities. Not to exceed 240 total Units/beds of GI-OUr) 110using. (4) Individual housing L111itS including townhOLIses, zero lot line, villas and cluster housing. (5) Multi -family residential buildings and single family detached. (6) Non-commercial boat launching facilities and multiple docking areas with a maximum extension into the waterwav of 20 feet, in accordance with Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code. (7) Parks, playgrQUnds, playfields and commonly owned open space. (8) Residential Clubs, intended to serve the surrounding residential area. (9) Water management facilities. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures:. (1) Customary accessory uses and structures, including parking structures. Words underlined are additions; words struek tho-eugh are deletions Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, PL20170001345 Last Revised 0210512018 Page I of 4 Exhibit A (a Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Revised PUD Language (2) Signs as permitted by the Collier County Land Development Code. (3) Model homes. apartments and sales offices shall be permitted in conjunction with the promotion of the development. in accordance with the Land Development Code. 4.07.02 MINIMUM LOT AREA: Multi -family: One (1) net acre. Single Family Detached: 7500 square feet. Other Residential 'Types: In conformance with approved site development plan. 4.07.03 MINIMUM YARDS — MULTI-FAMILY/GROUP HOUSING A. Setbacks from parcel boundaries — twenty feet (20') or one-half (1/2) the heig,ht of the structure, whichever is greater. B. Setbacks from edge of'pavement of public roadways — thirty feet (30'), for residential structures. C. Setbacks from road rights Zts of way twenty-five feet 25'), for group housing for seniors. D. Distance between an two principal structures —one-half (1/2) the sum of their heights, but not less than twenty feet (20'). E. In the case of clustered buildings with a common architectural theme, these distances may be less provided that a site development plan is approved by the Zoning Division Director, 4.07.04 MINIMUM YARDS - SINGLE FAMILY A. Single Family Detached: (l) Front setback.: 25' (2) Side setback: 7-1/2' (3) Rear setback: 20' B. Other than single-family detached: All setbacks in accordance with the approved site plan. Words underlined are additions; words struekc-t#reugh are deletions Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, PL20170001345 Last Revised 02/05/2018 Page 2 of 4 0 Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Revised PUD Language 4.07.05 MAXIMUM HEIGHT A. Principal structures — four (4) stories above the required floodplain elevation oronelevel of parking not to exceed: Zoned I leight: 58 feet Actual He4zht: 72 feet B. Accessory structures — twenty feet (20') above required flood plain elevation not to exceed:, Zoned llei�ht: 20 feet Actual I (eight: 25 feet 4.07.06 MINIMUM LIVING AREA OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES Principal residential use structures shall contain a niillinlUni of seven hundred and fifty (750),gross square feet ofliving area per dwellim,, unit within principal structure for multi -family use. There shall be no minimum unit size for grOUP housing for seniors use. 4.07.07 OFF-STREET PARKING Principal uses shall provide a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit for multi -family use. Parking for group housiiig, for seniors shall be in accordance with the LDC. 4.07.08 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS Group housing for seniors shall be subject to the architectural standards under LDC Section 5.05.08. 4.07.09 GROUP HOUSING FOR SFNIORS STANDARDS A. Anygroup hOLISillg; for seniors facility shall be equipped with an emergency generator with sufficient fuel supply for 7 days. The generator shall be equipped with a noise attenuation device or shall be enclosed. B. To provide for hurricane evacuation mitigation, the developer of a rOLIV housing for seniors. except independent senior housing, facility shall provide 50 medical cots deliverable to Collier County within 30 days after SDP approval. Words underlined are additions; words stpuek thre ugh are deletions Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, PL20170001345 Last Revised 0210512018 Page 3 of 4 Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD Revised PUD Language SECTION VII DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** 7.07 PUD MONITORING One entitv (hereinafter the Managing, Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satistving all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD gpprovai. the Managing Entity is WCI Communities, [.l,C, C/O Lennar Corp., Mr. Barry Ernst, 10481 Ben C Pratt Pkwy, Fort Myers, FL 33966. 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 entitv shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgemetit of the commitments required by, the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing, Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the iiionitoring, and ftiffillment of PUD commitments. 7.08 MISCELLANEOUS A. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. B. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in anv wav create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agencv and does not create any liability on the part of the COU11tV for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. Words underlined are additions; words soi-mek Ar-eWh are deletions Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, PL20170001345 Last Revised 0210512018 Page 4 of 4 0 O u A NOTES: A LANDSCAPED BUFFER, WITH AN AVERAGE WIDTH OF 10 FEET, WILL BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ENTRY ROAD. THIS BUFFER WILL BE SIMILAR TO A TYPE "B" BUFFER AS IDENTIFIED IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, EXCEPT THAT THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PLANTS MAY BE CLUSTERED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VISTAS AND FILTERED VIEWS OF THE ADJACENT GOLF COURSE THE INTENT OF THE BUFFER CLUSTERS SHALL BE TO ACHIEVE 70% OPACITY WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PLANTING. OBUILDING SEPARATION BETWEEN FAIRWAYS 1 CONDOMINIUM AND GOLF CLUB PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES SHALL BE 600 FEET. 3. LANDS IDENTIFIED AS "NATURAL PRESERVE" ARE CONSERVATION LANDS OWNED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA PURSUANT TO THE DELTONA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ARE NOT PART OF THIS PUD. Land USE Parks 5.2 Ac. Roads L6 Ac. Malnsall Drive 20.3 Ac. Existing Utility Site L4 Ac. GC - Golf Course, Club & Open Space 182-2 Ac. Residential 64.2 Ac. Existing Residential 38.8 Ac. Total 314.7 Petition Number PL20170001345 i Revised May 10 2017 by: ® GradyMinor PUD MASTER PLANcNuRam t.nasu, M.—tam ACRtme rM N.T.S. PREPARED BY: WILSON MILLER. PN: 0528-014-001 FILE: D-0528-04 a.xi.aww'. zsR.sn.,,M ..'a..a�rn...... t+..N� sseaRR.neR Nn —1/8/2016 %0 Enm way ioawrt .0 rws n REvrED PER COUNTY c'OMNENIS 8-25-16 RLYLSLD PER COUNTY COMM qs b'•.i 16 MARCO SHORES OIO�O�NSK ; T zu,e ` Napim FL 3°"o PrK.,e,(239)2M-2000 MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE a� mrt°d°'"`o OOO00000 Oo00-00 --- ----- -a-xaia l 01e - -_ F�eacorucateof COMMUNITY PUD MASTER PLAN —- — 1&1 REv6Eti ('EJt cOUwrY COMMFNTB ® EXHIBIT"E" "O"1pLOY 1°®""`r"` Cf�GiFBtSflAMl63d1kE1TM13 Uumn AuvatNo.1T72 2015.089 oT 1 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 3 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner, Zoning Services From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Date: January 30, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL201700001345 - REV:5 PETITION NAME: Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment REQUEST: To amend the Marco Shores Golf Course Community Planned Unit Development (Marco Shores PUD), originally approved via Ordinance #81-6 and most recently amended via Ordinance #16-37, to add a new Section IV Multi-Family, 4.07 Regulations for the newly proposed Residential Parcel Two A. Residential Parcel Two A is proposed to have all the same uses as the previously approved Section IV Multi-Family, but also add an additional use for an Assisted Living Facility, however, the proposed language states, “residential and group housing may not be jointly developed on Parcel Two A.” The amendment is also proposing a new PUD text section (7.07 PUD Monitoring) that would regulate the entire PUD to ensure that should the managing entity wish to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, a legally binding document must be submitted to the County Attorney for legal sufficiency approval. This petition proposed a new PUD text section (7.08 Miscellaneous) to address permitting issuance. Submittal 3 included a revised statement of utility provisions and a withdrawal of a request for a deviation. Submittal 4 revised the Statement of Utility Provisions and revised the PUD document to indicate the maximum of 240 units/beds. Submittal 5 has revised the PUD document to add a one-time hurricane mitigation commitment for 50 cots. LOCATION: The ±314.7-acre subject property, Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD, is located approximately 4 miles south of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and on the east side of Collier Blvd. (SR 951) at the Mainsail Drive, in Sections 26, 27, and 28, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject PUD is designated Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Urban Mixed-Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. “Group housing uses”, which include Assisted Living Facilities, are allowed in the Urban designation. FLUE Policy 5.10 states, “Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 3 Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004) and consistent with the locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas.” The project site is located within an Urban designated area, and therefore, group housing is allowed. The Growth Management Plan’s Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 12.1.14 requires, “All new nursing homes and assisted living facilities that are licensed shall have a core area to shelter residents and staff on site. The core area will be constructed to meet the Public Shelter Design Criteria that are required for new public schools and public community colleges and universities (“State Requirements for Educational Facilities,” (2014). Additionally, this area shall be capable of ventilation or air conditioning provided by back-up generator for a period of no less than seventy-two (72) hours.” This requirement should be addressed in the design at the time of the site development application. The purpose of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Conservation designated area (primarily located to the south of the Subdistrict) and the remainder of the Urban designated area (primarily located to the north of the Subdistrict). The Marco Shores PUD is partially built-out. Relevant to this petition, the subject PUD is a portion of the lands addressed by the Deltona Settlement Agreement (Unit 27). In this agreement, the developer was allotted certain developable tracts while other acreage was placed into State ownership. According to Ordinance #81-6 (which was the original Ordinance for Marco Shores PUD), “The project is vested under the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The determination of vesting provided for in Chapter 380.06 (4)(a) has been completed. The project is vested for 1980 residential units.” 321 acres were approved for development via Ordinance #81-6, which is a density of approximately 6.17 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) (1980 DUs/321 acres = 6.17 DU/A) The vested 1980 residential units was amended via Ordinance #94-41 Section 2.05 Project Density stating, “The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 1580.” Ordinance #16-37 reduced the total number of gross acres from ±321 to ±314.7 acres and kept the maximum number of dwelling units at 1580. Ordinance #16-37 Section 2.05 Project Density states, “The number of dwelling units per gross acres is approximately 5.0.” (1580 DUs/314.7 Acres = 5.02 DU/A). Although the PUD is only eligible for 3 DU/A (base of 4 DU/A less 1 DU/A for lying within the CHHA = 3 DU/A) according to the FLUE Density Rating System, the PUD is currently approved for 1580 DUs, or 5.02 DU/A. Since this PUDA does not increase or decrease the number of total acres or the number of requested dwelling units, no change is proposed to the Marco Shores PUD density. Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis [in bold]. FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.] 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 3 of 3 FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD fronts Collier Blvd. (SR 951), an arterial road and the proposed Master Plan Exhibit ‘E’ depicts existing Mainsail Drive running along the northern portion of the subject property from Collier Blvd. (SR 951) on the western boundary to the Marco Island Executive Airport on the eastern boundary and with an access into the subject site, Residential Parcel Two A. Mainsail Drive connects the varying residential areas and golf course of Marco Shores PUD to Collier Blvd. (SR 951), an arterial road.] FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The proposed Master Plan Exhibit ‘E’ shows an internal access to the subject site proposed to allow ALF use, extending northward from Mainsail Drive. Although, there are no loop roads shown on the Updated Master Plan Exhibit ‘E’, Mainsail Drive does act as a collector to bring traffic from all parts of Marco Shores PUD to Collier Blvd. (SR 951), with internal circulation roads running throughout the PUD.] FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The proposed Marco Shores Golf Course PUD Master Plan shows an interconnection to the east to the Marco Island Executive Airport. Marco Shores western boundary abuts Collier Blvd. (SR 951), the north and south boundaries abut undeveloped wetlands designated in the FLUM as Conservation land.] FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The proposed Marco Shores Master Plan does not show any sidewalks; however, there is no request for a sidewalk deviation and therefore, sidewalks should be provided in accordance with the Land Development Code. This application is expanding the types of housing that will be permitted allowing for a range of housing prices and types. The proposed Master Plan indicates there will be 5.2 acres of Parks and 182.2 acres or open space, golf course and club in the land use summary. The PUD allows an accessory use such as a clubhouse, which is sometimes used for civic uses, e.g. polling place.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL2017-1345 Marco Shores R5.docx p 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet Zoning: PUD PUD Zoning: CON-ST S h ell Isla n d R D Mainsail DR Marsh DR Runaway LN Borghese LN Bell agi o DRR ialto WA Y Tavolara LNMallards WAY Ibiza LN Cullowee LN Cotuit LN Pi a z z a L NRunaway CTMallards PTMajorca LN Zoning: CON-ST Zoning: PUD Zoning: PUD P Zoning: MH COLLIER BLVDPrepared by: Beth Yang, AICPGrowth Management DepartmentDate: Jan. 10, 2018 GROSS DENSITY UNITS PE R ACRE (UPA) FO R MARCO SHO RES PUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ³ MARC. SHRS/F IDLR'S CRKDensity:2.08 SUBJECT PROPERTY:MARCO SHORES PUD MARC. SHRS/FIDLR'S CRKDensity:2.08 B aiLrwui NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1927004 PUDA-PL20170001345 4500182060 Pub Dates February 23,2018 0-61a/1 Sign ture of affiant) p*......'' KAROLEKANGAS 1 ida Sworn to and subscribed before me F Notaryyco mmiiscbntGGGG 22KO4l This February 23,2018 4 -',:`>; My Comm,Expires 16120 iy2021 1BatdmithroONallonalNotAin atwilimererwwwwwwww and okrnera Signature of affiant) 12A 1 FRIDAY,FEBRUARY 23,2018 1 NAPLES DAILY NEWS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER Planning Commission(CCPC)at 9:00 A.M.,March 15,2018,in the Board of County AN ORDINANCE Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples FL.,to consider: Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Pluming Commission(CCPC)at 9:00 A,M.,March 15,2018,in the Board of County Commissioners A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples FL.,to AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE NO.2002-51,AS AMENDED, consider: THE LAWMETKA PLAZA PUD,TO ADD A THIRD ACCESS POINT ON WIGGINS PASS ROAD,TO LIMIT THE EASTERN MOST ACCESS POINT ON WIGGINS AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER PASS ROAD TO RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT,TO LIMIT THE WESTERN MOST ACCESS COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41,AS AMENDED, POINT ON WIGGINS PASS ROAD TO SERVICE AND DELIVERY VEHICLES ONLY, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE TO ADD A DEVELOPER COMMITMENT RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF AND TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN,THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED COLLIER COUNTY.FLORIDA,BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE US.41 AND WIGGINS PASS ROAD OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED INTERSECTION,IN SECTION 16,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST, REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL(Al ZONING DISTRICT TO A COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF±34 ACRES.[PL2016(N102106] RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(RPUD)ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE RUSHTON POINTE RPUD,TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 229 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD,APPROXIMATELY TWO THIRDS OF A m MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD,IN SECTION 27,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE m a a 26 EAST,CONSISTING OF 38.1.ACRES.[PL 20150000306] a° 1 PROJECT Jj° ORATION ' Ynmokalee RD Wiggins Pass RD¢ E i NNW Lakes DR to AVE N11Immokalee RD 1,-"l, \, I Tree Farm Rd MI interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed PROJECT f RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's LOQATtQ" O Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to March 15,2018, All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Wntten comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will Section,prior to March 15,2018. need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate is made.which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located If you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112.5356,(239)252-8380,at least proceeding.you me entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite101, available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380.at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing mpaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman Mark Strain,Chairman February 23,2018 ND-1927040 February 23,2010 ND-1927015 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given thatapublic hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County CCPC)at 9.00 A.M.,March 15,2018.in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Planning Commission( rs Mee at 9:00 A.M.,March 15,2018,in the Board Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples FL.,w consider: of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples FL,to consider: FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2006-50,THE CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(CPDD),AS AMENDED,BY ADDING OUT- COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 81-6,AS DOOR RECREATION FACILITIES AS A GENERAL PERMITTED USE;BY PROVIDING THAT AMENDED,THE MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PLANNED WELLNESS CENTERS ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYEES AND HOTEL GUESTS SHALL NOT UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD),TO ALLOW GROUP HOUSING FOR SENIORS COUNT TOWARDS SQUARE FOOTAGE MAXIMUMS IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND ON RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO A,AND TO ADD NEW DEVELOPMENTINDUSTRIALCOMMERCIALDISTRICT;BY ALLOWING A 169 ROOM HOTEL ON TRACT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO A;AND PROVIDING FOR AN6WESTOFGOODLETTEFRANKROAD;BY DECREASING TILE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY 6,900 SQUARE FEET FOR A EFFECTIVE DATE,FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE MARCO ISLAND TOTAL OF 709,100 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA OF INDUSTRIAI/COMMERCE USES; EXECUTIVE AIRPORT IN SECTION 26,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 26 BY DECREASING THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT BY EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20170001345]. 23,000 SQUARE FEET TO 269,000 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING A REDUCTION FROM 242,000 SQUARE FEET TO 219,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES;BY ADDING INDOORION OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE IN THE BUST- NESS DISTRICT AND INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:BY ADDING DEVIATIONSTOALLOWANYUSEONTRACTS3AND6ONTHEMASTERPLANTOBEELIGIBLEFOR THE COUNTY'S ARCHITECTURAL DEVIATION PROCESS AND A DEVIATION TO PERMITEXISTINGSTREETTREESTOSATISFYTHEBUFFERTREEREQUIREMENTSFORTRACT5LOCATION TILE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTII OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND BOTII EAST AND WEST OF 0t0DLETTE FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 27,TOWNSHIP 40 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 106 ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20170000425] 0 PROJECT r LOCATION 3 e 2 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier e 0 County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 a East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled g hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning k8 Services Section,prior to March 15,2018. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County All interested parties am invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's race,fourth floor,Collier County Govern- or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he mens Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401.Naples,FL.one week prior to the scheduled hearing. may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section.prim to March record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be 15,2018. based. If a person decides to appeal my decision made by the Colder County Planning Commission with respect to any maner considered at such meenng or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding, If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this pro- Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples, ceeding,you are entitled.at no cost to you.to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East.Suite 101,Naples, Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for of County Commissioners Office. the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier Cowry Pluming Commission Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain.Chairman Mark Strain,Chairman February 23,2018 ND-1926369 February 23,2018 ND-1927004 Marco Shores Golf Course Community PUD February 22, 2018 Page 1 of 1 Hearing Sign Photos.docx PL20170001345 – Posted February 22, 2018 COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department February 23, 2018 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on March 15, 2018, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 81-6, AS AMENDED, THE MARCO SHORES GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO ALLOW GROUP HOUSING FOR SENIORS ON RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO A, AND TO ADD NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PARCEL TWO A; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PUDA-PL20170001345]. You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing. NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECT ED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW, A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the staff member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, Eric Johnson Eric Johnson Principal Planner N C o llie rB L V DBald Eagle DRCollier BLVDTamiami TRL E X3 X1 À2À4À1 À2 À1 À1 À1 X1.1 À1 À1À5 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À2 X1 À1 À1 À1 À1 À1 ÀB1 ÀB1 À2 À1 ÀA1 X1 À1 À1 À2 À1 À1 À1À1.3À1 À1 À1À1 À1 À1À1.2 À1 À1 À1À1 À1 X1 X1 X1 ÀA1 À2 À2 À3 TRACT A MAINSAIL IICONDO MAINSAIL ICONDO TRAMAINSAIL IIICONDO TRACT TRAC TU1 FAIRWAYS II ATMARCO SHORES CONDOU2 TRAC T U3(L A K E )TRACT LTRAC T O(LAKE) TRAC T M(LAKE) FAIRWAYS IATMARCOSHORES CONDO MAINSAIL IVCONDO TRACT PTRACT T (LAKE) TR L TRAC TTRACT C K TR A C T A TRAC T K TRAC TB TRAC THTRACT G(GOLF COU RSE) RIALTO ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TRACT J(GOLF COU RSE)TRAC TF(LAKE) TRAC T E TRAC T I(LAKE)TRAC T Y(LAKE)TRAC T D GOVT LOT 3 GOVT LOT 2 GOVT LOT 4 1 AVERSANA ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TRACT B TRACT "N" TRACT "P"TRACT T(LAKE)TR TRACT "Q""M" TROPIC SCHOONERCONDO TRACT E TRAC T S(LAKE) TRACT N TRACT R(LAKE) GOVT LOT 1 GOVT LOT 8 GOVT LOT 5 GOVT LOT 6 GOVT LOT 9 TRACT Z TRACT X (LAKE) TRACT W (LAKE) DEVELOPMENT TRACT #B DEVELOPMENT TRACT B CONSERVATION TRACT #2 CONSERVATION TRACT #1 DEVELOPMENT TRACT A DEVELOPMENT TRACT A TR ACT V (GOLF COURSE) SERANO ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO LESINA ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TROPIC SCHOONERCONDO BORGHESE ATHAMMOCK BAYCONDO TRACT ATRACT DPORTION OF MAINSAIL DRVACATED PER OR 5285 PG 867RESOL 2016-1212.9 ACCOLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )MAINSAIL DRIVE MAINSAIL DR COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )COLLIER BOULEVARD ( S.R. 951 )MAINSAIL DR PE PUD PUD PUD CON-ST PUD A-ST A-ST P PUD MARCO SHORESCOUNTRY CLUB MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'SCRK Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL20170001345 PROJEC TLOCATION SITELOCATION ¹PUD CONSERVANCY of Southwest Florida - OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE, FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. September 26, 2017 Sent via email Eric Johnson, Principal Planner Growth Management Division Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34114 Re: PL20170001345- Proposed Amendment to PUD for Marco Shores Dear Eric: Thank you for including our letter of July 25, 2017 in your response to the proposed amendment for Marco Shores PUD, referenced above. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, as a signatory to the 1982 Deltona Settlement Agreement and in fulfillment of its oversight authority stands by the position expressed in that letter. The events of Hurricane Irma underscore the importance of ensuring development projects such as this are built on smart growth principles-- in particular, preserving mangrove fringe for protection from storm surge, and coastal erosion. I have enclosed a copy of the July 25th letter for the record. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Alison Wescott Senior Environmental Planning Specialist Conservancy of Southwest Florida has been awarded Chanty Navigator's prestigious 4 -Star top rating for good governance, sound fiscal management and commhmeni to accountabtKy and transparency. Charity Navigator is America's largest and most respected independent evaluator of chanties. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1 239.262,0304 1 Fax 239.262.0672 1 www.cornservancy.org CONSERVANCY O Southwest Florida MW OUR WATER, LAND, WILDLIFE: FUTURE. Protecting Southwest Florida's unique natural environment and quality of life ... now and forever. July 25, 2017 Eric Johnson, Principal Planner Growth Management Division Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: PI -20170001345 -Amendment to PUD for Marco Shores Dear Eric, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, as a signatory to the 1982 Deltona Settlement Agreement (Settlement), and in fulfillment of our oversight authority, respectfully submits the following comments regarding the review of the Project PL20170001345- for an amendment to the PUD for Marco Shores, by Collier County. The parcel, known as "Track B", or "Residential Parcel Two" (on the north side of the PUD) is located within an "Approved Development Area", as identified within Exhibit B of the Settlement, and therefore can be developed. However, the mangrove fringe waterward of Tract B, according to the Collier County Property Appraiser's website, is owned by the State of Florida's Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. This area is included in Exhibit F of the Settlement, and is outside the "Approved Development Area". Per Paragraph 2 of the Settlement, "No dredging, filling, drainage or destruction of vegetation outside the Development Areas is permitted under the terms of this Stipulation and Agreement." Therefore, everything waterward of Tract B is protected and therefore cannot be impacted by this proposed PUD amendment, or any subsequent proposed Site Development Plans. Specifically, any proposed construction on this site must not touch or impact the protected mangroves along the shoreline. This would necessarily preclude the construction of any boat docks, walkways, boardwalks, or seawalls and other structures along the shoreline that might come in contact with the fringe of mangrove trees. In addition, there should be no trimming or cutting of the mangrove trees. We would be happy to discuss this with you to clarify matters. The Conservancy will continue its oversight of the Marco Shores PUD, in fulfillment of its responsibilities under the Deltona Settlement. Sincerely, Alison O. Wescott Conservancy of Southwest Ronda has been awarded Charity Navigator's prestigious 4 -Star top rating for good governance, sound fiscal management and commitment to accountability and transparency. Charity Navigator is Amenca's largest and most respected independent evaluator of charities. 1495 Smith Preserve Way I Naples, Florida 34102 1 239.262.0304 1 Fax 239.262.0672 1 www.conservancy.org Mainsail DR Borghese LN Collier BLVDR i a lt o WA Y P i a z z a L NBorghese LNM ainsailD R Mainsail DR MainsailDRCollier BLVDMarco Shores PUD Lidar *ALL GRADES NAVD ¹ Created by: GIS Team - GMDN7/17 0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles LIDAR 2007 <VALUE> 10.6 - 11 10.1 - 10.5 9.6 - 10 9.1 - 9.5 8.6 - 9 8.1 - 8.5 7.6 - 8 7.1 - 7.5 6.6 - 7 6.1 - 6.5 5.6 - 6 5.1 - 5.5 4.6 - 5 4.1 - 4.5 -9.4 - 4 Disclaimer: These lidar maps are provided for internal County government use. They are not intendedto be relied upon by any third parties. AGENDA ITEM 9-E Attachment A AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE 1 hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 26 day of May, 2017 by Theresa Fernandez, Vice President of Planning Development Inc., who is personally known to me or who has produced 'Vt CL as identification. (Signature of Notary Public) (Nolan Seat) Printed Name of Notary "ir:'"'•, HEATHER WERT2 �A GiF s MV COMMISSIONXGG 079271 `t EXPIRES:Apra2021 ♦fpr.,�g'� 8oneea Tluu Norryvubkunerwwis G:�NIM Procedure Affidavit Offomphance - NIM Ocf2010om ACKERMAN, JENNIFER H 1160OKFORD LN NAPLES, FL 34105---0000 AMORELLO, BENEDETTO & ANTONIA 14718 27TH AVE FLUSHING, NY 11354---1435 BARNHART, CAROLL M JANET HILL-BARNHART 14916 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 BENSINK, TOM 2870 PEACHTREE RD #232 ATLANTA, GA 30305---0000 BODA, ZOLTAN MARIANN LOSONCZI AKACOS UTCA 14 FOT HUNGARY 2151 BOWERS 1R, GARY 1 & TRICIA A 14842 FRIPP ISLAND CT NAPLES, FL 34119---4818 BUIST, TIMOTHY S & MICHELLE M 14830 TYBEE ISLAND DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4826 CAMPOBASSO, GIACOMO 14454 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4808 CEPERO, DAVID & DANIELLE M 14920 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 0918/09 ISO RJany oane alggedwoo ww Z9 x ww 93lewJOJ ap aUanb113 09 L9/09 L9® tiany gpM alglledwoo ,8/9 Z X.1 ays lagel ADMIRE, DAVID & SHELLY ALBERTSON, LANCE E & DAWN M 14884 INDIGO LAKES DR 14956 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 ARGO WARM SPRINGS LLLP AVILA, RICARDO N & ELIZABETH C 21141 BELLA TERRA BLVD 14929 INDIGO LAKES DR ESTERO, FL 33928---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 BARRAL, PATRICIA M 14880 PLEASANT BAY LANE #2202 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 BIBEE, RICHARD C & CAROL L 14819 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119--4813 BOLAND, ANNE 5600 CYPRESS HOLLOW WAY NAPLES, FL 34109---5907 BRBUTOVIC, NERMIN SAFET BRBUTOVIC SAFCET BRBTUTOVIC 39 MARYLAND BLVD HAMPTON BAYS, NY 11946---2654 BURKE, JEROME L 4544 ROCKY RIVER DR CLEVELAND, OH 44135---3858 CAPE ACQUISITION RENTAL HOLDINGS LLC 10951 BONITA BEACH ROAD BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0000 CHENG, MARY XIANGHONG MEI MARK SUI FAI CHENG 1795 RIBBON FAN LANE NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 COLLIER PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 110101 NAPLES, FL 34108---0000 BATTEN, JEANETTEP TOMASA I PRADO 14948 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 BINNER, DONALD W & VIRGINIA M 14905 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 6104 NAPLES, FL 34119---7829 BOUTOT, CHERYL 14941 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 BRITTANY BAY PARTNERS LTD %CONCORD MANAGEMENT, LTD ATTN: REAL ESTATE SERVICES PO BOX 940279 MAITLAND, FL 32794---0279 CALLIS, CRAIG L 3682 EL SEGUNDO CT NAPLES, FL 34109---0000 CAZARES, TAMMY 14925 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 COHEN, LINDA R 14852 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 CONSTANCE C TUCKER TRUST 14880 PLEASANT BAY LN #2101 NAPLES, FL 34119---7811 ®label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery ®5160/8160 COURTERSHEETS,COLEEN M LOUIS E SHEETS 14833 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4813 CRYSTAL LAKE PROPERTIY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TWO INC 14960 COLLIER BLVD N 4001 NAPLES, FL 34119---7713 CUTHBERTSON, WILLIAM P & MARY 14834 TYBEE ISLAND DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4826 DELAHAY, MARTIN C & BRENDA 1 14892 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 DOLAN 1R, JOHN P 312 HORSENECK RD FAIRFIELD, NJ 07004---1608 ESTRADA, IVONNEL 14970 PLEASANT BAY LANE 111104 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 FARRELL, THOMAS A 14900 PLEASANT BAY LN 47204 NAPLES, FL 34119---7827 FILIPIAK, SHERRI L 14913 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119--4802 FORNES, MARGOT 14870 PLEASANT BAY LN #1207 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 FREEDMAN, DARREN 14933 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 0918/0919® tiany pane algpedwoo ww 29 x ww 9Z tewJol ap aLlanblf3 0918/0919® tiany qpm afggedwoo „g/q Z x„1 azls lagel CRAIG, DOUGLAS C & KIMBERLY M CRYSTAL LAKE PROP OWNR ASSOC 2 14888 INDIGO LAKES DR 14960 COLLIER BLVD N 4001 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---7713 CUCCUINI, GEOFFREY W & DONNA 14880 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 CYR, DENIS LEO JOAN MARIE VANDER DOELEN 1180 QUEENS AVE OAKVILLE, ON CANADA L6H285 DILL, MICHAEL ROSS DAHLIA KATHRYN OATES 14940 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 DRIESNER, ARNOLD G & CYNTHIA J 3728 RIDGEVIEW ROAD EDWARDSVILLE, IL 62025---0000 FAILLA, MICHAEL J RAJ A GUPTA 515 GORGAS LN PHILADELPHIA, PA CUSTER, DAVID A & JANET S 14845 FRIPP ISLAND CT NAPLES, FL 34119---4819 DAU, HAI VAN DOAN 14840 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 DILLINGER, MICHAEL F JACQUELINE M DILLINGER 14905 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 6202 NAPLES, FL 34119---7830 ENGELAGE, FRED & MIL 45 COATES RD W OSHAWA, ON CANADA L1H7K FAIRHOMES SILVER LINING PROPERTIES LLC 139 MAIN ST UNIT 203 19128---2447 UNIONVILLE, ON CANADA L3R2G6 FAULHABER, MICHAEL & MICHELLE 14945 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 FISHER, ROBIN & BENITA 4050 3RD AVENUE SW NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 FRANCIS D ODELL TRUST 14960 COLLIER BLVD #4013 NAPLES, FL 34119---7713 FRIPP ISLAND COURT LLC 1448 ESTUARY TRAIL DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483---0000 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 8950 CYPRESS WATERS BOULEVARD COPPELL, TX 75019---0000 FISTROVICH, GEORGE R 8, IDA A 14844 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 FRANKLIN, RICHARD A & NANCY E 14854 FRIPP ISLAND CT NAPLES, FL 34119---4818 GATES, MELISSA M 14870 PLEASANT BAY LN UNIT 1205 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 ®label size 1"x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery e5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/09190 EJaAV sane alq!ledwoo ww 29 x ww 9Z lewlol ap apanb!l� 0919/0919® tiantl ql!m a!g0edwoo "8/9 Z x"l az!s !ager GELINAS, DALEANN GOLDMAN, AVROM & ERIOLA GOMES, RANDALL M 2875 GARLAND RD 14826 TYBEE ISLAND DRIVE CELESTE M LANGLOIS NAPLES, FL 34117---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 4 CASTAGNARO WAY BLACKSTONE, MA 01504---1354 GRAU, MICHELLE L 14880 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 2208 NAPLES, FL 34119---7813 HALM, ROBERT E & JANET 14960 COLLIER BLVD LOT 4012 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 HESSNEY, JOSEPH & DORIS Y JUDY SPINA 1387 OLD OAK LANE NAPLES, FL 34110--0000 HUNTER, ROBERT F & DIANE L 14917 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 JACKSON, FRED M & MYRA G 399 SHAR W OOD DR NAPLES, FI 34110---5725 KADAM, SHILPA A 642 CYPRESS GREEN CIRCLE WELLINGTON, FL 33414---0000 KASSOLIS, PAUL A & NICOLE L 'A908 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119--4800 KING, DALE DWIGHT & ELIZABETH 14909 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 KNIPE, MARK ANNAE HEFELE 14457 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4809 GREG & SNADRA LENSHEK TRUST 4710 58TH AVE N #205 CRYSTAL, MN 55429---0000 HARRINGTON, CHARLES 55 PORT NORFOLK ST DORCHESTER, MA 02122---3609 HEWITT, JAIME BRIAN MCNAMARA 14870 PLEASANT BAY LN #1204 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 INDIGO LAKES MASTER ASSN INC 14875 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4822 JAMIE Y FINCH REV TRUST 609 BIRCH ST SAUK CITY, WI 53583---1352 KALMANOVICH, MARIA & GARY 14944 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 KELLEY, LISA 1x928 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 KLATZKOW, ANDREW & ANNA 14876 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 LAGEMANN, ANGIE D 14870 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 1103 NAPLES, FL 34119---7711 GRIMMETT, ADRIENNE JOHN O'NEAL 12846 S UNION CHICAGO, IL 60628---0000 HEDLEY, CYNTHIA W 14890 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 3107 NAPLES, FL 34119---7820 HUGHES, CLELL 4017 CRYSTAL LAKE DR NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 INDIGO TRUST 720 GOODLETTE RD N STE 304 NAPLES, FL 34102---5656 JOYCE, PATTI L CHRISTOPHER M JOYCE 14453 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4809 KANWISHER, ANNA 1474 STAGECOACH ROAD OCEAN VIEW, NJ 08230---0000 KELLY, CORRINE A 7303 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9625 KLEIN, BRENT & ERIN 14975 SAVANNAH DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4803 LARACH, ALEXIS M & JANA 648 MILL PARK DRIVE KITCHENER, ON CANADA N2P 1W1 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 85160/8160 etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/0919® tiaAV oane slggedwoo Low L9 x low SZ leuuol ap 911a#b!13 0918/0919® 6JseV 1111M alggedwoo "8� Z x ,1 ens lagel ' LAUTHER, NEAL E $ PHYLLIS 1 LAZAR, EUGEN & CAMELIA LE, TIEN 14936 INDIGO LAKES DR 149 WINDING WOOD CRESCENT 654 97TH AVE N NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 KITCHENER, ON NAPLES, FL 34108--2281 CANADA N2P 21.6 LEBRON, JOSE E LECUYER, MARIE 1 LINARES, ROBERTO 84-15 109TH AVE 14880 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 2108 CINDY GALBAN LINARES OZONE PARK, NY 11417---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---7811 2094 MORNING SUN LN NAPLES, FL 34119--3325 LINARES, RODOLFO & DEANE E LIVSEY, RUTH C LUCAS, STEVE F & TRACEY A 14952 INDIGO LAKES DR 14960 COLLIER BLVD 14893 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 NAPLES, FL 34119--7713 NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 MACRI, GIUSEPPE & LAURA MAGADDINO, GRACE MALDONADO, MICHELLE 14900 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 7203 14870 PLEASANT BAY LN 14890 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 3205 NAPLES, FL 34119--7827 NAPLES, FL 34119--7705 NAPLES, FL 34119---7821 MANCUSO JR, FRED & KiM P MARINO, FELICIA MARTARANO, TIMOTHY & MARIA 280 BURNT PINE DR DIANA MARINO 14979 SAVANNAH DR NAPLES, FL 34119---9749 57 WOODLAND DR NAPLES, FL 34119--4803 EAST ISLIP, NY 11730---2425 MARTINO, ROSEMARIE MATTIA, JOHN L & MICHELLE D MATTISON, DARYL & MARY JO 14815 INDIGO LAKES CIR 14828 INDIGO LAKES CIR 14960 COLLIER BLVD LOT 4014 NAPLES, FL 34119--4813 NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 NAPLES, FL 34119--7713 MCCARTHY, JAMES J & DEBORAH S MCDONOUGH, COREY C & KRISTIN E MIGLIORE, CARMELO M 228 FAIRVIEW AVE 14856 INDIGO LAKES CIR 14880 PLEASANT BAY LANE #2106 MOORESTOWN, NJ 08057--2314 NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 MOAR, BARRIE & CAROL MONAHAN, JASON & KIMBERLY MONTEITH, JASON R & CANDICE K 73 SWEETBRIAR DR 14458 INDIGO LAKES CIR 14912 INDIGO LAKES DR MASTIC, NY 11950---1611 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119 --0000 MORA, RICARDO NAPLES PROPERTIES HOLDING LLC NEW CANAAN PROPERTIES LLC 2784 MORRIS AVE #6G PO BOX 110101 14895 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 5203 �!PONX, NY 10468---2861 NAPLES, FL 34108-0000 NAPLES, FL 34104---0000 NEW CANAAN PROPERTIES LLC NOWAK, DAVID A & MICHELLE D NOWAK, ZOFIA 201 SANTA CLARA DR #14 14901 INDIGO LAKES DR 14870 PLEASANT BAY LN N1106 NAPLES, FL 34104---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 ®label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 9516018160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 SANTILLO, FRANK & MARIE SANTORO, DEBORAH A SCHAHRER, DEAN W & JODIE L 1_6 JAMES TER 14870 PLEASANT BAY LANE 14971 SAVANNAH DR WOBURN, MA 01801---5223 UNIT 1107 NAPLES, FL 34119---4803 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 SCHOOL DISTRICT -OMS SHADOW RIDGE PROPERTIES LLC SMILANICH, PETER & PATRICIA OAKRIDGE MIDDLE PO BOX 112315 14905 INDIGO LAKES DR 'x- SUPERINTENDENT NAPLES, FL 34108---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 5775 OSCEOLA TRL NAPLES, FL 34109---0919 SMITH, DAVID A & ELIZABETH SOHAM UNIVERSAL LLC SUELS, FRANCISCO 14889 INDIGO LAKES DR 12744 TOPSFIELD DR KARINA CINTRON NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 ORLANDO, FL 32837---0000 14937 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 ®label size P' x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery /15160/8160 Etiquette de formal 25 mm x 67 mm Compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0919/09 IRS JIJaAV sane alg4edwoo low C9 x ww 9Z 1ewo1 ap allenb43 0919/09t9®AJaAV 411M alg4edw00.8/9 Z x. t 9Zls lagel NUNEZ, FERNANDO M & LINDSAY S OOSTERSAAN, ADAM J 14890 PLEASANT BAY IN #3106 670 PARK SHORE DR OSIKA, ANDREW K &CATHY S NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 NAPLES, FL 34103---0000 14921 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 PAPADORELLY LLC 9015 STRADA STELL CT #106 PARDEE, RENEE N PARSONS, ROBIN PETER GEOFFREY NAPLES, FL 34109---0000 14880 PLEASANT BAY LANE #2204 DAVINA NESTA ANNE PARSONS NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 LITTLE WISHFORD FARM STOFORD SALISBUR UNITED KINGDOM PS2 OPS PAZ, CECILIA R & NELSON PCBC LLC 14885 PLEASANT BAY LANE #4103 64 NORTH DR PFEFFER, ROBERT NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 EAST BRUNSWICK, NJ 08816---1122 14845 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119 --4813 PICCINONNA- RICE, CAROLYN PITTS, DAVID ANDREW POPE JAMES & MARGHEP,ITE 14885 PLEASANT BAY LANE BARBARA NOLAN PITTS 14849 IND:GO LAKES CIR ,:4201 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 2067 MORNING SUN LANE NAPLES, FL 34119--4813 NAPLES, FL 34119--0000 PORTARO, NICHOLAS V RA.TNER, BARRY E & NANCY RAULERSCN, DAVID M & MARY E PORTARO, CYNTHIA L 14904 INDIGO LAKES DR 14850 FRIPP ISLAND CT 14858 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119--4800 NAPLES, FL 34119---4818 NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 nEIViMY LLC RESSEGIUE, ROSEMARIE CAMPANILE ROCCO VERZILLO DEC OF TRUST 201 SANTA CLARA DR #14 14860 INDIGO LAKES CIR 642 KINGSBRIDGE OR MAPLES, FL 34104---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 CAROL STREAM, IL 60188---4368 ROJAS, DIEGO RUBERTO, ANTONIO RUBIO, MEAGAN 14870 PLEASANT BAY IN JOANNE MAYER 14870 PLEASANT BAY IN #1101 MAPLES, FL 34119---0000 404 SHARWOOD DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 NAPLES, FL 34110---5726 SANTILLO, FRANK & MARIE SANTORO, DEBORAH A SCHAHRER, DEAN W & JODIE L 1_6 JAMES TER 14870 PLEASANT BAY LANE 14971 SAVANNAH DR WOBURN, MA 01801---5223 UNIT 1107 NAPLES, FL 34119---4803 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 SCHOOL DISTRICT -OMS SHADOW RIDGE PROPERTIES LLC SMILANICH, PETER & PATRICIA OAKRIDGE MIDDLE PO BOX 112315 14905 INDIGO LAKES DR 'x- SUPERINTENDENT NAPLES, FL 34108---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 5775 OSCEOLA TRL NAPLES, FL 34109---0919 SMITH, DAVID A & ELIZABETH SOHAM UNIVERSAL LLC SUELS, FRANCISCO 14889 INDIGO LAKES DR 12744 TOPSFIELD DR KARINA CINTRON NAPLES, FL 34119---4802 ORLANDO, FL 32837---0000 14937 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 ®label size P' x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery /15160/8160 Etiquette de formal 25 mm x 67 mm Compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0918/09t90 kaAV Dane alglJedwoo ww Z9 x ww SZ lewJol ep allanb03 0919/0915® AJaAV 41!m 8fglledwa3 „8/g Z x.d ezls lagel SUNQUIST, STEVEN & BEVERLY SZUST, NICHOLAS R & KARA 1 THOMASON, JACK & TAISIA 5455 TAMARIND RIDGE DR 14900 INDIGO LAKES DR 8686 LINDBERGH BLVD NAPLES, FL 34119---2837 NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 OLMSTED FALLS, OH 44138---2302 TREMBLAY, DANIELLE A 14905 SUMMIT PLACE CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 VIDAL, TAMMY L 288 GOLDEN GATE BLVD E NAPLES, FL 34120--0000 WOODKE, VILMA 14895 PLEASANT BAY LANE #5101 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 YOUNG, WAYDE & CECILIA 11848 INDIGO LAKES CIR NAPLES, FL 34119---4812 TUDOSE, FLORENTA ALIS 14953 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 WALDEN ET AL, SUSSY 7874 BUCKS RUN DR NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 WOODWARD, MAGBIS REYNALDOJ WOODWARD 14880 PLEASANT BAY LN #2207 NAPLES, FL 34119---7813 ZHAO, YING 7346 BRISTOL CIR NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 VARGA, DOUGLAS M & APRIL 14960 INDIGO LAKES DR NAPLES, FL 34119---4800 WALDEN, SUSSY JACQUELINE SOLER DE LOPEZ PATRICIA SOLER 14890 PLEASANT BAY LANE #3105 NAPLES, FL 34105---0000 WOZNIAK, THERESA M 14890 PLEASANT BAY LN APT 3108 NAPLES, FL 34119---7820 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 115160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery "'5160/8160 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED Development Consultants, Architects, Engineers, Planners and Landscape Architecture May 26, 2017 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County (PL2015 000 0306) seeking approval of a rezone to a Residential Planned Unit Development, to be called Rushton Pointe RPUD for the following described property: 38.1 acres west of and abutting Collier Boulevard and south of and abutting Indigo Lakes; the property is approximately 600 If south of the Oakridge Middle School and 0.7 miles south of Immokalee Road. The proposed use: is limited to a residential neighborhood of up to a maximum of 229 residential units with the number of stories restricted to two (2) stories; provides 2.8± acres of native vegetation preserve along its west property line; and provides for a Type B landscape buffer plant installation along its north and south property lines. Any community /recreational amenity, if provided, is prohibited from abutting offsite single family home lots within the Indigo Lakes Community. The Type B Installation Standard is an 80 percent opaque within one year landscape buffer six feet in height, and includes a hedge, berm or combination thereof. Also includes trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center. The hedge at installation shall be achieved with ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at planting. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to become familiar with provisions of the rezone which will support the future development of the property. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held: Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 Time: 5:30 pm Meeting Location: Greater Naples Fire Department Administrative Headquarters Classroom 14575 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34119 At this meeting the petitioner will have copy of the proposed master plan for the community and a copy of the submittal made to Collier County for review and discussion. Should you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact our office at (239) 263-6934. Sincerely, PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED ��itiLlZ+u�G//? Michael R. Fernandez, RA AICD' President 145 Central Avenue, Naples, Florida 34102 mfernandezrulolanninadeveloomentinc com 239.263.6934 fax 877.263.0535 Development Consulting and Planning Architecture Engineering Landscape Architecture Florida Corporate Certificate of Authorization No's: AA26002158 CA No. 8450 LC0000378 ire :43tfltll NeW NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier Coun- ty, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Dally News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next pre- ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer A ERNum 6 e Copy lne Planning Development Pub Dates May 26, 2017 (Signature of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before me This May 31, 2017 W (, V� aTv (Signature of affiant) 1621629 PUBLIC NOTICE �1�N"�"''• KANOL E KANGAS Nolny Puolle - State of Flmltlx My Comm. Expires Jul 29, 2017 4 •y,o•' Commbxlon N FF 017537 P.O.# Beatles "what really struck me is met for m often, wet and prior been of Caudell. "When someone 20 old ays,'Wby do people your age on the new clean. Arm, Read Stadler that the Beatles Intended to cennm,ed pure wer m m ednwben iteemeo it iso thing abwtthe mono be wriectionists on this newetlitiu of a clan¢ album that record." arads of Beatles fans ere last, to lap the Rak end Rolf Hell of Fame and up— although clearlyroam' will. CHNISCARTER Ratherit s an murn, is ratify amu uas whars len. been ppee ed . Hlgmn. a m amb music Ml with Imam raga. .:Halthoughhr Yferalflewfnthe "One of the other amaalmg thhrgsfm ostood teraversion,eruledwith said. entaidareddyleasurnearedummum Chris Grta.hut a(melmng-ruo- from bad members Paul McCartney. song "Braellfam"i Ne Beatles" radio John 1<pmn. George Harrison and show m LA. rock urian KI.OSFM Ringo Seem (and firs expanded with a"IV edition lt§ hoped that the new immune wild for SlrlaKM antedreminew all - introduce the work tuyonmereudh Beatles Chantel 18).says -"in assured.I mi and smmd more akin 1. content- we. blown away. Nat to round wetly pprarymcordings dears icor curvy, but m a bond wagon "It's not eanly an album ffisa m was tike hearmgrhe record for the form, umoviel Giles Menet. 49. aid during time. t plaYh+ck aeaimi et GPlml "Voted rally ammk me is IM. he t Ramble' Stvdiv A in llollywood fou Beatles intended to be perfatmrdvs an writemantl+coup Idasu thus rerun." xecutrvu and employee of L'nrveral PBS u senior in on the^sit. Pop Music Enterprises, the parent imp ny of Gpial, ina"Sikh with a new documentary. 'Sp. which is releasing the album in the In lertse 1966 and early 1967 when tiremiemein Popper's Harrel Res'oldreal ca poou�ring Jane 3 and hosted m' m ei"-- eon r.....m...... met for m often, wet and prior been of Caudell. "When someone 20 old ays,'Wby do people your age on the new clean. Arm, Read Stadler But," he continued, "far those of us engineer Sam 0ien.11nen se.,ihere m ednwben iteemeo it iso thing abwtthe mono was a big ahakm the maiem" rwx;' Martin surd. "There to immersion Greg flarrea p e num ilymem f but emmes from the depth they put in the Rak end Rolf Hell of Fame and mere, even though his just emmg not Muaum in Cleveland,..led,'Stylet[ of one speaker I was trying to create By they acre throwing8g gra molt IMt(in stereo). No nee un ay, the m amb music Ml with Imam raga. (1967) some mix u not agruLaund "One of the other amaalmg thhrgsfm ing owned. Butthem's a way a gat the me is that it's a fruits. aN.1hubjeo but of bath waii lummere on a pulley, but it's Our Epic Feedback on the new mix her been with therameredible wogs use can ^almov hurssiWtingly positive."Martin standuthazown." n wee Hennaed Meir Ile- kr eau seamy Highlighting Mn weexY show Is TM lam Via Well, lxeviawn9 a Intl davmemary an Me Nerim war. along with . SWR —,mo dewkd w our nems. Filly. sWe in tin Wei al me Fantle TAiI. Hort Mry Odder Awadwnning Joamalet and Newt And.or TM WEIc is inv NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING ite tial b f a mphbamoou mlomietlan le, RA AI Crop lural ReekenlW Manse. aodhintedtry Mloual R.t R(Shdex.RANCP of Planet Dewbpnem Inc. ra to bantiand Rs IviO owns, NI R GhehramW. MD Imevmsrc lhnmed Patnagmlp; to he pooh, on: Data: Mondry, Jun 12, 2017 st 430 p.m. Greeter Naples Fire Department - Admmisha incl Headpmeners Claarosn 14575 Collier Boulevard. Naples, FL 34119 The aIle IS hougt90 on the west vale of and solemn, Catior BWbygm (CR 951), egad 0.7 miba somhoftmmoyabe Road arse consina epproxlmMety Sal arm The strategies, (Pi DDD 0306) is for a normae ham A-Agrodium to Roseman PdMe RPuO-Residential Planned UNI Development for a maximum of 229 devellbip unit. rrMJXNFE RGAID LOCATION MAP Acceato Ne5rtee matiidedtoa singulars, in I right-mutdnvewm pool Collier BOuleaad. mmedlan cul is proposed. The promeeed RPUD master plan provleu an Industrial lake as a t attractive open We amenlry and 284 accts or preserve iii his westemmov property Ill.. RtWton P.M. RPUD Is compatgule with abutting deveepmem through hs residential mad use, the she layol proposed development vandads mul the incorporation of landscape bullas. Maximum manger M wins is two 121. o��u•r� IVE VALUE YOUR INPUT ""✓^ and btglmea owrlas. mak ems ane and per ere wekane to attaM the pmeenlatlan and dbmae the RPUD means Palmer, and ripened Igas won pmpcl eersumsnt. If you are unable to emend this meeting. but have ptnestio sor comments, they can be dame al by meq phone, fee or emelt by July 12.2017 be Bre Johnson. Principal Plenna Dolts county Department of Lad Development Savicu 2800 North Horsehair Dme. Naples, flamia 341041 Res: (239) 2526358 E .hmmnO llegm.mt; Phone W.123 91 252 -Ml 9 31 ND -1621629 I am an American We are One Nation NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting for a proposed Residential Neighborhood hosted by Michael R. Fernandez, RA AICP of Planning Development Inc. representing the land owner, Ali R Ghahramani, MD Investment Limited Partnership; to be held, on: Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 at &30 p.m. Greater Naples Fire Department - Administrative Headquarters Classroom 14575 Collier Boulevard. Naples, FL. 34119 The site is located on the west side of and abutting Collier Boulevard (CR 951), about 0.7 miles south of Immokalee Road and contains approximately 38.1 acres. The application (PI -2015 000 0306) is for a rezone from A -Agriculture to Rushton Pointe RPUD-Residential Planned Unit Development for a maximum of 229 dwelling units. IMMOKAL FF ROM ,r m x..t o m .em OAKRIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL LOCATION MAP Access to the site is restricted to a singular right -in / right -out driveway from Collier Boulevard. no median cut is proposed. The proposed RPUD master plan provides an internal lake as an attractive open space amenity and 2.8f acres of preserves along its westemmost property line. Rushton Pointe RPUD is compatible with abutting development through its residential land use, the site layout, proposed development standards and the incorporation of landscape buffers. Maximum number of stories is two (2). WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Property and business owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the RPUD rezone petition and associated plans with project consultant. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or email by July 12, 2017 to: Enc Johnson, Principal Planner Collier County Department of Land Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. Naples. Florida 34104 / Fax: (239) 252-6358 EricJohnson®colliergov.net; Phone No. (239) 252-2931 May 26, 2017 Friday, 05/26/2017 Pag.D03 ND -1621629 (c) Naples Daily News Attachment B CION POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RNED I LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE [AOTU SSIGNED PLANNER AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER Michael R. Fernandez RA AICP BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL 2015 000 030 1 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT Michael R. Fernandez RA AICP NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) 145 Central Avenue STREET OR P.O. BOX Naples, Florida, 34102 CITY, STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me thisZ2 ___day of — f t 20� by Michael R. Fernandez personally known to me or who produced EL j�L as identification and who did/did not take an oath. My Commission Expires: ` ajC I (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3/4/2015 Signature of Notary Public Alma Topollaj Printed Name of Notary Public •,••., yrs ALMATOPGl1AJ MV COMMISSION t FF 905974 ;i•.a- EXPIRES: August 3, 2019 Untleiw*aen [uoaea Tbu Not'y Pubac My Commission Expires: ` ajC I (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3/4/2015 Signature of Notary Public Alma Topollaj Printed Name of Notary Public PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) APPROVAL PIl l 1ION 111_'1II51101111211h. 121 511'ION 1-0 IN I P 111-1 1) Irl RI 111% It D R\-11IF: COLLIER ( (11 \ IN HO %RD 01 ( OIN"I'1 ( MI\Ilti\IO\l It\ An Ordinance of 1Ile Resmnl of ( Ile" f( ('notniaeionen of ('al l icr ( ounn. I lurida itinerating ordinance \umber 2004.41. a. nnendcd. she ( ollser ( nunl( Lund De•elopnent ( ode. ohich nlnhlhhcd the comprvhcmi(e ranine' n•Gnlation\ fest the mtinvrpuvaled arra of ( allies ( onnt(. Florida. M mnundinP the appropri:ue ronin¢ sola, mop or amp, b( changing deer e,ina cla(.ilication of the herein deverillvd real propery learn a Roo -al \g-rieullural I IiI rnninl; dWrld to a Rv,kienlial Planned 1 nit Dctelopmenl (RP2 DI ronin( dl+tri9f for the prpicet for he knoon :n rhe RnMluo Palms, Riot 1). to allesrr comirnetion of a nta(Imnm of 229 is lilenlial doclline Ionil% ml praperft loealcd on file oevt vide nl ('allies Roule(n ll. appra(imenel2 toll thirdk of a rile vnuth of Innuokalee Road. in \rvdmt 2'. leenndlip 419?Iluth. Range 26 From. coo(i.lin4of 111.11 acm. IPI 201500011.i1Nal I♦•I `I Ae� r • .. ... A •.I .n A� -. 1 Anil • ♦ i ... I �. \ 111\I 1'�N., 1\ ii'.II 1'i .. ii. � 11111\ n.r1 I, I l en \.111IVMI\11111\1 II\ 1 1 W" Ih 11! 11' xll' (Ia 111 Alia \I\ 1.11\I I!\\ll\' 11\1111 \_•w t \NI \\II 11(.\11 I 1\. Iat111 u+l. y y 'iCL+nr',a�?r .f[1 Vy(bi.i fl• 173 ; 5 A, Attacnment L, JohnsonEric From: Doug or Kim Craig <dougnkim@q.com> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:25 PM To: SmithCamden; BrownAraqueSummer; JohnsonEric Cc: DeBiasiisJohn Subject: Re: Rushton Pointe RPUD Dear Camden and Staff, Thank you all for your valued communication. Last week our street did receive the mail notification from the "Planned Development Incorporated" concerning the Neighborhood Information Meeting to be held next Monday June, 12th. The letter makes a fine point to explain; I quote: "Type B installation Standard is an 80 percent opaque within one year landscape buffer" etc .... which to me sounds like a dodgy way to explain how your about to get an apartment building dropped into your backyard. I was wondering do neighborhoods historically need to retain legal representation in these matters? Not withstanding, I'd expect that the best case scenario for Indigo Lakes would be if the county grants no rezoning, variations, or waivers to the developer for their proposed project. Looking forward to attending the meeting on Monday. Best, Douglas Craig 720-210-4699 14888 Indigo Lakes Drive From: "SmithCamden" <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> To: "Doug or Kim Craig" <dougnkim@q.com> Cc: "DeBlasiisJohn" <JohnDeBlasiis@colliergov.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:13:47 AM Subject: RE: Rushton Pointe RPUD iGreat— I will add you to the list and please keep in mind you will receive one mailer related to the Planning Commission and it is worth noting only a courtesy email related to the BCC (final) hearing. If you have any questions related to the item or need any documents etc. feel free to email me directly or Eric will also convey if he receives a request from you as well. Have a great week! John DeBlasiis is the planning technician who works with Planner Eric Johnson so I've cc'd him as he or ! may be emailing you — so that you have his email. Respectfully, Camden Smith. MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning O. 239.252.1042 From: Doug or Kim Craig [mailto:dougnkim@q.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 7:06 AM To: SmithCamden <CamdenSmith@colliergov.net> Subject: Re: Rushton Pointe RPUD Thank you Camden, Yes we'd like to be added to the NIM list. Doug Craig 14888 Indigo Lakes Drive Naples, FL 34119 From: "SmithCamden" <CamdenSmith@colhergov.net> To: douenkim@q.com Cc: "JohnsonEric" <EricJohnson@coil iergov.net>, "DeBlasiisJohn" <JohnDeBlasiis@col Iiergov.net> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:20:48 AM Subject: Rushton Pointe RPUD Mr. Craig, I will email you a notice once there is a Neighborhood Information Meeting for this application; however it is primarily the developer's responsibility to notify the public of the NIMs. Would you like us to add you to our mailer list of notifications? Code requires only a 500 foot notification so if you are outside of that area you would not be on the mailing list without specifically requesting to be added. I wanted to make you aware so that If you'd like to be added to the Planning Commissioner hearing, you had the opportunity to request that. Please, provide your mailing address if you would like added to the list. Thanks so much. Respectfully, Camden Smith, MPA Operations Analyst Collier County Zoning and Planning O. 239.252.1042 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. JohnsonEric From: michael fernandez <mfernandez@planningdevelopmentinc.com> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 8:58 AM To: JohnsonEric Cc: tfernandez@planningdevelopmentinc.com Subject: Rushton RPUD PL2015000306 - NIM follow-up Attachments: Rushton Pointe RPUD NIM follow-up Itr dated 7-5-17.pdf Happy Friday Eric, Attached, for your records, is an additional letter we received yesterday from a homeowner—they attended the NIM and signed in (#4 on the list) and they are located approximately 1100 If from the nearest proposed structure in Rushton Pointe. Their concern appears to be relative to traffic / traffic management. Hope to have our resubmittal to you next week. Regards, Michael Michael R. Fernandez, AICP RA Architect / President PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED Development Consultants, Architects, Engineers, and Planners Office: 704 Goodlette Road, Suite 242, Naples, Florida 34102 Mailing Address: 145 Central Avenue, Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 263.6934;(877) 263-0535 fax mfernandez@ olanni ngdeveloomenti nc.com State of Florida Corporate Certification of Authorization No's: Architecture AA26002158 Engineering CA No.8450 July 5, 2017 To whom it may concern, We, James and Sandra Slaton, are residents of Indigo Lakes which is a single family community off Collier Blvd. south of Immokalee Rd., next to Oak Ridge Middle School. It has been brought to our attention of a proposed residential development called Ruston Pointe to be built directly next to our development to the south. This project needs rezoning and we are asking for the Collier County Officials that will rule on this rezoning to please consider the safety of the children that walk to Oak Ridge Middle School every day from our complex and the Brittany Bay and Camden Cove complex. To exit our complex between the hours of 7-9am, our gates are left in the open position because it is so difficult to exit our community; the cars backup past our electronic gates. Between the heavy southbound traffic on Collier Blvd., the vehicles making the U-turn in front of our exit and the children walking to school it is very difficult to exit the complex. With anew community added just to the south, with hundreds more cars trying to make the U-turn to get in the right hand lane immediately to enter their complex will compound an already dangerous situation. Between the hours of 3-5pm it is impossible to make a left turn from northbound Collier Blvd. into Indigo Lakes because of the student foot traffic, the cars exiting from Oak Middle Middle school that is past the light, and of course just the regular heavy traffic on Collier Blvd. I already will drive out of my way to Immokalee Rd. and turn south on Collier Blvd, during these hours because I know it is so difficult to make that left hand turn. Again adding hundreds more vehicle trying to do this same turns everyday will create even a more dangerous situation. This new community would bring 3 entrances to large communities within 2/10 of a mile off Collier Blvd. We believe that this is a toxic mixture and just a tragedy in the making. We are asking that the Collier County Officials that will be voting on this rezoning request, to please come out to this location, once school is back in session, between the hours of 7-9am and 3-5 pm and see for themselves the congestion and unsafe conditions that already exist in this area. Adding another community in this area will only increase the unsafe student pedestrian conditions. Again, please consider all aspects of this proposed community, the safety of the students and Collier County residents are tstake. L 2lrw„ James and Sandra Slaton 14791 Indigo Lakes Circle Naples, FI. 34119 239-234-6623 locatedapproximately — r 11001 • ••• • _ s, structure within Rushton Pointe f Y 7 la m r'.► 1'.4 All1 - ` K AL Y r � <x w?,!� r�1� Icy ► a 'IL AL Ot ,� �T3ltL Ili•hil+ z C.�,1 wIL Jq ++11 l2 � vv - NO •m' a 1f y - rINN11pl 1119IA Il ►111' v�fltf�f)A►f` Z= m• ,.r R % u� I - M• _ am VelascoJessica From: VelascoJessica Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:44 PM To: FinnTimothy; SmithCamden Subject: Add to Property owner distribution list. PL20150000306 Tim & Camden, I spoke to Robert Hollister who requested to be added to our notification mailing list for Rushton Pointe RPUD. He did say that he will be emailing me a list of additional property owners who would like to be added but he will not send that in until he has a set list. He also said that he heard they can voice concerns to the HEX, CCPC or BCC in advance before the hearing. I told him that it would be best for him to write his concerns, send it in and we would forward it to the HEX, CCPC or BCC; and that all of the other people who have concerns can do the same. This way we do not bombard the HEX, CCPC, or BCC with a million phone calls. He was very understanding on this. Below is his contact information: Robert Hollister 14647 Indigo Lakes Cir Naples, FL 34119. Respectfully, t7mrlca Velame Operations Coordinator Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Zoning Division P: 239.252.2584 lessicavelasco@colliergov.net Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. michael fernandez From: Patrick white <pgw37@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 1:40 PM To: mfernandez@planningdevelopmentinc.com Cc: jbialek@porterwright.com; tfernandez@planningdevelopmentinc.com Subject: Re: Rushton Pointe - Indigo Lakes: Follow-up to Tuesday Morning Meeting Michael Our Thanks to you and Terri for hosting us and sharing the project's details -we will review the attached materials, and if we have any specific suggestions we'll pass them along shortly! Kindly, Patrick 239.784.5173 On Jan 24, 2018, at 12:05, <mfernandez@planninadevelopmentinc.com> <mfernandez@planningdevelopmentinc.com> wrote: Good afternoon Patrick and Joshua, Terri and I enjoyed our meeting and we are most appreciative that you reached out to discuss this matter on behalf of your client which we understand to be Indigo Lakes Home Owners Association. I and our firth are proud of our part in the planning of Indigo Lakes and now have the privilege to aid in the planning of Rushton Pointe. We have a concerted effort to utilize our box of tools in the design of Rushton Pointe to enhance compatibility between the existing Indigo Lake community and the proposed Rushton Pointe community by the use of buffers, the careful selection of development standards and the location of land uses within the master plan. Just few quick notes 1. The building heights proposed for Rushton Pointe are equal to or more restrictive than Indigo Lakes which does not have an Actual Building Height development standard. 2. The maximum number of stories for Rushton Pointe is two (2); while the maximum number of stories for Indigo Lakes is three (3). a. While I am unaware of any three (3) story homes or common facilities within Indigo Lakes; any homeowner can add one or two floors. b. I believe that there are four (4) two story homes within Indigo Lakes which abut Rushton Pointe. i. The height of one of the two story homes is in excess of the maximum actual height which is proposed for Rush Pointe. 3. The Rushton Pointe developer commitments include a prohibition of any common amenity / common recreation amenity and there associated accessory uses (such as parking lot, basketball court etc) within 125 feet of Indigo Lakes single family land use. 4. 100% of the development's required preservation area has been identified as located at the western end of the parcel where it serves to significantly buffer abutting Indio Lakes residential. a. The preserve is 100% uplands and not utilized for water management. b. This is possible by the election of the applicant to mitigate the parcel's poor quality wetlands offsite. 5. Should the project be developed with multi -family (restricted to 2 stories) a 15 It buffer shall be provided abutting the north property line common with Indigo Lakes; except where Rushton Pointe supports an onsite preserve. a. This 15 ft buffer is to installed with code compliant trees at a spacing of no more than 1 per 25 ft; and an opaque hedge installed at 5 ft and grown to and maintained at a minimum of 6 ft. b. Additionally, Rushton Pointe has committed to locating the project's associated general development tree required along lakes, preserves and buffers. i. This will result in add trees along the north buffer; effectively reduce the spacing of the trees which will fill the vertical buffer sooner. 6. We discussed the concept proposed by you to raise the grade of the offsite (within Indigo Lake) 10 it transition slope which is the 10 ft Indigo lakes buffer and our client will further explore the costs associated with the potential commitment; and to provide a security component to this buffer which will also be further considered by our client. a. If the proposal is accepted, we believe it will be mutually beneficial ignoring the additional project cost. I. It would increase the height of the buffer hedge and trees relative to residential within each community ii. It would avoid creating a ditch between the two communities. iii. It would be visually more attractive. b. I have attached the draft text we requested our client review and we are providing to you for the same purpose and for your input on revisions to address any related concerns or issues. i. We like the idea of using coco plum for the hedge as it is a native species, fast growing, easily maintained, and hardy. 7. All roads/streets are internal to the community except along the south property line where it abuts a mixture of multi -family, road, recreational amenities and lake; therefore shielding this impact from Indigo Lake's residential. 8. The existing County roadway associated drainage lake is proposed to be reconfigured to abut the parcel's frontage on Collier Boulevard. a. This will create visual enhancement along the roadway L This will support an extended entry driveway off of Collier Boulevard 1. The length supports stacking above what is required by the County 9. While the project does not support as high a percentage of lake as Indigo Lakes, it does support a high percentage which is in keeping with the character of Indigo Lakes and is significantly greater than typical developments. 10. Ingress and Egress. In 2005 the owner of the property asked for a median cut or minimally a dedicated west bound tum lane from Collier Boulevard. a. The County did not grant the requests and instead limited access to a single location in the form of a right-in/right-out and specifically located the future project access driveway location. These provision are recorded in court settlement between the County and owner. i. We note that the County is responsible for the design and construction of the turn lane which will serve the entry driveway. 11. The County's comprehensive plan supports requests of up to 7 units per acre for Rushton Pointe. a. The Rushton Pointe request is for 6 units per acre which can support single family and low density multi -family land use. L Equal to a maximum of 229 units. b. Indigo Lakes is built out at 2.43 units per acre per County records. c. Brittney Bay PUD abuts Rushton Pointe's south property line and is built out at 8.16 units acre. d. The 6 units per acre proposed is in the middle and is compatible with both abutting communities by the design of the master plan, the location for proposed preservation area and composition of the proposed buffers, redeveloper commitments included in the proposal, and the restrictive development standard inclusive of the 2 story maximum and prohibition of common amenity/common recreational facilities within 125 It of Indigo Lakes residential. 12. The project does not include any proposal for transitionary land uses such as schools and churches. Thank you in advance for your time and attention the review of our draft text of your suggested proposal for a secure, visually attractive and functional (no ditch) buffer with offsite cooperative and mutually beneficial improvements. Should you have additional considerations which you wish to be considered for Rushton Pointe we would be happy to review them with our clients. We did review our Tuesday meeting discussions for limiting residential abutting the common north property line between Rushton Pointe and Indigo Lakes to one-story. We believe the two story restriction is compatible due to the 20 to 25 It buffer between the residential tracts and the associated buffer commitments for their improvement; especially given consideration that a couple of Indigo Lakes homes are already two-story and all can seek the addition to 2 or even 3 stories without any limitation of actual building height. We also reviewed our Tuesday meeting discussion for potentially reducing the overall number of units. As discussed in the points above, the proposed 6 units per acre is a middle ground between adjacent communities. And I note that Indigo Lakes already abuts greater intensity along some its boundaries. I will look forward to future discussions with you and your clients and we will make ourselves available to meet at your convenience. I also attached the up to date Exhibits A thru F which include the proposed RPUD Master Plan and since you appeared to be interested, I have also attached a copy of the formal wetland determination from SFWMD (much greater acreage - albeit very poor quality - than the 0.25 acres of wetland identified in 2005 prior to the County lake with rear discharge) and it includes a FLUCCS map and chart (although County Environmental Staffs subsequent site visit increased the native slightly and increased the size of the preserve -slightly). Regards, Michael Michael R. Fernandez, AICP RA Architect / President <image001 Jpg> PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED Development Consultants, Architects, Engineers, and Planners Office: 704 Goodlette Road, Suite 242, Naples, Florida 34102 Mailing Address: 145 Central Avenue, Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 263.6934; (877) 263-0535 fax mfernandezODlanninadeveloomentinc.com <North Buffer draft 1-24-18.pdf> <Rushton Pointe RPUD EX A -F rev 1-24-18 PDF w page #s.pdf> <150818-8_Formal WetlandDet_20160429.pdf> FinnTimothy From: michael fernandez <mfernandez@planningdevelopmentinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:34 PM To: SmithCamden; FinnTimothy; StoneScott Cc: VelascoJessica; TempletonMark;'Terri Fernandez' Subject: RE: Tentative Rushton Pointe Hearing Dates Attachments: Jan 24 2108 email to Patrick White.pdf Hi Camden, We have had calls, emails and have met with Patrick White and Joshua Bialek of Porter Wright who identified themselves as representing Indigo Lake HOA Board. They have advised us that they were in the due diligence phase of efforts and were not formally objecting to the petition and we have shared the tentative public hearing dates with them. We have not been advised of the status of their client's considerations since then. We had a productive meeting on January 23rd with Patrick and Joshua at our office. Subsequently, on the 24" we transmitted a written proposal based on one of their suggestions and generally addressing the discussions held; see attached. We have followed up by email a couple of times, and they have advised that they will get back to us as soon as possible. We have encouraged them to get back to us as soon as possible. Should agreement be reached, we will advise. We are also aware of some concerns related by residents of Indigo Lakes at the earlier NIM and 1 believe we received one letter through the County which included objecting comments. I have also received some (verbal) support by a few residents. We continue to offer to speak to and/or meet with anyone with concerns. Regards, Michael Michael R. Fernandez, AICP RA Architect / President PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED Development Consultants, Architects, Engineers, and Planners Office: 704 Goodlette Road, Suite 242, Naples, Florida 34102 Mailing Address: 145 Central Avenue, Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 263.6934; (877) 263-0535 fax mfernandez@olanninadevelor)menti nc. com State of Florida Corporate Certification of Authorization No's: Architecture AA26002158 Engineering CA No.8450 FinnTimothy From: michael fernandez <mfernandez@planningdevelopmentinc.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:34 PM To: SmithCamden; FinnTimothy; StoneScott Cc: VelascoJessica; TempletonMark; 'Terri Fernandez' Subject: RE: Tentative Rushton Pointe Hearing Dates Attachments: Jan 24 2108 email to Patrick White.pdf Hi Camden, We have had calls, emails and have met with Patrick White and Joshua Bialek of Porter Wright who identified themselves as representing Indigo Lake HOA Board. They have advised us that they were in the due diligence phase of efforts and were not formally objecting to the petition and we have shared the tentative public hearing dates with them. We have not been advised of the status of their client's considerations since then. We had a productive meeting on January 23rd with Patrick and Joshua at our office. Subsequently, on the 24`h we transmitted a written proposal based on one of their suggestions and generally addressing the discussions held; see attached. We have followed up by email a couple of times, and they have advised that they will get back to us as soon as possible. We have encouraged them to get back to us as soon as possible. Should agreement be reached, we will advise. We are also aware of some concerns related by residents of Indigo Lakes at the earlier NIM and I believe we received one letter through the County which included objecting comments. I have also received some (verbal) support by a few residents. We continue to offer to speak to and/or meet with anyone with concerns. Regards, Michael Michael R. Fernandez, AICP RA Architect / President PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED Development Consultants, Architects, Engineers, and Planners Office: 704 Goodlette Road, Suite 242, Naples, Florida 34102 Mailing Address: 145 Central Avenue, Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 263.6934; (877) 263-0535 fax mfernandez(o)pianningdeveloomentinc.com State of Florida Corporate Certification of Authorization No's: Architecture AA26002158 Engineering CA No.8450 AGENDA ITEM 9-F Attachment A CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 18 — A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE NO. 2002-51, AS AMENDED, THE LAWMETKA PLAZA PUD, TO ADD A THIRD ACCESS POINT ON WIGGINS PASS ROAD, TO LIMIT THE EASTERN MOST ACCESS POINT ON WIGGINS PASS ROAD TO RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT, TO LIMIT THE WESTERN MOST ACCESS POINT ON WIGGINS PASS ROAD TO SERVICE AND DELIVERY VEHICLES ONLY, TO ADD A DEVELOPER COMMITMENT RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION, AND TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE U.S. 41 AND WIGGINS PASS ROAD INTERSECTION, IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF f34 ACRES. [PL20160002106] 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 has 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, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Ordinances in accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly appointed planning agency for the area hereby affected, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of the requested insubstantial change to revise the access points as shown on the revised Lawmetka Plaza PUD sections and Master Plan attached as Exhibit A, for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: [16 -CPS -01597/1394975/1]101 2/14/18 Lavmrlka Pla_a PDI-PL20160002106 Petition No. PDI-PL20160002106 filed by Peter T. Van Buskirk, P.E., AICP, of Kimley- Horn, on behalf of Benderson Properties, Inc. and WR -I Associates, Ltd., with respect to the property described in Ordinance No. 2002-51, as amended, the Lawmetka Plaza Planned Unit Development, be and the same is hereby approved as shown on the revised Lawmetka Plaza PUD sections and Master Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote on the day of .2018. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head Mark P. Strain, Chairman Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: QLA5 /,d, Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — revised PUD sections and Master Plan 116 -CPS -01597/1394975/1]101 2/14/18 Lawmelka Plaza PD1-PL20160002106 2 SECTION tl Property Ownership, Legal Description Short Title and Statement of Unified Control 2.1 Property Ownership The subject property is currently under the ownership of Benderson Development Company, Inc. and WR -I Associates LTD. 2.3 General Description of Property Physical Description The site is generally flat and naturally drains to the east and west. Access to the property will be via fetes five entrances, two on U.S. 41 and two three from Wiggins Pass Road. A Wetland Preserve Area, comprising 8.5 acres, is located along the western portion of the property. The flood elevation of the subject property is AE 11. Note: Language to be added is underlined Language to be deleted is slruok Arm December 2017 SECTION Vill Transportation Requirements *.ss• 8.2 The developer shall provide a left and iigh turn lanes on Wiggins Pass Road at the project's {we entranees middle entrance and.a continuous right turn/through lane along Wiggins Pass Road for the ro4ect's three access drives at the time of the first certificate of occupancy is issued for any structure in the PUD after the Lawmetka Plaza PDI (Aonlication/Petition No. PL20160002106)isapproved Read. The eastern most entrance shall be a right -in / right -out drive only. The western most entrance shall be limited to service vehicle and delivery vehicle use only and will be a full access drive. Note: Language to be added is underlined Language to be deleted is wruek Mow. December 2017 M \1 11 11 11 ,1 ,1 1, ,1 1 � 1 i Flv-.� 0 TRACT USES TARPON COVE PARCEL A MOTEL OR HOTELIRETAIL OFFICE 50 P.U.D. PARCELS RETAILOROFFICE 35 272 PARCCLC RETAILOROFFICE 35 v----- PARCEL PRESERVATION/WATER MANAGEMENT' N/A 95f ' -- I L52. 400RAINAGE � � I EASEMENT I PARCEL C 1 4.9 Ac _ ' 1 ACCESS POINT TARPON COVE ' P.U.D. i SCAF ' I BUFFER � BUFFER I PARCEL D 8.5 Ac ' ' 1 PARCELA I I QI 16.4 Ac I i NI I ' I Q ACCESS POINT I I I � II I I 1 I II 1 1 / 1 ACCESS POINT 'InLm I ACCESS 1 FA4EMENT I POINT 1 1 ACCESS POINT 20 LANG SERVICEDELNERY I RIGHT N 1 ACCESS ONLY RIGHT OUTBUFFER 2a LANDscAPE 1___ 1 I BUFFER I PARCEL B I 1 I 1 I 2.7 Ac 1 1 ------ \1 11 11 11 ,1 ,1 1, ,1 1 � 1 i Flv-.� 0 TRACT USES IHEIGHT FT ACRES PARCEL A MOTEL OR HOTELIRETAIL OFFICE 50 16.4fOR PARCELS RETAILOROFFICE 35 272 PARCCLC RETAILOROFFICE 35 4.92 PARCEL PRESERVATION/WATER MANAGEMENT' N/A 95f ROAD L52. 34.Of NOTES. NO VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED TO FACILITATE ~ER MANAGEMENT IN TRACT -SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT RITERNALACCESS CONCEPTUAL L�--------- --- - -- -- —�--- 1`/ EJROw �. "300'MIN L3 .WIGGtNS PASS ROADro_NT_Nc_ ------- I/II PI -AN RPI-AFROM BIT& ETMA REVISED I APU.0. MASTER PLAN EXHIBITA REVISE01L11/101T e Kimley t» Horn LAWMETKA PLAZA C 2017 Nlmley-Horn and Associates, Inc. P.U.D. MASTER PLAN 1412 Jackson Sheet, Su Be 2, Fort Myer. FL 33901 Prone 239 271 2650 Y ..kimley-homcam CA00000696 Project No.: 048649064 DECEMBER 2017 EXHIBITA Attachment B Co er County Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: January 29, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PDI - PL20160002106 — REV: 6 PETITION NAME: Lawmetka Plaza PUD - PDI REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting an Insubstantial Change to the Planned Unit Development (PDI) to revise the text of "Section II, 2.3 Physical Description" of the PUD to be for three access points on Wiggins Pass and two access points on Tamiami Trail N. (US 41). The petitioner is also proposing revisions for Section VIII 8.2, Transportation Requirements. Setbacks and landscape buffer changes are no longer being requested as part of Submittal 5. No deviations are proposed. Submittal 6 revised the Lawmetka Plaza PUD Master Plan showing a continuous right turn/through lane along Wiggins Pass and a left turn lane for the middle entrance. There will be a total of five entrances. LOCATION: The subject site (±34.0 -acre) is located on the northwest corner of Wiggins Pass Road (CR 888) and US 41, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #20 on the Future Land Use Map in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). In addition to the proposed PDI changes, the petitioner intends to construct approximately ±42,504 square feet of previously approved retail on Tract `S' and ±8,179 previously approved square feet on Tract `A'. This will bring the total very close to the PUD maximum approved 270,000 square feet of retail and office uses in Tracts `A', `B', and `C'. In addition, the PUD is approved to allow up to a maximum of 130 hotel units (26 units per acre) in Tract `A'. All of these uses are consistent with the Mixed -Use Activity Center uses in the FLUE of the GMP. FLUE Policy 5.4 (shown below in italics) followed by staff analysis in bold text: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] 2800 North Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 2 FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies Due to the minor changes proposed (no changes in permitted uses, densities, or intensities) beyond the currently approved Lawmetka Plaza PUD, staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of FLUE policies under Objective 7 (pertaining to access, interconnections, walkability, etc.) is not necessary. CONCLUSION This PDI petition may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PD1-PL2016-2106 Lawmetka Plaza R6.docx 2800 North Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2 Attachment C FINDINGS OF FACT PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report subsection Landscape Review, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project. Furthermore, adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. No deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to CPUD. Rezone Findines: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.17 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable": 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries and coincide with the GMP subdistrict boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. It should be noted that the proposed uses are not allowed under the current zoning classification. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the FLUE of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The PUD Document provides adequate property development regulations to ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced to adjacent areas. The Master Plan further demonstrates that the locations of proposed preserve and open space areas should further ensure light and air should not be seriously reduced in adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties to the south, east, and north of the subject property are developed, whereas the property immediately to the west is undeveloped then farther west is residential, as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The proposed uses and development standards cannot be used in accordance with the existing classification. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this rezoning will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. It is the middle of high season here in Collier County. I know that there are many road issues that you deal with through out the county when the population increases during the winter months. I certainly don't want to minimize other areas that have problems, but I am writing to you in regards to our neighborhood. Wiggins Pass Road and 41 (Area). We are having major problems during the day with the traffic that is backing up on Wiggins Pass Road from 41 all the way back beyond West Avenue. The problem as I see it is that the (3) lanes that meet 41 (Eastbound) are not long enough to accommodate the daily traffic wanting to go north on 41, south on 41 and through to the east side of Wiggins Pass Road? When traffic backs up to where it is only one lane, It affectively shuts off movement to either (1) of the lanes or in some cases (2) of these lanes. Some of the cars that are trying to go in one direction will sometimes get out of the lane and use the westbound travel lane (dangerously) to get to the open lane that is not being utilized. We have no curbed medians along this stretch and therefore they can travel on the striped lines to accomplish their movement. Basically it is a very dangerous situation and if it has not already happened we will someday have a major head on collision out of drivers frustration and being impatient. My question to Collier County would be, does the County have a video camera posted that looks west down Wiggins Pass Road? If it does not, could it put one up to monitor this situation? If the County does have a camera, are you currently able to see the traffic that backs up on Wiggins Pass Road and the fact that some of the lanes (of the 3) are not being utilized because of the length? Can you see the drivers leaving the east bound lanes and traveling in the west bound lanes and the yellow striped areas? This is a serious safety issue and further discussion should occur to solve the problem. The neighborhood will wait for any reply. Douglas M Fee 754 Pan Am Avenue Naples, FL 34110 Ph: 239-513-1040 Fax: 239-593-5112 Email: feegrouo@aol.com 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. Attachment E AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment, or conditional use, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the County to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance. (Signature of Applicant) Peter T. Van Buskirk, P.E., AICP (Printed name of Applicant) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this � day of 2018 by ' ;U - \/au CUSKitk, AltP,whois personally known to me or who has produced as identification. Printed tin• 4y Ti1ERESAFifoMOND • MY COMMISSION f GG DWM #^ '� EXPIRES: April 6.2421 ukrpwmku Notary Patio "W -10M 10:11- rM_Civi11448649064- Benderson - Gateway Shoppes\:NGINEERING\PemiittingtiCollier CounrjAN[MVV&uteAAffidavit of Compliance NEM (2018-01-16).doc NaplesNevvs.com Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally. appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copy ine P.O.# Benderson Properties 1867870 Public Meeting Notic Pub Dates December 27, 2017 (Sig Lure of affiant) (Signature of affiant) ,.. xNptf N.lxWS Sworn to and subscribed before meThis J December 27, 2017 ` /.'-` Yr(mmfvIwAA (Signature of affiant) Nevemibs 1Stn dnY of ... it DWIGHT E RRDCK CLERK OF THE CIRCUR COURT I An lnbmlBlmnal m.1n9la tMmB TOM t0 do --inn gq'rrf PAN-. unn Deveb l m.LSS4. FAA- loopI.I. Cllr Leslie (SeeU as.GAI3ns El. 1aS31.I0ti I.uMtanfMl Che TREAD If, Lawmets. PWs. Bendneon PlupMka. Inc and: WP-) KMtk ,LM,requnta inwbetanimi Chengeto OMlydnC No.2W2-51. azem<IIDM. Mlea.mMM Plme PUO.Ile lead a IhRO.1. mint an Wlgpine Pass qoy, MI Arm, 1. ..A. accom mel on Winer Photo Paul to rgA, 11A,M U. to limn Me w991Mn NOTICEOFAILICA NO NAPLESNEWS,COM ° WEDNESD<Y.DECEMBER27,20111 .20 NOnCEOT MPLIGnOx fOR Ines Bln Osy d Unles{Inca Novemper.ld]. the nmlR comp at the U.S. 41 uW W Incur Plea Paw mtwyclan, m Bectiow 16, iaN DfFn Xalvam h«. 3Dfl. 'pperlYancrlhe0 ,A s illcah sell h< lenemap anorl FAbw. DWIGHTLEUMIN SpyEN ROpW W/.RR WNYpEXl p1{IIX,S NpllCf ardryYa RWLLOdq NOi1LE 15 XFPEBY GNEN NaI IUOYMAR M1k OI Me PNIGX1 E...a CL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT Ml prMen III be us to Me WEK- WORRY are CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT Let OnD[aember}0.101].[neE[ecu11u01rpC1oro1Ne5w1M1florltla MON MllowinY rlNkeh M1u FL0<110239.592.9800 Colller Cp yyAeminl5ballen By IS/Leslk Rpc[o WMl,Mmaymmm01s1nnlssuetl Order Xo. mlbq&pM.WU. Ortler,spyrovin me }oR Lwver Wat sap a I... a°e for rat dead ecce M be IssY^Ptl MMpn. BY:/LICSIie Rxco MpYty Cln4 BUINI, 1i�P(IDor.gwmill me 1'W P.M. Monday. lmuur Dmutr Coke pinU CON[Waler Supply Ianupeate.TnlorBr[an he m:qq[4 orupke et Me South LnllllCale bar, ypM LeilleR 61111 l}.mle. Ltllk Roc. ($ed, p«emherCl3.}OB ll. ell florlW we\<r MerlepemAS DIAeI[t XPaepluK«s. 1]01 Gun CIA 1 d 15suM[L E...3.1 Oecurime 6..114n. Sall Arm Mn IdiSWp ClYp goad,West Palm Bea[M1.FL 31aDS:ConbRCRmk lDyn er mp m In In hih I, m1oIlOM: No. 1635561 oNM Shia $in day of XoSomhee µc oct f SupPl[yX NOor rmll'yp OAO W11kallo erwpp3iu NOTICE0 APPLICATIOXF Ian. eSW)fip}.61540reer Oeble itM OIT.lM1roupn (www.afwmd00YL ClnIN..XUm '. 10U13 EmA GEE➢ DWIGHT E_ MK R IDIY.EIMIMIEM ""':I IS XEREBY GIVEN GLENN OF THE MISCUE COURT MDDRMPSOMIS a¢wb IOn:55} q Sf)/e OF Mtl Ill 1 S M1RLFxE 1 CFLSI TP UDT ndtlel Of Sv r/¢yL IIs Ro[. ClerF X TroncEar:reLTtnlrriOR tlona IM.559(n. antl ImbD131. M. SIAL As reyulrod 1%5% M1e IOIIDwInp SWs/1 OFXWIN OF /1 ]yy.5 AC SID PO SI9. saltl M IpNwirp to rHfi[aN Ius NIN D<pYly L<Slle Pouo (SOII TaN pEEO Wks DI Me upPor\unities wM1l[M1 mak Ee vllaOle /pr etlminlshanve Matin wbm bM,ye rt EePem1111rM yyOR COWny�FI0dd5np In Collin Seq rlIT W bf ba dHtl t0 he IssT M 1M1erep n.by .[' ar IJ. ip51T mU Enoitl hew pslanlW Intnesn of a ped Not o1r1111ca[e bis. Yeu I IyyYannl, de3[ri Iron 1 'W+O�111! 1t14VCFRENCH nEDI t. b11aW to, dificale has Mp jppal advice. Xolallalth`Iepal plPATISSAW l'at eebllMand�mle y "DrapD.ODria\e remetly. YpY STAR AO VO kM1eSsnud: Arouse tY enememwnicn QIMl16 lktl 3aTe \e for la[ nannappllA maywlSM1[o.nsull (]peek rtpudlno Your lap...... s. ELENA HgNANDEZVO sed 1. .,.If. M�b1 Mfx IN Ad ODM be atner.n. ISfue UOIPSs the pfill Described In Itl GrUllcate HUmpT 11-1 o53 X NPPL TAXDEED a.11MAnc moor. YPar 1 e tlM ?,ran I Dr..nd ^ems WM1kh .. TO NEWEST..A.RATVE NEANMp A perNn wM3e wbstan lal Interests are or mr, to affected hR Me SAKI Florida Vent, Manaae... I IshIA,. (SfWMD (IIIc to sM1el b! .Pial a[.aplry m IOW ROpIM1R Mx:MplWNE OescriV ian: 29 51 39 NEI/1 ICF Is XEREBY GIVEN ssetik as follows DISIN[11 aCllDn nes Inc n9M tD rePunt m aeminlso-iNM RlMnp on [nal e[Uon ....., tD sttHpm 110.569 GA. property III be wee 1p M! MGM1est bltleer N Ine OF SFU OF SAVE OF MWI/1 tnN FRANK 1 S MARLEXE ] CMnkak NYmhr: ll'IHI pursuenl antl 1]0.51. Me. slel Pers Dns a nearinY SfWMD tletlskn C l Ter Cw 6Gminlnreuon Irty Gulden on il.r ROOM 111 a1 x S AC OR 501 PG 511, uld y�DpeI Mine In Collier Cao tle. CEISHAN TR UOT Holder Df Me MWt W CMIIkNe MS NIM Nb [MXiule for Rop m Da:EOEEEIV] DncrlWla'L OLLIER SMILa4E wnlcn aXe[LL or mak efhn Melr suM[anllal Inbmsn still Oleay AAA fm neatlnp ec. lne0111ce WAIN PIT ASA I:m G. Mo11deY,lmuary II. 101E R.Tlor IRS dumb lO bP If. theme,. LOI IO. uk xW'S belga In A. SIel Inact RW.I WNM1 MPIIIInP inShu[IionsMbKM1 M1nreln.wiMinxl tleysof R[IIPLOI Wri\tM.tluoltneOttlilpn, ..led his to Ke Or r ryamelO which nuasM: R K E VON ORONOW. FI AL entlll[a1e p!n Y I I A.NCe, deaMRHOn I arOplre YM name nice CdIM COuntY, FlOrlda. Name M Which ...ad WSaMd<M1eloNOwllp {M1OKn Hme peelW3apply: InwlMin 11 hi this AM'GHRee Al.a Df.molketM lnlmt to prervt.) conk Morlmppr. 20V. Unless Into rly d<urlld dl3at hlbwe ANA MAR. SULAS NILSRIO WRLII kwM SEA AMR., for Pmlronm. lel re°oufl< y! It° enR d soverelpn foam ry d Noes purwant to DWIOXTEEROCK CLARK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ,n Id IIR[te snail be auorpllg to LOW. C<rI1fiG[e Numher:ll-TOTS SPc[lon ll]AI1. fle.Slat: uenil wllM1lnlapeYS Olurvl[e of an Aeminlslrative OMn y Ile SUp3M1. 313.119(1). Ila n. MR \h< proDMy III be aid to the Alynes] P]oPlnyl.f. NE61NN3 1"Wr Ml pis ertY ee-load a d A. vary, dell M wt Revel% AI wHM1en n lite A0 ep.[e d«ItIOn' SW Sr:/LLesIIe RDtoO DeyMYCIerF bidder I the COYIrt Ep n1Y Atlminlao-etbn Oes[rlNb' x6 SI 39 xWl/1 OF NEVI Mf1/I eeemeE tllnp 1p Iew, Npl of woHit IILe MroI,, nW 1, IRIml m I. or pnMq Mat IM1e siWMO nes u (peas \O few Ileal epen[r LeNle Rocco (Scall Da.mher5,13, 308 E,, IPA %.,IRambo Rwm 111 at - MOMw, ImWrY OF Of NF V1 I'S AC. MN nppnt3 heirp In MI pNPMy Ill are sdO M Me KIM,1 Ambo [ m! anlDn, pr DupHrlllDneol notice NN1 Me SAMC Ms or lnten05 [D [eMe ]incl eyawy tl0n. Any pe ho r«plrPi written Am 3eJ663D u. IDle. colli« CO." Fbrl6f. COIFIWamildrCcoMnu yAEpl�mlillnA XMWonOsy.hn nefnora',Z,Cecismn.ne rellslo mle w]if %k undo rum asmbM he WIenemnp NO OFaPCT LEON TARE. DnM this Sm day Dr ml]. xNIGHT x.m¢mwnkn ebefua: IOSEA WRRIAS 1:00 P.M. n.Ipll. IMrY agora walvn McMM 9. a Int"pi on De Uat mm Ion, NOnCf6XON hYidIS. In. IUDY N, M! DWIOMEBEod L CLERK May10, ItlNpl. lrt 0411he 1 Id IR[ {call be Oath els day 01 Hovemher, Epil. IIml0'=kUFeS lmlay.CY Sudan which ToOrmlly diners both listened Wrl decision, prsans who may HIM US. 101 DAN p 1Y [erlHlule Has DFTMECIRWRCOURf :.eempn UInfew, , WE.N[M be su05bntlRl He[IM WTI. unkst OM«wlu Arnmy. by tr glow, Alf. Admin. code, laW'hMinatlOhbnelPulele- pled wed mNNuh for Mt SY;/SRlslll go" MI Dropnl Mil Ale alp to y DW..l E...CA pole( IenM. to no luuned UNuon. ertlnuh h«. MpYry CkrF LPMw Arc the all bidder t the eA" mr Mmm'It CLERKOFTXECIRCURLDURi etlntl vee / ISS.na, a:wrlynon 1 aWl DMamblr 6, u.:DSn,3on Xendnp]InA.r. Noumea( Srls/LMII R«N Anv nom.pm«ynm yprOu IS directed Fireman to s.eP n3ll.l�9<]A FIX. SI.N.Mlall.mp GESTOPlmlm ]9ORSsy and nail lnwhkh N0,ZL',A 1'W P.M.OA..M,, Gri Ii. Dep%YCNrY ESAW. , by on=tbn M Me board Shell WE ell am. A neannp a5 won ed folbwc is NanNan arecTAvnlGnOx mvmy SOU` "III, Rp¢o(EM) potflhN. •pae�nlo cenm[am..Mwl D.11m DEfD Owed els Stn dw al Ya`i!)61ii•II•maa,fen �inaslYRrO nun m,'n ards rtnpllunpL �,m Four UetnlpPlon�55}IN°9 W�]OF NOTICE I5 HEpFSY GIVEN AS IUOY MAyRNON M1oltln W IM1! ® ® pn[.mionoen` adth e0ueasittlel deadlntlDnor Ming a P..iten[ tMlpte� Yllie SWI IGF HfU10FNWl/I Oi SEI AC OR 551 P6 e89. IIIN ¢old tlertlllgllOr au XNlRbnertby'vpn MalEKre Spe[e5lorepewlllullnpYDlk moven partylP` IMwlMalloMer art] mm�lrplh R me`oae uwuD RIS CIEEE pp«[ybWp In Colller WnRy, flpylW. gala Ip be ISAO themon oartlfita[e ber. ynr HOn al Me ,Roup! lev]]]]y Ih1M pelew, l0 nthly Ine Ilan Oft-, enOAl ympNly tlPScnpad pNow ONon%ng to .ntl and am pIRK PROTONS ... Or neaM.slon0l tum<Iy rogues leen eatm510n oIHme f Ih I Issuance. du[rl \loyn I .come 411 M[h M%elMlvlduels llrtM below A b[al]m'^Arcot.: eR I, II Me rvA, Imelime pniod lar flume epe1111.A nIA Mp Rmntl°.[te8upon. Xamelnwhlcha5°e,ilA: jrroakaY dict bbow3: Sn Air.r\Pd. M,7 epics FLJI1M Plana:}39'Nl'5111 AUNon OENNIA 4 MANCINI CAROL M MANCINI Cprink¢h Num. I. in, Wh:l/IN111. Mise: J:30 PM RMN4IMMNCTpNS A y Ilion for MmIMNARTIM headrq Arn be tied with Me OH1 DisMCILInY SFW.. mnl5oldA„o rly tleur,"A. le I le mall b< ElISMMMI H0119 Deborah 5110hn/ Nouuhold p0otl5 P o"" OIMI FNIn9aby leubnlle WIII the aAAM1A.a INIM In Mminlslrallveh i rdner auumen\IS Pe%mn3 mtleMlea aFOl Am 1.w. pAST,j1DR: DetLrlpRIGH x O 3p ISan OFSM On OF SUz oebohnr s\IeM1n ." Cnna ertnlN xpuunoa p.a3 aeeme8ill. Dean R[Myt aYHlg nmAS tneotlke Of me Dlsmn Chit .1 headduartlK < Imp nl he Wa 10 the nm hes erode, t in /, 0,S. OF SWI/I OF SFIp. 1p AG119 0 Duro sotaD..m LSNo HODRn AlMd.Ns do.. hn Wen P.1m &un Ibrlm. The D.I.'[ ogled b.mn3 D Collier adminl3lrallon PG I6, sold pertY galea In Copamelnwlll[M1 rltle. TOO. MIMMeeuon R0019 Mny IYC[aro NDu{enow MousenoW p.e5 pools pTin nwn.ree:po -5.00p.m FeMs.eDI3o-k1 ndidays. AnY tlxument retllrM W IRC Olf a .1 to. Dl3bltt y�y R:OOdV�M. an MnMeY.lfnuluy MWu LknrtpMuaLOU ere es 1J. 3015. p. MOm X.elle Seout.n ole pooEa I. nOeYe ApollbldNlllllnP°Insaiu[ceikm LAURA MOORE TAYLOR YD035 M«F perFins XoL.stle goods aflAns: Dated m15 Sth cry 01 XweMMRmII DAMESUP, R Pap[ Y tlesLApAm Wueisn than be merle Mm CnA DAIS and peiit al IM1e above us' ' FII11q[py malt mu51 ED Mtlre55M 1. 1. Onlke Ol the DWIGHTF.SROCN In m ultal, Dau be Hemmed ....,.a law. Z leren[M fatlllt In abler lo.mpkle the IranM<U0n Ealra r %aM< raM a KU=nkaid aM marresma am PDrm.s< p and in. wlnnle bNdlr chow d the Dlytrl[1 Cleh, ]101 Own Amid. West Pelm BMCh. FbdW I]M5 DS Fmps pr oma-aellury t ep eahertd . Me CUSIal NE CI.EUn..UIT «D" In hP sold b me mYnn( eladv 1 me Ylopenv panl59m plWw DfN4: On Am mapic,G . DellRrr ALPfHliMtome SF d D'. Ny d¢sR a Yu�ny. SYYvuSh<R.. Collier Couny Aeminmibakn 6u11mny1 Rmm oec.mbef la. }T mil LING,, r not commmP n wNl b! nentwy to ROUAftnet me s[w4D's u[DrNv Dolce tpmaa led aqn of Mpyry C1VF Ln11e Ax ^Aro ntl 1100 P. M. MoId."J..; 1vne Dlnan nem. An wntI%AA of Me lF D'3 Clarks Dolce (setl1 DeCPmb[; 6, 13.:OSzl. xpn 32.2015 x0nC60i SPECIAL MfEnx4 In AM.- ems teenpewk^. Hina, psi H must be hm.mNlM 1. m. Oq[. xo.le]661z Dated els em aey Of TRquxF gEle. rm<Disbin nnF.aaarxQSlwmE.gov. m<mMy del<lor. N A�01 PpC gTIO�N .A DEED xDvlmp«.Ian. eOMMu x11 DEVELORMENT DISTRICT document baro_ by el![bomL m.P an.A be eM dnMM 011ke OI Fee District Oil receives Am caPlmk MtummL = MICE rs NNE. GIVEN that JUDYMARMOH M1ON«o11M DwmHT E MOCK CLEAN OFTxE CIRCUIT COURT A spn1.1 KKKHn, all. S...1 Rerme eommpmly oeRlaPmmt Imuary5.3o15a111'OOa.m. et Mf ioynM.n nl M. T"ln, Vlsblcl win. held on 011luf.rrn.Sass.leln, pert A. 111.1... -At by all °MI' m.rore met m< nwg;.l pnvsk.11y oy.Ppwmmll Mil pe,mlvd br Inlet AmKY lO tMduniionol [M1ep.cndey '=rainy blvxlny rat cer[Ifl[ale has 1111tl b[eNl'Col. for lea pY/V le}Ile Rat<p Inc.. I ... led at 3211 McGregor S.CIAI Meelin9. me bulli SIWI, AC Myers, El. MMP Eme Rpeal Or suhu.enl practo p In (111 d Mat Me SA. rR ahall.tlD[e It upon Ml rtOues[ pl pMerpulln..nd 111 dead °m he issued flebon. ppyry CllM1 LMIaA sur) npKl.b[OMm1erenddl5[un M InWet nom me mRL d mise n. IDA.. rc.mlm g OnmPele rD, an aelar. dI3.Dpnon. or mmlmpnon onM eeNmine hu. ye.r p<[<mOns. a3.I0121. NET [ my [Pr[irym he -by onn.aMowxn Nttdon. m.tm^IC sbnal3 en�naepn Me mU nb ma me a.Dmem l ]swan. OISGI IUM 1 NO 16i55M ed .nju% Ittnng DlRc«t pFDrs Ad 3eleandaam Omml wee pepmp«Ir nl.. p.=and name lA WM1'1[11 eased 1{a, ldkws: nOnef OF APPLICATION FOR Oedll OW. sb11 repels, l�re momnlr �Istrl[t DAY omlr epanen wm[n Nemdal ReoN al me m. MND1 a pHTlpnpN OARx5DMM5TRATIW nx DEED .ere u. bl, xoace is epvro «Iy 1.m 111 a[.rIS. app"' efANXO SO AT tD.mons up.ws)(m1 aIIpsswnm. na wL. ...w xphyN.:lD' 139] reOulrem<nn pI5.11m 1a911]. Rbnde Shtltt[i iM1l meltA jMan etlmiEDlabatlMlMarlah'1o6301. FID. Admin Code. iol.alion P'OpMyl0A: tl1330NM NOTICE ISXMFRY GIVEN mM IYDY NIP sOH nplder d me lollowin \IIIUR hes tee O.n to the public a. w111PM Me y hbm 01 HOritla [andKiM In arxoNerce wNR for CommYnity OeRlopmen[ pp SFWMD In 19lpb Iomrpand dan 61R by ad woula 111n[n wM1lcejlldonb piper. y1M\Kion O.LrbWn: ASI 315U10f Ilke send br Ma Dlrbins. AA. r ,, are Himma lar'ALI Mane., th[o,ng mak be._.,;; e OM<IMtl fNPll [antalm NWI/!OF SWIM OF xWl/L LTSSSIR OFNW1p OFSWIA slalceR peep too TM tNrton. I.m IM1e plotrl MFS x. Thism fir. may be root].. Nap Hill Pd Sunriu EL 33351. be do, lime, end place b be I. IdemHW.n ohne utkn bele n ..In[IWlna OF XWa/I, oR 1]91 PO 1313 e.1fifilale beq ye« I Isw.n[n, dlA`+ I � ,are re[ o. aloe mmol-.. Elie M<Dermll numbn.m lkmlonnum.r. Ag-fAND. number or Amar 1t known. Id My .Mg In Calllu COWRY. Pb'do prppprtY dnurc In Which ayrp,ypf lynlollbrvc mactinY becausrsone of.Wly{q[IyAIIry WIIac�mpMsel msta�thlb CpnteS'1 mlWNMNew nw WASS, M11rts. eAY sersonI[ Dpa.heena 11 All.M1 number oRtee Petltlan<ranO.lillontt's Xeme In whichas{UNd: .WN If Cedfi.......r. biM9 me DEAL,,..1Cf�ke a�[tt19M)1ll �MAE pd«,o oan it ke5111rceul«.Ar days by R.ilenY 1. M npW.11on DI M1Ow Me peMlonMs wpiMmlal forests 'al be [M Unlns Ih[e I. A, In Id nINLnP MII p! PropnlR 10X'3pyeNEE3 Oneoplon: GOLDEN O.TE F1LM1 pman wnu.[i.s. m.al a t anlDn AtIat me.. motleys is Mv15. IM1e o<ROn WIII are. a rp o11M1e D aXe[t. ane^;WINASrmina°ion. Moria lofty dnaw Me;;dA.nrK.IVM dl. al the EFWMD'i decision. redeemeE auo.l.. law. Me pro4pertY M be sole to EST UNIT 11 W IHR aE iR purr ON Y2015 O InA3' er In Collier PDOettYIpS and mel ..o.Mptyy. Me cefwn may n to Hui a rerboom record OI the A,.... I i3 mM< 5 A slat[menl of til disOu[.Isauea of material fact. II mnPar<: n�e^Me PeMlon mustso btlluR IpltMlanernkconten`ds 0. brl Ones bidder On CauMY1I1 oil and <vlden[e Is io I'll oath wM1IG wLn m.al if Prcrle�l. Me 5pes[Iifc Dns me wm of sIT MINp1ny led Fk rp.m 1 Am R Ipf motllllCallOn ohne siWSky a_ icHOn. I:Op P.M. on Mollbw.)M.ry1 i], 11110. Namlln wnkM1 Aausavd. IT1 M. p.I WInM11oM1n yaOepef 1. A slahmen[ OI IAS tpeGlll[ ruW SIAWn Me eetlllour e.,m. repulR reSeKdl or AAAA A.d Me Nevemibs 1Stn dnY of ... it DWIGHT E RRDCK CLERK OF THE CIRCUR COURT I An lnbmlBlmnal m.1n9la tMmB TOM t0 do --inn gq'rrf PAN-. unn Deveb l m.LSS4. FAA- loopI.I. Cllr Leslie (SeeU as.GAI3ns El. 1aS31.I0ti I.uMtanfMl Che TREAD If, Lawmets. PWs. Bendneon PlupMka. Inc and: WP-) KMtk ,LM,requnta inwbetanimi Chengeto OMlydnC No.2W2-51. azem<IIDM. Mlea.mMM Plme PUO.Ile lead a IhRO.1. mint an Wlgpine Pass qoy, MI Arm, 1. ..A. accom mel on Winer Photo Paul to rgA, 11A,M U. to limn Me w991Mn NOTICEOFAILICA NO iAK D. m.l a palm 00 Will Pass now to SarvYY AM aMMIy vM Ar M. ane 10 NOTICHARE isMON MAINE oYENlHERESY Gml. ea JUDY mNna the Myler Plan in refect Mne cnarg[s. nu ml01eC1 p10pMy b I�IM an lolbwln IM AenlOeate by Rlmb nPd [oriXkme Far 1.. the nmlR comp at the U.S. 41 uW W Incur Plea Paw mtwyclan, m Bectiow 16, Good b be Is,... r -A- rammimp AS GROM, Range 25 Eeel. CNbr C..% ,, F,AAM, Conauttn9 DI of, pa . TM CutlllA. bp. Year d IUMnen, aes.V Men pDr N` "mnlbmM meals. Wr lO Slava par pore ew.M.C1 rpm Fy k. mose-9 is ea thissm: w cem11nh a.m. : lawn Cede I TmN/Wc w; Jwl 16,2018 at 5'. 0o p.m. at ,rotor1V 109: NSM ..'Ad ]A5129'I'll OF Ta1PoI1 CWSY i NCqun Club <]1 Rey CWe Cove Nal 1. OF II Is FL0<110239.592.9800 AC B, In eotller LpDntn FloorrRe. Applactur l Cpnbel Fro: Two M. MM Name In WAIT a55<sse2 Oneclpr W Dauebgnml -. Q SAMUEL NO ADRATE. SR BpnaYMn ROpMW ___ Unless the ptiRcxea Hell Ce ndeemMteAYAARTMng 7978 Cooper C. BpuNvam 1. law, Ifirse fry Pmk FL W01 In, pSIVIttybiddIf er 1Mthe TwMMmhss015rrlerinn nnift '."'at Tin Arm 1%V a. TD211e[ I:MPM �pAMorxfi,jel.ry MI 360.12% I. }p15 16. 201] N0.1S616)0 TheeS/3' kill far pursuing Al106131 mtl met fWM In Set n .Arm Code. The SFWMO le notpoopp In IWA01'WS. ole, pen[Yaclkn no., SPAIN. IM,XP3.f1a Sdm at M1. tllar. this PMYas°wM to .[tlonp2Am Fla SIeL and In aemm.Ame wife Flon. RDI[ 1 Ieate Prutel SIDE, a k . Is Aral 'fll're s:wMo: nii tieN run trM 0me/CpmPFnpWm.v lWa Nydpm With Me HiI. ne InHNCUD Snut forth herein withinin acco 30 days OI rnMllbn of IRP man to the r., ., and by Hand Atopy IMA n"with -tlM Anne mpmpnate al5mn as HOf A I. o... most n. man 1.6]M The key to selling your car starts here NIS &I N, E w Benderson Development 7978 Cooper Creek Boulevard University Park, FL 34201 " Nancy D Bertelsen Tr U/D/T 9/28/98 196 3rd St Bonita Springs FL 34134-7361 December 19, 2017 Dear Neighbor: An informational meeting is being held to discuss the proposed Planned Unit Development Insubstantial Change (PDI) for Lawmetka Plaza. Benderson Properties, Inc. and WR -I Associates, LTD, request an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2002-51, as amended, the Lawmetka Plaza PUD, to add a third access point on Wiggins Pass Road, to llmlt the eastern most access point on Wiggins Pass Road to right in/right out, to limit the western most access point on Wiggins Pass Road to service and delivery vehicles only, and to amend the Master Plan to reflect these changes. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass Road intersection, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±34 acres. The purpose for the informal meeting is to share our plans and solicit your feedback. Date / Time / Location: January 16, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. at Tarpon Cove Yacht & Racquet Club 471 Bay Club Drive Naples, FL 34110 239.592.9808 Applicant Contact Info: Todd M. Mathes Director of Development Benderson Properties 7978 Cooper Creek Boulevard University Park, FL 34201 ToddMathes@benderson.com 941.360.7266 United States Postal Service Processed By: SS1 on 1227/17 03:16:51 PM Postage Statement -- First -Class Mail Transection Number: CAPS Transaction Number. Postage Statement Number. 201736114165134 MO 292431376 IS Mailing Group ID Melling Job Number Open Date 0 204519209 12-27-2017 (D Preparer 1-PI-ANDRICK & ASSOC INC. Origin PSW - Mailer Entered Close Date Job DesWption Permit Holders Name and Address and Emell Address, If Any Name and Address of Mailing Agent Name and Address of Individual or (H other than permit holder) Organization for Which Mailing is Prepared ANDRICK & ASSOC INC. (if other than permit holder) 4400 INDEPENDENCE CT ANDRICK & ASSOC INC. SARASOTA, FL 34234-4727 4400 INDEPENDENCE CT BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT —_ Contact Name: MARK ESBECK SARASOTA, FL 34234-4727 7978 COOPER CREEK BLVD STE 100 W (941)351-6565 Contact Name: MARK ESBECK UNIVERSITY PARK, FL 34201-2141 mesbeck@andrickandassociates.com (941)351-6565 mesbeck@anddckandassociates.com CRID: 3867957 CRID: 2472844 CRID: 2472844 Post Office of Mailing Processing Parcels Only Mailer's Mailing Date Federal Agency Cost Code Statement Seq. No. No. & type of Containers Sarasota FI 34260-9625 Category Hold For Pickup 12/27/17 Letters (HFPU): Sacks:0 Type of Postage Weight of a Single Piece Combined Mailing SSF Transaction IDS (may 1 f[. Letter Trays: 1 Permit Imprint include No. of Pieces 0.0225 lbs. [ ]Single class 2 ft. Letter Trays: 0 C Cards) 0 EMM Letter Trays: 0 Pieces BTotal Flat Treys:O 2 239 Pallets:0 Permit a For Mail Enclosed Within Anomer Class []periodicals Customer Generated Other: 0 1 [ ]Markefing Mail [ ]Bound Panted Matter [ ]Library Mail [ ]Media [ ]Parcel Post Electronic Labels Mail SI Con For Automation Rate Pieces. Enter Date of Move Update Method: Taal Weight Address Matching and Coding 5.3775 lbs. Letter -size mailpieces contain: Round TriOnly: One DVD/CD or other disk Porta Can feted B This is a Political Mailing Subtotal Postage (Addparts totals) $81.26 No This is Officer Elecoon Mail N No O1 complete lithe mailing includes pieces besdrg metareElPC Postage or 0 precsncebd stamps pcs. x $ = Postage Affixed $0.000 J1 Rate at Which Postage Affixed (Check one) Correct Lowest Neither Incentive/Discount $0.00 Fee $0.00 Net Posta a Due $81.26 Far USPS Use Only: Additonal Postage Payment (Sbb nsason) Total USPS Ad-usted Posta a $81.26 Incentive/Discount Claimed: N/A Type of Fee: N/A C The mailer certifies acceptance of liability for and agreement to pay any revenue deficiencies assessed on this mailing, subject to appeal. If an agent certifies that he or she is authorized on behalf of the mailer then that mailer is bound by the certification and agrees to pay any deficiencies. In addition, agents may be liable for any deficiencies resulting from matters within their responsibility, knowledge. or control. The mailer hereby certifies that all information furnished on this form is accurate, truthful, and complete; that the mail and the supporting documentation comply with all postal standards and the mailing qualifies for the prices and fees m claimed; and that the mailing does not contain any matter prohibited by law or postal regulation. I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading f i information on this form or who omits information requested on this form may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, including fines and imprisonment. Privacy Notice: For information regardino our Privacy Policy visit www.usps.com This postage statement was verified and accepted under the PostalOnel program. No postal signature or round stamp is required. Ps Fprm 3600-FCM Jan 2017 (Page l pf 2) Part B Nonautomation Prices Postcards Price No. of Pieces Subtotal Discount Fee Total Total Postage Postage Total B2 ISingle Piece I $0.340 239 $81.26001 $0.00001 $0.00001 $81.2600 Part B Total (Add lines B1-620) $81.26 This postage statement was verified and accepted under the PostalOne! program. No postal signature or round stamp is required. PS Form 3600-FCM Jan 2017 (Page 2or2) First Name Last Name Addressee Title Company Address Line 2 DONALD A BINDER DONALD A BINDER 28739-8326 770 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 203 IAN K CRAIG IAN K CRAIG ROBIN L COVINGTON 404 Fleetwood P17 KAREN A DAR KAREN A DAR Naples 17 Chestnut Ln RAY MAHONEY RAY MAHONEY 34110-3649 750 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 103 WILLIAM W NAYLOR WILLIAM W NAYLOR DENISE NOVAK NAYLOR 14059 Tivoli Ter SUSAN J SPERLING SUSAN J SPERLING New Milford 825 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 201 PETER & SUSAN M BROUSSEAU PETER & SUSAN M BROUSSEAU 46567-8683 750 Tarpon Cove Dr Apt 202 BRUCE E & GERILYN J JUERGENS BRUCE E & GERILYN J JUERGENS 542 Honeysuckle Ln THOMAS E & REBECCA M MEATH THOMAS E & REBECCA M MEATH FL 793 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 THOMAS R & MARTHA J DRAM THOMAS R & MARTHA J DRAM Naples 46150 7 Mile Rd MARTIN C & MARY T QUINN MARTIN C & MARY T QUINN 34110-3615 193 Center St JERRY F & SUSAN J SCHROCK JERRY F & SUSAN J SCHROCK IN 11897 N Forest Or DONALD C & BONNIE H WAGNER DONALD C & BONNIE H WAGNER Fort Dodge 816 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 101 ANTHONY J & PATRICIA WILLIAMS ANTHONY J & PATRICIA WILLIAMS 1603 Westfield Ave Naples ALLRHOMES I LLC ALLRHOMESI LLC 34110-6104 PO Box 367478 OH MEADOWBROOK It MEADOWBROOK INVSTMNTS LLC FL 417 King St JOSEPH E BABIARZ JOSEPH E BABIARZ Holmdel 1005 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 201 ROBERT A & CORA S BUONAMICI ROBERT A & CORA S BUONAMICI 34134-7361 1005 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 101 JEFFREY M ADAMS JEFFREY M ADAMS FL 10994 Sedgemoor Cir CAROLYN SAXTON TR CAROLYN SAXTON TR CAROLYN SAXT GREGORY JR l 11 Skyline Or RONALD & HELENE J BOEDART RONALD & HELENE J BOEDART 34112-5356 1111 Bradford Or FL BRUCE A SHIMKAT BRUCE A SHIMKAT REV TRUST SALLY V SHIMKAT REV TRUST 1134 Colonial Or ANN DALEY ANN DALEY CATHERINE DALEY 1147 Tamarack Ln TRACY BROWN TRACY BROWN Naples 1344 West Ln JAMES E ANDRAITIS JAMES E ANDRAITIS 01915-1456 16118 Clifton Blvd RONALD J & DONNA R BROWN RONALD J & DONNA R BROWN OH 163 Caribbean Rd MARK J & TANYA M BROBECK MARK J & TANYA M BROBECK Naples 1756 Northwood Or NE DONALD B LIVINGSTON TR DONALD B LIVINGSTON TR ROWENA P LIVI D B LIVINGSTO 19 Stoney Brook Rd NANCY D BERTELSEN TR NANCY D BERTELSEN TR U/D/T 9/28198 196 3rd Sl 34110-3676 BRADLEY D & JULII BRADLEY D & JULIE A WUERTZ REVOCABLE TRUST 2185 Tumberry Ln SANDRA J BLAZINA SANDRA J BLAZINA 27241 High Seas Ln SALVATORE A BRAMANTE SALVATORE A BRAMANTE CARMELO D BRAMANTE 328 Freeman St ROSEMARY P BRAUN TR ROSEMARY P BRAUN TR ROSEMARY P B UTD 12/15/10 332 S Oak St COLLIER CNN COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGE 3335 Tamiamt Td E Ste 101 808 WIGGINS PAS: 808 WIGGINS PASS ROAD LLC 3375 Pine Ridge Rd Unit 206 ALBERT CAVALLARO JR ALBERT CAVALLARO JR DANNIELLE M CAVALLARO 4240 SE 20th PI Apt 310 BENDERSON DEV i BENDERSON DEV CO INC WR -1 ASSOCIATES LTD 570 Delaware Ave GREGORY WARREN CARPS GREGORY WARREN CARPS LINDA LOUISE CARPS 6411 N Fieldtree Ct ANTHONY J ANDRE ANTHONY J ANDRAITIS TRUST 698 Catamaran Ct BURRILL STREET L BURRILL STREET LLC 7 Nicole Ave A LEONARD SEECt A LEONARD SEECHE TRUST 720 Reef Point Cir VON H & MAE N BROBECK TR VON H & MAE N BROBECK TR VON H BROBEC MAE N BROKE( 750 Timberline Or WANDA BARGER WANDA BARGER 7612 Easy PI MICHAEL F & MARIE J BATTAGLIA MICHAEL F & MARIE J BATTAGLIA 780 Tarpon Cove Dr ARTOSS REVOCAE ARTOSS REVOCABLE TRUST 780 Tarpon Cove Dr Apt 203 RAYMOND & NANCY AUSLANDER RAYMOND & NANCY AUSLANDER 784 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 201 JOHN A & ANNE L ARDITO JOHN A & ANNE L ARDITO 784 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 BRUCE CAHN BRUCE CAHN SANDRA GILBERT 785 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 JOHN T & DORIS A BFAGAN JOHN T & DORIS A BFAGAN 785 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 102 City State ZIP4 Naples FL 34110-3653 Hendersonville NC 28739-8326 Hendersonville NC 28792-9304 Naples FL 34110-3649 Bonita Springs FL 34135-8016 Naples FL 34110-3683 Naples FL 34110-3649 Chagrin Falls OH 440233743 Naples FL 34110-3677 Northville MI 48167-1705 New Milford NJ 07646-2603 Syracuse IN 46567-8683 Naples FL 34110-3681 Clark NJ 07066-1367 Bonita Springs FL 34136-7478 Littleton MA 01460-1247 Naples FL 34110-3615 Naples FL 34110-3615 Carmel IN 46032-9190 Portage IN 46368-7731 Point Pleasant B NJ 08742-2317 Fort Dodge IA 50501-7138 Pittsburgh PA 152374284 Naples FL 34110-6104 Lakewood OH 44107-2337 Naples FL 34108-3408 Lancaster OH 43130.1119 Holmdel NJ 07733-1111 Bonita Springs FL 34134-7361 Bettendorf IA 52722-7520 Bonita Springs FL 341354312 Hartford CT 061064225 Waconia MN 55387-1815 Naples FL 34112-5356 Naples FL 34109-3925 Cape Coral FL 33904-5455 Buffalo NY 14202-1206 Peoria IL 61615-2233 Naples FL 34110-3673 Beverly MA 01915-1456 Naples FL 34108-8773 Akron OH 44333-1560 Indianapolis IN 46259,6818 Naples FL 34110-3655 Naples FL 34110-3655 Naples FL 34110-3676 Naples FL 34110-3676 Naples FL 34110-3670 Naples FL 341103670 WILLIAM D SCHROEDER TR WILLIAM D SCHROEDER TR JOANNE E SCHI WM D SCHROE 817 Carrick Bend Cir S 3304 Naples FL 34110.3688 VON H & MAE N BROBECK TR VON H & MAE N BROBECK TR CON H BROBEC MAE N BROBEl826 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 310 Naples FL 341106106 RONALD BENDERSON TR RONALD BENDERSON TR DAVID H BALDA RANDALL BEN[ 8441 Cooper Creek Blvd University Park FL 34201-2006 BARBARA G NORTi BARBARA G NORTON REV TRUST 901 N Monroe St Arlington VA 22201-2353 BRANA D KRIEGSN BRANA D KRIEGSMAN REV TRUST 937 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 Naples FL 341103633 JAY & SUE BRANDT JAY & SUE BRANDT 945 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 101 Naples FL 341103635 ROBERT B & SHERRY L BURNS ROBERT B & SHERRY L BURNS 975 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 204 Naples FL 341103611 PATRICIA BUCALO PATRICIA BUCALO 985 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 202 Naples FL 341103613 WILLIAM H BROWN III WILLIAM H BROWN III PO Box 1237 Andover MA 018100021 CORNELIA B FRAC. CORNELIA B FRACALOSSI RV TRI CIO KATHLEEN A FOX PO Box 320100 Flint MI 48532-0002 JENNY CARDELLA JENNY CARDELLA 784 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 103 Naples FL 341103676 CARIBBEAN MHC C CARIBBEAN MHC OWNER LLC 6547 N Avondale Ave Ste 301 Chicago IL 60631-1982 BARBARA J C:ASCIO BARBARA J C:ASCIO 770 Tarpon Cove Dr Apt 101 Naples FL 341103653 RICHARD L COATES RICHARD L CRATES 830 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 13 Naples FL 341106109 EDYTHE S COHEN EDYTHE S COHEN 995 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 101 Naples FL 341103614 RICHARD & JONA RAE COLE RICHARD & JONA RAE COLE 1120 29th St SW Naples FL 34117-4242 MONICA BARGER COSTA MONICA BARGER COSTA 12030 Champions Green Way N Fort Myers FL 33913-8357 ROBERT M & KAREN L CRAUN ROBERT M & KAREN L CRAUN 54829 Flamingo Dr Shelby Township MI 48315-1360 PAUL L & MICHELE F CUDDY PAUL L & MICHELE F CUDDY 15 Brae Ridge Rd Auburn NY 13021-9672 D J & S G CHRISTC D J & S G CHRISTOFORE TRUST 4845 W 151st Ter Leawood KS 66224-9743 WILLIAM & LAURA DAMBOLA WILLIAM & LAURA DAMBOLA 76 Greenwood Rd Old Bridge NJ 08857-2425 JOSEPH G & MARITA M DANEK JOSEPH G & MARITA M DANEK 343 Broadview Ln Annapolis MD 21401-7238 SCOTT L & PATRICIA S DARLING SCOTT L & PATRICIA S DARLING 785 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 203 Naples FL 341103670 DAVID E JONES RE DAVID E JONES REV IN TRUST 680 96th Ave N Naples FL 34108-2463 DAVID EUGENE JO DAVID EUGENE JONES REV TRUST PO Box 770568 Naples FL 34107-0568 ARTHUR W & JOAN C DE ST AUBIN ARTHUR W & JOAN C DE ST AURIN 760 Tarpon Cove Dr Apt 102 Naples FL 34110-3639 CHARLES P & SUSAN T DEAN CHARLES P & SUSAN T DEAN 425 Cove Tower Or Apt 504 Naples FL 34110-6504 PETER & MARIE DEFRESCO PETER & MARIE DEFRESCO 800 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 103 Naples FL 34110-3678 WILLIAM C DENESZCZUK WILLIAM C DENESZCZUK GAIL P DENESZCZUK 9144 Pine Hill Ct Saline MI 48176-9459 GARY W & SHERRIAN L DEWITT GARY W & SHERRIAN L DEWITT 1013 Johnson Farm Rd Louisville KY 402454564 JAMES & THERESA DIETZ JAMES & THERESA DIETZ 35 Huckleberry Ln North Andover MA 01845-3149 FRANK & MARY ELLEN DIROLF FRANK & MARY ELLEN DIROLF 10 Sage Field Ln Latham NY 1211OA937 JAMES M & KAYKO F DISTLER TR JAMES M & KAYKO F DISTLER TR DISTLER FAMILUTD 10112/07 1015 Banks Rose St Celebration FL 34747-4836 DOROTHY T ARNO DOROTHY T ARNOLD REV TRUST 930 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 101 Naples FL 34110-3632 E POPPLEWELL RE E POPPLEWELL REV TRUST 8700 SW 158th St Palmetto Bay FL 33157-2043 EDMUND J MEURE EDMUND J MEURER JR TRUST 225 Mulberry Trl Milford MI 483803956 EIA LAMPE REV IF EIA LAMPE REV TRUST 2320 Mont Claire Dr Unit 202 Naples FL 34109-4327 EIA LAMPE REVOC EIA LAMPE REVOCABLE TRUST PO Box 770308 Naples FL 34107-0308 ELLEN J RICHMAN ELLEN J RICHMAN DEC OF TRUST 730 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 201 Naples FL 341103644 MORRIS MILTON ERDAL MORRIS MILTON ERDAL 830 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 15 Naples FL 341108109 WILLIAM G & BARBARA G ESCHER WILLIAM G & BARBARA G ESCHER 2641 Seminary Or Louisville KY 402418506 FRANKIE T EVERETf TR FRANKIE T EVERETT TR 4974 Esplanade Sl Bonita Springs FL 341343986 BRIAN FEEHAN BRIAN FEEHAN SUSAN MRACHEK 1712 Oak Ln McLean VA 22101-3326 CYNTHIA A & ANTHONY J FOTI CYNTHIA A & ANTHONY J FOTI 61 91h St Bonita Springs FL 34134-7422 FREDERICK & MYR FREDERICK & MYRNA HACKER TRUST 740 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 102 Naples FL 34110-3647 JEFFREY P FREEMAN JEFFREY P FREEMAN ANNETTE M FREEMAN 710 Tarpon Cove Or Naples FL 341103640 JAMES J & JOANN P FRILLICI JAMES J & JOANN P FRILLICI 929 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 201 Naples FL 341103631 MARK A & SHARON S FROST MARK A & SHARON S FROST 132 N Main Si Columbiana OH 44408-1165 RUDOLF F & ELSA FRUEH RUDOLF F & ELSA FRUEH 437 W Greenfield Ave Lombard IL 60148-1511 G W B PROPERTIE G W B PROPERTIES LLC 602 Oriole Ln Wausau WI 54401-0426 THEODORE J GANLEY THEODORE J GANLEY 56 Brennan Or Bryn Mawr PA 19010-2002 CHRISTOPHER J GEHERIN CHRISTOPHER J GEHERIN 58 Columbus St Auburn NY 13021-3120 CHRISTOPHER J GEHERIN CHRISTOPHER J GEHERIN KATHLEEN P GEHERIN 6185 Oakridge Rd Auburn NY 13021-8269 GLORIA GODDARD GLORIA GODDARD PO Box 111149 Naples FL 341080120 SUZANNE M & CORNELIU GOEREN SUZANNE M & CORNELIUS GOEREN 1005 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 204 Naples FL 34110-3615 CARLOS E & ROSA R GOMEZ CARLOS E & ROSA R GOMEZ 3615 Boca Ciega Or Apt 107 Naples FL 34112-6837 JAMES O & GERTRUDE A GOODWIN JAMES O & GERTRUDE A GOODWIN 2067 Live Oak Blvd Saint Cloud FL 34771-8442 ALBERT J & KATHRYN A GUIDO ALBERT J & KATHRYN A GUIDO 15 Virginia Cl Ridgefield CT 06877-1822 JOHN T & BARBARA L GUINNESS JOHN T & BARBARA L GUINNESS 552 Hillcrest Or Sawyer MI 49125-8321 GUS & MARIA GZAMOURANIS GUS & MARIA GZAMOURANIS 4207 N Winchester Ave Chicago It. 60613-1013 RICHARD C & CHRISTINE HALAS RICHARD C & CHRISTINE A HALAS 975 Tarpon Cove Or # 1004 Naples FL 34110-3611 JOANNA HAM JOANNA HAM 8600 Olde Colony Td Apt 80 Knoxville TN 37923-6231 DAVID C & MARIA A HAMMOND DAVID C & MARIA A HAMMOND 3813 Griffith PI Alexandria VA 223041815 MING HAN MING HAN 183 Clinton Rd Brookline MA 02445-5838 HAPPY DAYS SOIL HAPPY DAYS SOUTH LLC 404 Valley Way Brick NJ 08723-4914 HAROLD A & KATHRYN B HARRELL HAROLD A & KATHRYN B HARRELL 1014 S Nota Dr Bloomington IN 47401-5407 MICHAEL & JANET HARVEY MICHAEL & JANET HARVEY 200 Lockland Ave Framingham MA 01701-7931 MICHAEL & DENISE G HAYES MICHAEL & DENISE G HAYES 1340 West Ln Naples FL 34110-6104 HENRICH LIVING T HENRICH LIVING TRUST 344 Westview Ave FortLee NJ 07024-4431 HERITAGE SQUARI HERITAGE SQUARE REAL EST LLC 540 Inlet Or Marco Island FL 34145-5937 YONNY CHAVEZ HERRERA YONNY CHAVEZ HERRERA 830 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 613 Naples FL 34110-6109 WILLIAM H HERRMANN WILLIAM H HERRMANN PATRICIA S HERRMANN 501 Somerset Dr Haddonfield NJ 08033-1139 ALAN & JANET HOLADAY ALAN & JANET HOLADAY 4297 Wyandotte Woods Blvd Dublin OH 43016-8661 HOMETOWN LAND HOMETOWN LANDMARK L L C 150 N Wacker Dr Ste 2800 Chicago IL 608081610 JENNIFER G HORNBUCKLE JENNIFER G HORNBUCKLE 720 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 101 Naples FL 34110-3642 JOHN T & JACQUELINE HUML TR JOHN T & JACQUELINE HUML TR JOHN & JACQUI UTD 1/2/02 PO Box 96 Lake Geneva WI 53147-0096 MATTHEW D HUML MATTHEW D HUML MARY J KROLL-HUML W3189 Maclean Rd Elkhorn WI 53121.4435 VICTORIA HURST VICTORIA HURST 830 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 2 Naples FL 34110-6109 INGLE FAMILY TRU INGLE FAMILY TRUST 975 Tarpon Cove Or Naples FL 34110-3611 EUGENE F IRVINE EUGENE F IRVINE 3460 Ballybridge Cir Apt 102 Bonita Springs FL 341342979 J B & C A HULTSTR J B & C A HULTSTRAND LIV TRUST 217 Intedachen Rd Burnsville MN 553088428 TONY LIND JACOBSON TONY LIND JACOBSON SUSAN PALMER JACOBSON 12157 Otchipwe Ave N Stillwater MN 55082-8513 JAMES & LYNN MIT JAMES & LYNN MITCHELL LV TRUST 1505 Briar Crossing Dr Dyer IN 46311-1654 KATHLEEN JANSEN TR KATHLEEN JANSEN TR HIGEL, RANDALL RAY=& CONN 9N969 N Leland Ct Elgin IL 60124-8460 CARIE MARIE JARNOT CARIE MARIE JARNOT 828 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 1 Naples FL 34110-6107 MICHAEL S JENSEN ET AL MICHAEL S JENSEN ET AL 501 Main St N Ste 108 Stillwater MN 55082-6729 JIMMIE U & SUSAN J JONES JIMMIE U & SUSAN J JONES 9436 Johnnycake Ridge Rd Mentor OH 440607102 CRISTIANO H & FLAVIA B JORGE CRISTIANO H & FLAVIA B JORGE 740 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 202 Naples FL 341103647 WALTER & ANNELIESE JUNG TR WALTER & ANNELIESE JUNG TR WALTER & ANN ITfD 7/28/94 792 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 Naples FL 341103684 KATHERINE H SMII KATHERINE H SMITH IRREV TRUST 792 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 101 Naples FL 341103669 KERR PLAZA LTD KERR PLAZA LTD 10050 Florence Cir Naples FL 34119-9820 LIVIJA KLAUER LIVIJA KLAUER ROBERT F KLAUER 430 Garfield Ave Dubuque IA 52001-3552 HIROKAZU & KAZUE KOJITANI HIROKAZU & KAZUE KOJITANI 6017 Pine Ridge Rd # 105 Naples FL 34119-3956 KENNETH A KOKINAKIS KENNETH A KOKINAKIS WINNIE L KOKINAKIS 18 Stirling Or Danville CA 945282921 WENDY L KRISTAN WENDY L KRISTAN 111 Hunt Valley Rd Oneida NY 13421-1835 ALBERT I & DIANE C LAMBRECHT ALBERT I & DIANE C LAMBRECHT 108 2nd St NW New Prague MN 56071-1408 LANDMARK MGT C LANDMARK MGT CO INC 2692 NE Highway 70 Ofc 532 Arcadia FL 342688543 E GERALD & JOAN LATHERS TR E GERALD & JOAN LATHERS TR UTD 9/2/99 E GERALD & X 930 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 102 Naples FL 341103632 SALLY JO LAW SALLY JO LAW LAW, BRUCE=& SALLY 212 Old US 19 23 Hwy Candler NC 28715-8324 LENORE N ADAMS LENORE N ADAMS-RANEY TRUST 1429 W US Highway 30 Schererville IN 46375-1560 BLAIR P & LANE LONGO JR BLAIR P & LANE LONGO JR 46 Fairway Or Auburn NY 13021-9230 DEBRA LUDGATE DEBRA LUDGATE 131 Village Dr Basking Ridge NJ 07920.1347 LYNN GAY HUMPH, LYNN GAY HUMPHRIES REV TRUST 159 Audubon Blvd Naples FL 34110-4401 M L SMITH & M A S M L SMITH & M A SMITH FM TRUST 57 Veterans Way Hampstead NH 03841-2290 YUKIHISA MACHIDA YUKIHISA MACHIDA KEIGO MACHIDA 6017 Pine Ridge Rd* 105 Naples FL 34119-3956 JOYCE S MAGGARD JOYCE S MAGGARD 4935 Kingston Way Naples FL 34119-9541 ELENA & JOSEPH MALLOZZI ELENA & JOSEPH MALLOZZI 4 Montebello Ct Rotterdam Jct NY 12150-9766 JOHN P & LISA J MANOS JOHN P & LISA J MANOS 57 Canfield Rd Morristown NJ 07960-0936 MARGARET FALK : MARGARET FALK 2008 REV TRUST 18 Kerby Ln Mendham NJ 07945.2901 MICHELLE G MARSTON MICHELLE G MARSTON 3605 Deerfield PI Columbus IN 47203-1214 MARY JEAN GLAS: MARY JEAN GLASS REV LIV TRUST 965 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 101 Naples FL 34110-3613 BRUCE A & REGINA M MASTERS BRUCE A & REGINA M MASTERS 2761 Riva Ridge Rd Ottawa Hills OH 43615-2139 ROBERT D MCCULLOH TR ROBERT D MCCULLOH TR SANDRA L MCCULLOH TR 5006 Buchanan Tn W Greencastle PA 17225-9316 RICHARD D & PATRICIA MCKENNA RICHARD D & PATRICIA MCKENNA 26 Tower Hill Ave Red Bank NJ 07701-2225 ROGER J MCREYNOLDS ROGER J MCREYNOLDS PATRICIA A MCREYNOLDS 1001 N Broadway St Joliet IL 60435-4507 PAUL P & NANCY L MENNEN PAUL P & NANCY L MENNEN 792 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 201 Naples FL 34110-3669 MIAMI RENTAL SEF MIAMI RENTAL SEARCH LLC 6017 Pine Ridge Rd # 105 Naples FL 34119-3956 ANTONIO & PATRICIA MICELI ANTONIO & PATRICIA MICELI 10980 Vanderbilt Or Naples FL 34108-2122 NUNZIO MICELI NUNZIO MICELI 10980 Vanderbilt Dr Naples FL 34108-2122 ALEXANDER E MORRIS ALEXANDER E MORRIS MARGARET D MORRIS 780 Tarpon Cove Dr Unit 801 Naples FL 341103655 LEONARD & KAY MRACHEK LEONARD & KAY MRACHEK 7301 Shannon Or Minneapolis MN 55439-2634 JAMES S & ELIZABETH R MURPHY JAMES S & ELIZABETH R MURPHY 4540 Rowe Rd Skaneateles NY 13152-9576 JANE Naples JANE NAPLES ERIC NAPLES 830 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 11 Naples FL 34110-6109 BRUCE K NELSON BRUCE K NELSON 770 Tarpon Cove Dr # 702 Naples FL 34110-3653 FRANCIS E NESLUSAN FRANCIS E NESLUSAN KATHERINE F NESLUSAN PO Box 1148 Douglas MA 01516-1148 DIRK & SANGITA D NIEDERMANN DIRK & SANGITA D NIEDERMANN 208 Frisco Ct Bloomingdale IL 60108-3299 NINA F TENNY TRI. NINA F TENNY TRUST 2919 N Windsor Or Arlington Fits IL 600041608 EILEEN F OLEARY EILEEN F OLEARY DAVID A BORE 953 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 Naples FL 34110-3637 ROBERT H & CYNTHIA W OSMOND ROBERT H & CYNTHIA W OSMOND 31 Hunt Glen Dr Granby CT 06035-2634 THOMAS J OTOOLE THOMAS J OTOOLE 1033 Main St Dubuque IA 52001-4724 P E S WOLPERT RI P E S WOLPERT REV CIS TRUST 48 Arctic Spgs Jeffersonville IN 47130-4701 KRISANDRA A PANTING KRISANDRA A PANTING 2650 Gulf Shore Blvd N Apt 702 Naples FL 34103-4321 ROBERT W & MARY K PINE ROBERT W & MARY K PINE 52 Willowbrook Dr Auburn NY 13021-9665 ELISABETH A POPPLEWELL ELISABETH A POPPLEWELL 8700 SW 158th St Palmetto Bay FL 33157-2043 THOMAS E POWELL THOMAS E POWELL ROSE MARIE POWELL 817 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 101 Naples FL 34110-3682 KENNETH J & TRACY J PRICE TR KENNETH J & TRACY J PRICE TR KENNETH & TRF UTD 08/18/92 6470 E Island Lake Or East Lansing MI 48823-9715 PVK INVEST INC PVK INVEST INC 4343 Tamiami Tri N Naples FL 34103-3106 PAUL W & NANCY J QUINLAN PAUL W & NANCY J QUINLAN 31 Water St Natick MA 01760-6050 PHILIP QUINLAN PHILIP QUINLAN 828 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 2 Naples FL 34110-6107 R & R DONNELLY L R & R DONNELLY LIVING TRUST 103 Louis St N Massapequa NY 11758-1402 GOPINATH RAJUPETH GOPINATH RAJUPETH 1 Miller Ln Cheswick PA 15024-2138 DENNIS RHEEL DENNIS RHEEL JOANNE HOFT PO Box 291 Tomkins Cove NY 10986-0291 SEAN & KATE RICE SEAN & KATE RICE KRAIG=& ANISSA KARAKAS 9660 Wedgewood Ct Woodbury MN 55125-9310 DAVID RODDIS DAVID RODDIS 1341 Center Ln Naples FL 34110.6119 RPF FAMILY LLC RPF FAMILY LLC 2692 NE Highway 70 Of; 532 Arcadia FL 34266-8543 SAMBATARO REVC SAMBATARO REVOCABLE TRUST 709 Birch PI Edmonds WA 98020-4687 GREGORY L SCALOGNA GREGORY L SCALOGNA 173 Willoughby Or Naples FL 34110-1337 MANFRED & HEIDI SCHLEBUSCH MANFRED & HEIDI SCHLEBUSCH 2755 Sun Valley Rd Lisle IL 60532-3438 JINICHI SHIRATORI JINICHI SHIRATORI 6017 Pine Ridge Rd # 105 Naples FL 34119-3956 ALFRED J & FAY SHUBINSKY ALFRED J & FAY SHUBINSKY 28381 Hidden Lake Dr Bonita Springs FL 341341360 BOBBY WAYNE OLGA K & ROBERT J WILLIAM D THOMAS J TROY JAMES PAUL JAMES M & SUSAN E ELAINE H & JAMES D ROBERT L & MARY A PATRICK & FRANCES NANCY E CRAIG MICHAEL FAITH DENISE DELINA ANN HIROKO WARREN L JAMES M JEANA M CAROL BARBARA S DAVID W & NANCY K WILLIAM H & CAROL P RICHARD D & SUSAN F MARK TIMOTHY V TOSHIYUKI DANA J & MICHELE A JOHN H & GAIL ANDRES SIMMONS BOBBY WAYNE SIMMONS MARGARET ELIZABETH SIMMO 3713 Hidden Lake Ln Lexington KY 40516-9732 SIMUNOVICH OLGA K & ROBERT J SIMUNOVICH 187 Mountain Ave North Caldwell NJ 070064005 SLONAKER WILLIAM D SLONAKER LYNN ROLFSEN SLONAKER 7399 Ridge Meadow Ct West Chester OH 45069-5856 SMITH THOMAS J SMITH 1975 Imperial Golf Course Blvd Naples FL 34110-1066 SMITH TROY SMITH 410 Castle Rd Dalton GA 30720-8053 SOHIGIAN JAMES PAUL SOHIGIAN EMILY N SOHIGIAN 938 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 201 Naples FL 34110-3634 SOLOMON JAMES M & SUSAN E SOLOMON 1776 Tamarack Cv Skaneateles NY 13152-9652 SOUCEK ELAINE H & JAMES D SOUCEK 938 Carrick Send Cir Apt 202 Naples FL 34110-3634 STEWART TR ROBERT L & MARY A STEWART T R L & M A STEN UTO 12/10/07 22406 Lavon St St Cir Shores MI 48081-2033 T J & K M ROTH IRF T J & K M ROTH IRREV TRUST 5526 Durand Or Downers Grove IL 605154265 T L & C L OLSON R T L & C L OLSON REV LIV TRUST 2727 Pineview Rd Eau Claire WI 54703-2330 TARPON COVE CM TARPON COVE CMNTY ASSN INC %TOWNE PROPERTIES 1016 Collier Center Way Ste 102 Naples FL 34110-8472 TARPON COVE CO TARPON COVE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION II CIO PLATIMUM 3400 Tamiami Td N Ste 302 Naples FL 34103-3717 TARPON COVE RE TARPON COVE REALTY LLC 19 Walnut St Montvale NJ 07645-1420 TARPON CV COMN TARPON CV COMMUNITY ASSOC C/O PLATINUM PROPERTY MGF 3400 Tamiami Tri N Ste 302 Naples FL 34103-3717 TEDDYS LAND JOII TEDDYS LAND JOINT VENTURE LI SMYRNA LAND TAMIAMI NORT 3309 Fairmont Or Nashville TN 37203-1007 TERVIN PATRICK & FRANCES TERVIN 4021 Gulf Shore Blvd N Apt 210: Naples FL 34103-2238 THIBEAULT NANCY E THIBEAULT 1006 Meadow Lark Or Enon OH 45323-9701 TIARA REAL ESTAT TIARA REAL ESTATE CO LLC 13303 Tamiami Tri N Naples FL 34110-6338 TOGGWEILER CRAIG MICHAEL TOGGWEILER 1346 Center Ln Naples FL 34110-6102 TOOLAN FAITH DENISE TOOLAN 817 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 103 Naples FL 34110-3682 TUMOLO DELINA ANN TUMOLO 301 Norristown Rd Apt B211 Ambler PA 19002-2779 UEDA HIROKO UEDA 6017 Pine Ridge Rd # 105 Naples FL 34119-3956 VANDERPOOL WARREN L VANDERPOOL 58 Willowbrook Or Auburn NY 13021-9665 VIRGINIA M WILSO VIRGINIA M WILSON LIV TRUST 828 Wiggins Pass Rd Apt 10 Naples FL 341108107 WALGREEN CO WALGREEN CO REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TAX PO Box 1159 Deerfield IL 600158002 WALLACE JAMES M WALLACE ADELLA A GROSS 995 Tarpon Cove Dr # 1204 Naples FL 34110-3614 WATERS JEANA M WATERS 254 Maryview Or Webster NY 14580-8851 WHEELER CAROL WHEELER CAROL WHEELER REV TRUST 121 Greenfield Ct Naples FL 341104405 WHITTINGTON BARBARA S WHITTINGTON 929 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 Naples FL 34110-3631 WICKSTER DAVID W & NANCY K WICKSTER 11452 Prescott Ln Westchester IL 601545828 WILKENS WILLIAM H & CAROL P WILKENS 5 Powder Horn HI Brookfield CT 068043726 WILSON RICHARD D & SUSAN F WILSON 2201 River Rd Apt 3101 Pt Pleasant NJ 08742-2284 WOODWARD TR MARK J WOODWARD TR LAND TRUST UTD 3/1/89 3200 Tamiami Td N Ste 200 Naples FL 34103.4108 WRY TIMOTHY V WRY NANCY HAROIAN WRY 945 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 202 Naples FL 34110-3635 YAMANAKA TOSHIYUKI YAMANAKA 6017 Pine Ridge Rd # 105 Naples FL 34119-3956 ZICCARELLI DANA J & MICHELE A ZICCARELLI 59 Osgood Ave West Seneca NY 14224-2210 ZIELINSKI REAL ES ZIELINSKI REAL ESTATE TRUST 740 Tarpon Cove Or Apt 201 Naples FL 34110-3647 ZOELLER JOHN H & GAIL ZOELLER 825 Carrick Bend Cir Apt 102 Naples FL 34110-3683 ZORRILLA ANDRES ZORRILLA 3600 NE 170th St Apt 405 N Miami Beach FL 33160-3145